IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

John Michael Fitzpatrick, ^ 7 - 1231 Relator, v. Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Original Action Hon. Kathleen Aubry,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

John Michael Fitzpatrick, Relator 7309 Fall Creek Lane Columbus, Ohio 43235 614.678.4559 [email protected]

Hon. Kathleen Aubry, Respondent Wyandot County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Judge 109 South Sandusky Street Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351 419.294.1727 1. On the 5`h day of July 2007, Scott Williams, Plaintiff in Williams v. Williams, case no. 06 DR 0105, filed in the Common Pleas Court of Wyandot County, Ohio, a motion seeking to bar contact between 27 month old Neil Franklin Williams and John

Michael Fitzpatrick. See plaintiffs motion exhibit one. See defendant's opposition exhibit two.

2. On the 6`h day of July 2007, Common Pleas Court Judge Kathleen Aubry granted

Plaintiff's motion barring contact between the minor child and Relator, casting a false light on John Michael Fitzpatrick as a promoter of sexual deviancy. See Judgment exhibit three.

3. Plaintiffs Motion cited the sexually explicit contents of a videotape production by

Relator entitled "HOW SAY YOU, JURY NULLIFICATION IN AMERICA" which was twice cablecast in West Hollywood, California and has not been the subject of crin-unal court proceedings nor been found obscene. Judge Aubry stated she "viewed the tape and found that interspersed in a long discourse with a First Amendment Attorney, were clips of pomographic material which appeared to be gratuitous and unnecessary to understand the topic." Perhaps Judge Aubry is so familiar with images of bestiality and transsexual oral copulation that mere mention would suffice (absent the images themselves), but most members of the viewing (and voting) public are not that well informed.

Page 2 4. Judge Aubry's negative film critique in the form of an Ohio Common Pleas Court

Order has meted severe punishment on the producer of a legal, albeit controversial, political video production, without due process of law being afforded to Relator, namely, facing his accuser, hearing charges and speaking in his own defense prior to a ruling against his freedom, monies and good name.

5. Relator is a cohabitant (with the mother of the minor child who is the subject of a nine month long custody dispute) and was forced to leave his home and pay for a hotel during a scheduled weekend visitation between mother and child because of Plaintiff's false allegations and Judge Aubry's improvident court order.

6. In Judge Aubry's order it was also stated "it will be necessary to have further hearings to determine if John M. Fitzpatrick is a suitable person to have contact with the parties' minor child" Relator is not a party in Williams v. Williams and therefore cannot now defend hiinself against further injury from these spurious allegations in the Wyandot

Court.

7. Respondent has a constitutional duty to follow due process. Relator has suffered severe damage from a civil court order based on false allegations of immoral & illegal conduct with no opportunity for defense. Granting the Writ of Mandamus will enable Relator to defend himself against those allegations as a Defendant-Interpleader in Williams v.

Williams as allowed under Civil Rule 22.

Page 3 8. Relator asks the court to review the criminal obscenity test(s) in the U. S. Supreme

Court decisions Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S.

497 (1987) and New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) and Ashcroft v. Free Speech

Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Two Video productions by Relator, "ORGY-TV" &

"SJR 41" have been found obscene in 1996 in a civil proceeding in Portland Cable

Access v. Fitzpatrick, Multnomah County, Oregon civil case no. 9511-08352 (the first

Obscenity ruling in Oregon in over 10 years), which Relator chose not to appeal having

Achieved his political objective of securing an obscenity ruling in the ultra-liberal

Oregon Court system of the Mid-Nineties. See exhibit four. (ultra-liberalism demonstrated by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 1994 legalizing child pornography in

Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court corrected this error in State v. Stoneman 323 OR

536, 920 P2d 535(1996) 3 months after the Portland Cable Access decision and 4 months before a November 1996 vote on a constitutional Amendment placed on the ballot by the

Oregon Legislature in Senate Joint Resolution 41 citing "ORGY-TV". )

WHEREFORE, Relator requests a Writ of Mandainus from the Supreme Court of Ohio causing the Hon. Kathleen Aubry, Respondent and Wyandot County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Judge to join John Michael Fitzpatrick, Relator as Defendant-Interpleader under Civil Rule 22 in Williams v. Williams, 06 DR 0105.

Respectfully submitted,

John Michael Fitzpatrick, Relator

Page 4 AFFIDAVIT OF RELATOR SUPPORTING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Now Comes John Michael Fitzpatrick, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS is true and correct dated this 9th day of July

2007 in Franklin County Ohio, FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

John Michael Fitzpatrick, Relafor & Affiant

Swom to and subscribed before me this 9°i day of July 2007 in Franklin County Ohio

KAEL LEATHER Notary Public, State of Ohio My Cammission Expires 04-24-10 Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of this PETITION FOR WRTT OF MANDAMUS and AFFIDAVrr

OF RELATOR SUPPORTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was sent by ordinary U.S. mail to Respondent, Hon. Kathleen Aubry, 109 South Sandusky Street,

Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351, Jason Miller Counsel for Plaintiff at his law offices 109 E

Franklin Street, Kenton Ohio 43326, and, Megan Williams, Defendant Pro Se at her home 7309 Fall Creek Lane, Columbus Ohio 43235, on this 9`h day of July, 2007. Exhibit 'One IN THE WYANDOT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

SCOTT WILLIAMS CASE NO. 06 DR 0105 18710 TWP. IIWY. 82 FOREST, OHIO 45843 PLAINTIFF vs. MOTION FOR MODIFICATION MEGAN E. WILLIAMS AND/OR CLARIFICATION OF 7309 FALLCREEK LANE TEMPORARY ORDER COLUMBUS, OHIO 43235 DEFENDANT

Now comes Plaintiff, by and through he undersigned counsel, and submits the following

Motion for Modification and/or Clarification of the Temporary Order in this Court. Currently, this

Court ordered temporary visitation between the minor child and the Defendant every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening. New factors and information have come to light regarding

Defendant's paramour, John Michael Fitzpatrick, that Plaintiff asserts are important for the Court to consider. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court order that the Defendant be restrained from facilitating contact between the child, Neil Williams, and her paramour, John Michael

Fitzpatrick.

In the final hearing dated June 27, 2007, Mr. Fitzpatricl, testified that he ran for Oregon state senate and worked as a television producer in California, prior to moving to Ohio. An intemet search on Mr. Fitzpatrick revealed that those television productions challenged United States' obscenity laws. This information came directly from a weblog entry submitted on www.roryoconnor.ora by

Mr. Fitzpatrick himself and connected to his personal email address. The entry went on to say that

"[i]nMultnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon, in 1996, two ofMr. Fitzpatrick's cable television productions, `ORGY-TV' &`SJR41', which both included unedited scenes of Sado-Masochism and necrophilia, were found obscene and banned in the United States by court order." Further, the entry confirmed that "[i]n 1998, John Michael Fitzpatrick ran for the Republican nomination for United

States Senate in Oregon and won a county placing second in a three way race with 27 percent ofthe vote statewide." This is exactly what Mr. Fitzpatrick testified to in the final hearing. A copy ofthis weblog entry is attached hereto.

As such, Plaintiff is understandably compelled to order Defendant that the minor child is to have absolutely no contact with John Michael Fitzpatrick based on the aforementioned items and incorporate the same into any existing order. Clearly, the prohibition of such contact is in the best interest of the minor child.

Respeptf6lly submitted,

ON M. MILLER, (00741235) ttorney for Scott Williams WETHERILL, SCHWEMER, MARKLEY & SCHWEMER 109 E. Franklin St., Kenton, OH 43326 Phone:419-673-4176

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify I caused a copy of the within Motion for Modification and/or Clarification of

Temporary Order to be served on Megan E. Williams at 7309 Fall Creek Lane, Columbus, Ohio 43235, by mailing a copy to said Megan E. Williams by regular US Mail ostage prcpaid, this 5"' day of July 2007. Feedback Page 1 of 2

8. 8 john fitzpatrick Says:

30 March 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA: City of West Hollywood public access cable television cablecast today a 45 minute program without edit or interruption entitled 'HOW SAY YOU : JURY NULLIFICATION IN AMERICA' featuring an interview with First Amendment lawyer Clyde Dewitt of Los Angeles.

Integral to the interview on obscenity law in the United States were unedited clips of pornographic material including MF intercourse, interracial group sex, transsexual oral copulation, bestiality, gang rape, golden shower, facial, enema and simulated child pornography.

In Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon in .1996, two of Mr. Fitzpatrick's cable television productions, `ORGY-TV' & `SJR41', which both included unedited scenes of Sado- Masochism and Necrophilia, were found Obscene and banned in the United States by court order.

The Supreme Court of the United States denied Certiorari on 17 March 1997

http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/O1/01/feedback/ 7/5/07 Feedback Page 2 of 2

upholding the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of Oregon in their refusal to order ABC affiliate KATU-TV in Portland Oregon to run a sexually explicit campaign ad for Mr. Fitzpatrick's 1996 write-in campaign for United States Senate.

In 1998, John Michael Fitzpatrick ran for the Republican nomination for United States Senate in Oregon and won a county placing second in a three way race with 27 percent of the vote statewide.

"Political speech should be free of government Censorship" Mr. Fitzpatrick said in describing his video efforts to facilitate more fully informed public policy debates on Obscenity law.

For More Information [email protected]

http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2009/01/01/feedback/ 7/5/07 Untitled Article Page 1 of 5

J

^AVOaATOR °.a new section! Personals Classified How to Reach Us Goats and heroes. Last tters week's election had plenty of both. Web DirectorX Cool Sites of the Week Archive Best of PorBand Kino-56 crash stodes Ehotograoher Portfolio Murmurs is taking some time off and will return later in the summer Lead Story: Bon when the campaigns heat up Next Door again. News Buzz Murmurs: Pols on Parade Education:new pdncipal After every election it's a tradition here at WWto sift e dOut Timbre: music through the campaign promises, contribution reports, columQ election night coverage and final results. The objective: Rock: Sebastian To go beyond the vote tallies and declare the not-so- Bach Rock: Creeoer obvious winners and losers. In an election that set a Laooon record for lousy turnout, it seems appropriate to start with Capsule reviews the losers.

Godzilla Fear and Loathina in L e as Capsule Reviews ORGANIZED LABOR Can you say "debacle?" Labor spent big money on Measure 53-the "dead men shouldn't vote" initiative. They lost. They bankrolled Mike ° Beervana Fahey's bid for labor "commish"--as the cutesy ads said--and Fahey got Dish Listings Recommended pounded by Republican Jack Roberts. Even in the People's Republic of Restaurants Multnomah County. It doesn't bode well for November, when Bill Sizemore's initiative will try to sever labor political activists from their lifeblood--union dues. ^ Books of the Month Words listinas OREGON REPUBLICANS In low turnout elections it's supposedly the highly motivated, well- Classical: Lara St. informed voters who cast ballots. But consider this: U.S. Senate John candidate John Fitzpatrick had no backers and no signs of a real http://www.wweek.com/html/murmurs052798.htnil 7/1/2007 Untitled Article Page 2 of 5

Performance listings campaign. He wasn't in the Voters' Pamphlet--and his only claim to fame is trying to show people having sex with corpses on TV. He was running against John Lim, a respected two-term state senator. Yet Photograohv review Visual Arts Iistinas Fitzpatrick got 28 percent in the Republican primary. So what are we left to conclude? Republicans are either uninformed or necrophiliacs.

Savage Love PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS Real Astrology Seven well-trained pedagogues sought the superintendent of public Walkabout instruction post. So who finished first and second in the election? Two professional pols: Stan Bunn and Margaret Carter. The seven educators combined grabbed just 27 percent of the vote.

COMEBACKS Two years ago Jim Bunn was a congressman from Oregon. Then he got ousted by Democrat Darlene Hooley. Last week he couldn't even win a state representative primary, losing by a wide margin to right- winger Juley Gianella. Fonner Metro executive officer Rena Cusma came out of political retirement to run for the County Commission, where she looked a shoo-in. She finished fourth.

EI.AINE FRANKLIN The GOP consultant with a British accent and brutish tactics had a good candidate in Chuck Carpenter. She also had a record $239,000 to work with in state House District 7. She lost, though, by doing the impossible: Franklin made the abrasive Bill Witt seem sympathetic with a cheap-shot attack. She also worked for Jon Kvistad's losing carnpaign:

EAST PORTLAND Three-fourths of the city's voters live east of the Willamette. City Council candidate Tanya Collier is as familiar to eastsiders as Mount Tabor. Yet Collier snagged a paltry 33 percent of the vote in her race against westsider Dan Saltzman. So much for the eastside juggemaut.

BILL SIZEMORE Sizemore the anti-tax activist won on Measure 53. But Sizemore the would-be governor discovered his critics go far beyond The Oregonian. Consider: 47 percent of Republicans voted for fringe candidates in the GOP gubematorial primary, and fellow Republican Jack Roberts garnered three times as many votes as Sizemore in his successful re-election bid for state labor czar.

MARK REMSTREET AND DON MCINTIIiE The conservative hotelier and the anti-tax activist tried to take out House Speaker Lynn Lundquist (with the help of the powerful agriculture lobby). As McIntire noted, "If you shoot at the king, you better kill him." Lundquist is alive and well after collecting 62 percent of the vote. We've got a hunch Hemstreet's pet bills will start in the state Senate next year. http://www.wweek.com/html/murmurs052798.html 7/1/2007 Untitled Article Page 3 of 5

JOHN KITZHABER True, the guv was on his sick bed and still won 90 percent of the vote. But let's not forget it was Kitzhaber who vetoed vote-by-mail in 1995 when the GOP still supported the idea. That makes Kitzhaber partly responsible for the voter confusion and low turnout last week.

LUCI{Y LAB This Southeast Hawthorne brew pub hosted Erik Sten's kinetic election parties in 1996. Last week Sten and protege Serena Cruz moved the best shindig in politics to Aztec Willie's on Northeast Broadway.

GORDON SMITH The golden boy of Oregon Republicans got involved in four GOP primaries and only broke even. He won with legislative candidates Lynn Lundquist and Max Williams, but lost on moderate incumbents Jeannette Hamby and Chuck Carpenter. Like his predecessor Mark Hatfield, Smith saw the party move away from the moderate views he's trying to promote.

NO-GROWTHERS Anti-growth candidate Bill Atherton was the top vote-getter in the race to succeed Metro Councilor Don Morissette. Liz Callison, another candidate who embraced no-growth politics, finished a surprising second in the race for Patricia McCaig's Metro seat, and will face David Bragdon in a run-off.

NONE OF THE ABOVE The problem wasn't just low-turnout. A lot of voters couldn't find any candidates they liked. In Clackamas County, a majority of voters left their ballots blank rather than vote for Metro Exec Mike Burton, who was unopposed. In the Clackamas County portion of Metro districts 2 and 7, "none of the above" was more popular than any candidate. In the Multnomah County parts of districts 2 and 7, "NOTA" was the second choice, trailing only first-place finishers Atherton and Bragdon.

BOB SHIPRACK Building trades union leader Shiprack broke with the AFL-CIO and backed Jack Roberts for labor commissioner. After Roberts hammered Mike Fahey, Shiprack's stock went up.

TRIAL LAWYERS Their arch-enemy Bob Tieman sported slick TV spots and enjoyed some name recognition, but he captured just 28 percent in his bid for the Supreme Court. Trial lawyers' candidate Bill Riggs, who ran cheesy ads and had no name recognition, finished first.

DAN LAVEY Gordon Smith's former aide ran Molly Bordonaro's campaign to a http://www.wweek.com/html/murmurs052798.httnl 7/1/2007 Untitled Article Page 4 of 5

runaway victory. More important, Lavey is already pulling Bordonaro to the middle. According to Bordonaro's intemal polls, she fared as well among moderate and liberal Republicans as she did with conservatives.

ASIAN AMERICANS They represent roughly 5 percent of the Oregon population, but they fared well on election day. David Wu won a U.S. House primary, John Lim won a GOP Senate primary, and Rod Park won a non-partisan Metro race,

GREG WALDEN, BRADY ADAMS, JACK ROBERTS When a good-looking 45-year-old wins his party's nomination for governor, it's usually bad news for young pols looking ahead to the next election cycle. But Sizemore's weak showing last week opens the door for the GOP's triple-A team to run for governor in 2002.

MARK PUTNAM Say what you will about Wu's attack mail, his TV spots, crafted by Virginia media whiz Putnam, were positive and cut through the campaign clutter. They were engaging, inviting and energetic-- particularly the one that showed Wu driving around town, pointing out the keys to his education plan.

TEAM CRUZ Erik Sten, Sam Adams, Mark Wiener, Anna Larocco and Portland's Latino community raised the big money and crafted the winning strategy that took 30-year-old Serena Cruz from anonymity to front- runner in the North Portland County Commission race.

THE OREGONIAN Yeah, it hurts to say so, but the O's reporting on Sizemore dominated the gubernatorial campaign.

ANN PIIAN The 22-year-old former Portland State University activist and Vanguard writer ran Frank Shields' impressive state Senate campaign to victory over Lonnie Roberts.

Originally published: VYilamette Week - May 27, 1998

http://www.wweek.com/html/murmurs052798.htm1 7/1/2007 Untitled Article Page 5 of 5

http://www.wweek.com/html/murmurs052798.htm1 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 1 of 11

chanr,e16000 www-^afs:asa

UNITED STATES SENATE .,.^<<::_,.....:. DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

Ron Wyden

Ron Wyden needs our endorsement about as much as he needs a gift certificate to Weight Watchers. Wyden, Oregon's first Democratic senator since 1969, has a lock on his party's noniination. And he deserves it. Although he's just a rookie in the minority party, Wyden has managed to distinguish himself in the U.S. Senate by taking on some powerful adversaries.

The Pordand liberal was one of the key architects of a tobacco bill passed last month by the Senate's commerce committee. Wyden's contribution? He pushed for stronger restrictions on cigarette exports FEDERALISTATEIMDE and tough monitoring of the tobacco industry's promise to cut teen smoking.

Wyden also teamed with fellow Oregonian Sen. Gordon Smith to stare down the Air Force brass and force them to launch a new investigation into the fatal crash of a Portland-based C-130 airplane known as King- 56. And he promises to keep pushing for much-needed reforms in the way the military investigates its own accidents.

Finally, Wyden has also challenged the secretive rules of the senate itself, prodding leaders to drop the long-standing policy that allows senators to hold up any legislation without revealing their identity or reason for doing so.

Although Wyden cannot yet claim victory on these three fronts, he has demonstrated tenacity and sound judgment in fighting these particular battles. At the same time, he's taken progressive stands on issues such as a balanced budget, transportation funding and campaign-finance reform.

That's not to say it's been smooth sailing for Wyden since he won the 1996 special election. Two months ago, Progressive magazine named him one of the 10 dumbest members of Congress (mainly for the massive brain cramp he suffered during a 1995 TV pop quiz). Environmentalists have groused that Wyden's been too compromising, and some Republicans complain about his grandstanding. http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 2 of 11

Nothing Wyden has done, however, warrants support for his primary opponent, John Sweeney.

A 32-year veteran of Portland's Parks Bureau, Sweeney now calls himself a free-lance writer. His Senate platform features two main ideas: enacting a flat tax and lowering Social Security retirement age-- which is the opposite of what most experts say must be done to save Social Security's solvency when a flood of baby boomers retire. Both are bad ideas; so is Sweeney's Senate bid. We think he should work on his writing career. His Voters' Pamphlet statement is riddled with grammatical en•ors, such as his claim that "many laws are pasted in a rush." Sweeney will get pasted in this race. Deservedly so.

UNITED STATES SENATE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

John Lim

This is no contest at all. There's only one serious candidate in this race: John Lim, a state senator and businessman from Gresham.

During his six years in Salem, l.im impressed us with his moderate views, diligent work ethic and integrity. People may disagree with Lim on issues, but you don't hear anyone trashing the way he operates or how he arrives at his decisions. Lim is respected enough that a Democratic colleague, Sen. Avel Gordly, has endorsed him. Owner of a company that sells health and beauty products, Lim's politics are far more in sync with Oregon voters than those of his opponents.

Valentine Christian, a Salem mathematician, claims he isn't receiving media coverage because he's not buying ads from news organizations. We've got news for Christian: That isn't his problem. Consider his ideas: "I propose a tax-free $100 million (or a billion) to be reduced one-tenth each year to whomever comes up with a full complete instantaneous end to dental decay."

OK.

Believe it or not, Christian is not the weirdest candidate in the race. That distinction goes to John Fitzpatrick, a strange fellow who tried a couple of years ago to air cable TV shows depicting sex with cadavers. We don't know what makes Fitzpatrick run, but we wish he'd head in a different direction--like toward Idaho.

UNITED STATES HOUSE, 1ST DISTRICT DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

David Wu http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 3 of 11

Only one contest in Oregon's May election is expected to draw national attention. It's the primary in the 1st Congressional District, which stretches from the fishing docks in Astoria to the marina condos at Portland's Riverplace.

The race is important because Republicans control the House by a slim 11-seat edge, and with Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Furse retiring this year, her seat is one of the 20 or so that even experts handicappers can't call. Bill Clinton must have it, and a Democratic majority in the House, if he has any hope of creating the legislative legacy he desperately wants--whatever that may be.

Unfortunately for Clinton and his fellow Democrats, they're stuck with Linda Peters and David Wu as candidates.

University of Portland political scientist Jim Moore sums up the race aptly: Washington County chairwoman Peters, he says, is "confusing at best," while Wu, a high-tech lawyer, is an "outsider without a clue." Perhaps that's why Democratic party officials tried last year to convince Channel 2 newsman Mark Hass to run.

Wu may be politically clueless, but he's far from stupid. His raw intellect, combined with his aggressiveness and ability to express his views, make him our choice over Peters.

Wu, who moved to the U.S. from Taiwan when he was 7, grew up in California and graduated from Stanford University and Yale Law School. He landed a job at the Portland law firm of Miller Nash during the late 1980s and later opened his own three-lawyer shop, which specializes in protecting patent rights for clients such as Sharp Microelectronics.

Wu describes himself as a fiscal moderate and social liberal. We're not sure where the moderation comes in. Like Peters, he's pro- environment, pro-choice, pro-labor. Wu even opposes President Clinton's Fast Track trade legislation--which allies him with the far left wing of his party.

He's certainly not stumping for big budget cuts. He wants the federal govemment to hire 100,000 public school teachers and spend more on preschool education (his wife was a Head Start teacher). He also makes it clear that he thinks government can be a force for progressive social change-par6cularly in stopping human-rights abuses in China.

Our biggest problem with Wu is his scant record of accomplishment. He served a two-year stint on the Portland Planning Commission without leaving any footprints; he Started a boosters group for the Oregon Graduate Institute that fizzled out with few results; he elbowed his way onto the finance committee of City Commissioner Gretchen Kafoury's 1990 campaign and failed to raise any money for her. "My http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 4 of 11

experience with him is that he doesn't follow through on commitments," says Kafoury.

Still, he strikes us as a better candidate than Peters, who's running on two main attributes: her gender and her experience.

We don't think gender is a legitimate criterion, and when it comes to Peters' experience as Washington County's chief executive, the record is less than sparkling.

Although the acknowledged front-mmner, Peters couldn't gamer support from colleagues such as Washington County Commissioner Kim Katsion, Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake and Clackamas County Commissioner Judie Hammerstad--all of whom back Wu.

Although a former Portland teacher, Peters also failed to win an endorsement from the state's largest teachers union (which endorsed Wu and Republican Jon Kvistad).

Perhaps it's because Peters struggles to explain her policies. We've heard her describe her three-point education plan twice--and we're still not sure what the points are.

Peters has other problems: She's been habitually late paying her property taxes, and she showed remarkably poor judgment in taking a $3,500 unsecured personal loan with no payment schedule from a developer who has done business with the county.

Wu clearly has better command of the issues and skills of persuasion. In addition he has an understanding of high tech and international trade that would make him a stronger representative for the 1 st Congressional Distiict.

UNITED STATES HOUSE,IST DISTRICT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Jon Kvistad

Why is Molly Bordonaro so reviled by Democrats? Probably because she's such a formidable Republican candidate seeking a seat that Democrats are desperate to win.

Bordonaro, 29, is steeped in the catechism of Reagan Republicanism. She's rabidly pro-business, pro-life and anti-government. She's also telegenic and connected-through her father, a real-estate executive-to downtown Portland Republican money. On top of that, she's a fierce competitor who's able to appeal to moderates such as former Gov. Vic Atiyeh,

http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.htmi 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 5 of 11

But behind the blinding smile and soothing voice of this polished Lincoln Id'igh grad are some troublesome qualities.

For one, Bordonaro is inexperienced in the real workaday world inhabited by most of the district's voters. She went from college student to Washington, D.C., intern to self-described conservative "policy geek," then spent the last two years prepping for this campaign. It may be a cliche, but she has never had a real job.

Second, her views are extremely conservative. She wants a constitutional ban on abortion--and she sees no need fora government role in protecting patients from the abuses of managed care.

Bordonaro is also fond of saying she's for a "fairer, flatter" tax system. No doubt she's for a flatter tax. In 1996 she supported presidential candidate Steve Forbes and his flat.tax. She told WW she didn't believe in progressive taxation and didn't think the wealthy should pay a greater share of taxes than the poor.

Third, her priorities are out of whack She told us her chief objective was freeing local schools from the burdens of the federal education plan known as Goals 2000. This is hardly the most pressing issue in the district, state or country. We talked to a handful of local teachers, principals and school superintendent candidates who insisted that Goals 2000 presented few obstacles to teaching.

On top of that, Bordonaro got her facts confused. When pressed, she said one local educator who complained about the burdens of Goals 2000 was Beaverton superintendent Yvonne Katz. When we talked to Katz, we got an entirely different story. "I think Molly didn't understand. I'm a strong proponent of Goals 2000," Katz said. "Goals 2000 has no requirements of hours of teaching. It's like a framework to guide school districts.... I did cite a portion of a special-education law as a burden."

Bordonaro's opponent in the race to fill the seat of the retiring Elizabeth Furse is Jon Kvistad. As a Metro councilor since 1992, Kvistad has developed a reputation as a political opportunist most concerned with aggrandizing his accomplishments.

But Kvistad does have valuable experience--both as the owner of two small businesses and as a regional official who guided the Metro Council through some of the most complex decisions it has ever made. He did so with efficiency and forcefulness. Kvistad clearly has some legislative and political skills--he's twice been elected Metro's presiding officer by an overwhelming majority of the largely Democratic council.

Furthermore, he's more moderate than Bordonaro on social issues. Perhaps it's because he comes from modest roots--his father was a http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.htm1 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 6 of 11

public school educator, and Kvistad spent summers on his grandfather's eastern Oregon farm. Whatever the reason, Kvistad came out strongly against the OCA's anti-gay ballot measure in 1992, when it wasn't the smartest political move for a Republican in Oregon. (Bordonaro was supported by OCA activists in her 1996 campaign; she has since distanced herself from the group.)

It's that shred of compassionate conviction--the same kind that led Kvistad to volunteer for the executive board of a local mental health agency-that compels us to give him the nod over the more glib but dogmatic Bordonaro.

GOVERNOR DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

John Kitzhaber

Gov. John Kitzhaber's first term has been disappointing.

Although Kitzhaber enjoys Michael Jordan-like popularity, the guv hasn't done much during his four years in Mahonia Hall besides learn to fly, become a dad and create task forces to study everything from tax reform to the slow service at the Bagdad.

His top achievement has been using his veto pen like a toothbrush-- often and persistently to prevent decay in Oregon's quality of life. If not for Kitzhaber's 95 vetoes, Oregon's environment would be less pristine, land-use laws would be diluted and migrant workers would have less-safe housing.

It's true that Republican control of the Senate and House relegates Kitzhaber to playing a lot of defense. But where's the bold vision? The plan to capitalize on a booming economy and stratospheric poll numbers? The education, transportation or tax version of his landmark Oregon Health Plan?

Could it be that Kitzhaber just ain't a great leader? That's what some in Salem are saying. State Sen. Ken Baker, a Republican from Clackamas, argues that the guv has squandered a great chance. "He's a legislator, not a leader," Baker says. "He's always looking for another task force. John Kitzhaber is a nice guy who is in over his head."

It's too bad Kitzhaber doesn't have competitors to push him on these issues. His primary challengers are candidates in name only.

One of them,Paul Damian Wells, stresses that he's not really a Democrat--he's an independent voting rights advocate who's running for the fourth time to call attention to what he considers Oregon's unfair election laws. His arguments against the two-party system, http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.htm1 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 7 of 11

however, would have to sit in the oven for a couple months to be even half-baked.

The other attention-seeking challenger, retired machinist Dave Foley, wants to license and insure bicycles, force state government to operate at night and replace high-school administrators with students.

These two knuckleheads pose no threat to Kitzk►aber's lackluster but proven record.

GOVERNOR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

BiII Sizemore

The Oregonian could report that Bill Sizemore dresses in women's clothes and gets policy ideas from the Jerry Springer show and he'd still be the best GOP candidate currently running for governor. That's how weak Sizemore's three opponents are.

Jeff Brady is a Portland dentist with no government experience whatsoeverwhose platform contains just two planks. He wants the government to do more to save fish (although he offers no specific ideas himself); and he wants the govemment to provide more affordable dental care to children (again, no specifics). We're left to conclude that Brady--who ran a similar Senate campaign in 1996-uses the Voters' Pamphlet as a cheap ad for his dental practice.

Walter Huss is a former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party who once led a campaign against changing the name of Portland's Union Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Huss is impeccably dressed, versed in constitutional law, and the candidate most likely to start a local chapter of the Posse Comitatus. He's running on a single issue. He wants to replace all existing taxes with a single 2.5 percent tax on all financial transactions. At a statewide conference on tax reform last year, one national expert said Huss' plan sounded like a "bad sci-fi novel."

Bill Spidal is a former Portland cop who's mmning to lower taxes but says the Legislature must also provide more jails, build water- treatment facilities to clean up rivers, and improve education. Spidal, who seems well-versed on local issues, fails to make convincing arguments that these ambitious state projects can be done without, in fact, raising taxes.

That leaves Republicans with Sizemore, who has never been elected to any office. Chances look dimmer than ever for the Clackamas County anti-tax activist after The Oregonian reported on his business failures, dubious promises to lenders and alleged offer of hush money to one http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.htm1 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 8 of 11

disgruntled former investor,

Still, Sizemore is our preferred candidate for two reasons.

For one, he has been an effective advocate for Oregonians who want lower taxes, less government and more conservative social policies- and we think he can continue to be.

Second, the fact that Sizemore's carpet and toy businesses failed, and left behind a trail of debt, does not diminish his success in leading Oregon Taxpayers United. Nor does it contradict his less-taxes philosophy. What it does suggest is that Sizemore is a lousy businessman, which is not a good quality for the executive officer of a $9.6 billion state government.

As Sizemore said at the outset of his campaign, a race between him and Kitzhaber presents Oregonians with a clear choice about the state's future. It's a debate that could prove therapeutic, and to paraphrase Sizemore, we'd like to see the therapy begin.

STATE LABOR COMIVIISSIONER Mike Fahey

This paper has consistently supported Jack Roberts; we endorsed him in both his longshot bid for the Republican nomination during the special election to replace Bob Packwood in 1995 and his previous run for commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in 1994. Even when we disagree with Roberts' politics (as labor commissioner he opposed the minimum-wage increase), we're impressed by his maverick sensibilities (in his run for Packwood's seat he advocated slashing Social Security and Medicare), thoughtful arguments, command of the facts and level-headed, professional demeanor. Roberts displayed these skills in 1995 when he finessed a deal between labor and business to extend Oregon's family leave law.

But we can't back Roberts as BOLI commissioner a second time. We are convinced that after four years on the job--of which he took time out to run for the U.S. Senate in 1995--he is bored. He expresses no passion for the job and seems more interested in running for another office. This is a problem. BOLI oversees a critical constituency: Oregon's work force and its employers. The state needs a commissioner whose heart is in the job. We applaud Roberts' ability to cut the BOLI budget by $2 million and cut staff by 20 percent, but we wish he had more to show for his term than simply streamlining.

Roberts niight need a dose of Viagra to get excited about the commissioner spot, but his opponent, Mike Fahey--a Northeast Portland Democratic state rep-could use a cold shower. Fahey's enthusiasm to address the needs of Oregon's changing economy (our http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 9 of 11

radical shift from timber to high tech has left our work force in dire need of training) will add a level of advocacy and octane to BOLI.

Fahey, who was a successful advocate for workers' comp reform during his '97 stint in the Legislature, has been the business manager for Shipwrights Loca1611 and an executive board member of the Northwest Oregon Labor Council. At Local 611 he started an apprenticeship program for high-school students.

Fahey's labor ties-his campaign coffers are overflowing with big labor money--raise worries that he'll be little more than the AFL-CIO's waterboy in Salem (that's essentially what he was during his unremarkable two terms as a state rep). But his unabashedly pro-labor agenda is sorely needed. With unionism on the decline and under attack from ballot initiatives, the National Labor Relations Board in molasses and blue-collar wages in super glue while corporate earnings are at record highs, workers need a public advocate. Fahey is ready to fill that role.

BOLI, with a budget of $12 million, oversees wage and civil-rights issues in the Oregon work force and coordinates apprenticeship programs. While Roberts hypes his success at saving the taxpayers money by scaling back the agency and bringing down wages of public construction workers, Fahey talks passionately about job training for the high-tech future. In the long run, Fahey's philosophy will benefit Oregon's coffers more than downsizing the Bureau of Labor and Industries will.

STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Stan Bunn

Nearly everybody in Oregon thinks public education has problems. Teachers feel overworked; employers say graduates are ill-prepared; Republican lawmakers won't increase funding until they see results. Listening to all three camps, it quickly becomes obvious that there is a complete lack of communication, and it's students who are suffering.

In theory, the state superintendent of education can bring these diverse constituencies together. The superintendent is charged with managing the Department of Education, carrying out the directives of the Legislature and state Board of Education and communicating educational policy to local districts.

As might be expected for ajob that is highly visible but has no requirements, the superintendent's race has attracted a wide variety of candidates--everyone's an expert on education. From Berna O'Ree- Rogers Plummer, who arrived at her endorsement interview with a plunger, pledging to "unplug the mess in the educational pipeline," to Spencer Schock, who has been carpet-faxing the state with pleas for

http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.htm1 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 10 of 11

school choice, nearly every approach is represented.

Two of the most thoughtful and appealing candidates are career educators: Tim Howard, superintendent of the McKenzie School District, and Colin Karr-Morse, principal at Marshall High School. Both speak intelligently about the gulf between the Legislature and the classroom and offer some compelling suggestions. Karr-Morse in particular is an effecfive advocate for technology and the revision of outmoded instructional methods. Unfortunately, both men share a complete lack of political experience, which is crucial for the job.

The performance of current superintendent Norma Paulus has been underwhelming. The next superintendent must be an effective force in Salem.

Since Measure 5 passed in 1990, school funding has shifted dramatically from local districts to Salem. In 1990-91, the state supplied 28 percent of school funding; this year, the number is more than 70 percent. Clearly, the financial action is in the capital, controlled by skeptical if not outright hostile legislators.

Three candidates bring recent legislative experience to the race: Ron Adams (R-West Linn), Stan Bunn (R-Newberg) and Margaret Carter (D-Portland). Adams has supported education in Salem but has shown limited leadership ability. His campaign has never really gotten started. Carter, a counselor at Portland Community College, has gained increasing respect through seven terms in the Legislature, but struggled during her brief leadership of the state Democratic Party and has little of substance to say about education. She promotes herself as a conciliator, but comes off as a cheerleader. The department needs more horsepower than she has displayed.

That leaves Stan Bunn, A principled legislator, Bunn served effectively on the Education and Ways and Means committees. He crossed party lines on issues he believed in, sometimes angering fellow Republicans. He has been a professor at George Fox University and a trustee at Willamette University. Unlike many of the other candidates, he speaks in specifics, emphasizing an early, aggressive approach to education. Unlike Paulus, Bunn has earned a reputation as a mediator. The Newberg lawyer's favorite word is "partnership." He stresses the need for cooperation among education's fractious constituencies.

Though we endorse Bunn, we do so with some reservation. Considering that virtually nobody inside or outside the school system understands the Oregon Education Act, with its alphabet soup of acronyms and barrage of tests, the next superintendent must be able to implement and innovate while also using the office's bully pulpit. Paulus was barely in office before she ran for U.S. Senate. Bunn is still paying campaign debts from a recent run for Congress. He claims he has no aspirations for higher office, and we hope he means it. We don't http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Willamette Week - Election Endorsements: Federal & Statewide - May 6-12, 1998 Page 11 of 11

believe this nonpartisan job should be a stepping stone to anything except better schools.

Originaily published: Willamette Week - May 6, 1998

y

http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html 7/1/2007 Exhibit Two IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF WYANDOT COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

SCOTT WILLIAMS Case No. 06 DR 0105 18710 TWP HWY 82 FOREST, OHIO 45843

PLAINTIFF, V.

MEGAN E. WILLIAMS DEFENDANT OPPOSITION 7309 FALL CREEK LANE TO MOTION FOR MODIFICATION COLUMBUS, OHIO 43235 AND/OR CLARIFTCATION OF TEMPORARY ORDER FAX ref # 92

DEFENDANT.

1. Megan Elise Williams, Defendant, makes this opposition to Plaintiff's ridiculous motion libeling Mr. Fitzpatrick.

2. Mr. Fitzpatrick is a well known anti-pornography activist. At the time of his production in 1995, the Oregon Court of Appeals had just legalized child pornography in

Oregon in the Stoneman case. Mr. Fitzpatrick was attempting to overturn this ruling by constitutional amendment. Tabloid articles opposing his candidacy for United States

Senate were reprinted for the court omitting this context.

3. Mr. Fitzpatrick has not produced any pornographic material, but used clips of material produced and sold by the pornographic industry to illustrate the need for commercial restrictions on production, sale and distribution of pornographic materials. In 1996, in the face of intense media scrutiny, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the Court of

Appeals in the Stoneman case (see State v. Stoneman 323 OR 536, 920 P2d 535(1996)) placing restrictions on child pornography in Oregon. 27 percent of the voters of Oregon voted for Mr. Fitzpatrick two years later in 1998 in spite of intense mudslinging and media opposition from the Democratic party (which favored no restrictions on pornography including child pornography). The Tteasurer of the Oregon Republican party included a letter of support for Mr. Fitzpatrick in the court case file in the civil case

Portland Cable Access v. John Fitzpatrick where the political tape was at issue.

4. Mr. Fitzpatrick was following the precedent set in the 11`h U.S. Circuit in Atlanta, allowing the use of explicit material in a televised political campaign commercial where the right to life candidate showed an actual surgical abortion (including "waste" fetal body parts) to illustrate the need for restrictions on the horror of abortion, in the attempt to save children at risk. Oregon is in the 9`h U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, Defendant opposes Plaintiffs motion.

I declare under penalty of petjury the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of July

2007 in Franklin County Ohio.

Megan Elise Williams

Defendant Pro Se Certificate of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury I have served a copy of this DEFENDANT

OPPOSITION TO MOTION this 6"' day of July 2007, to Jason Miller, attorney for plaintiff.

L"

Megan Elise Williams

Defendant Pro Se STONEMAN PAGE 3 Oregon State Bar Bulletin - OCTOBER 2003

Free Speech in Oregon A framework under fire

By William R. Long On Nov. 3, 2003, at Linfield College, the Oregon Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases that could dramaticatly curtail the generous protections afforded free speech under Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution.1 At stake are not just the particular practices disallowed in the two cases, but whether Oregon's 21 -year-old framework for adjudicating free speech claims has outlived its usefulness. Complicating matters is the fact that this framework, the Robertson framework, has given Oregon a unique national reputation as one of the states most protective of free speech rights. See State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1982).Thus, when atl is said and done, what may be an unspoken but influential fattor in the ultimate resolution of these cases is how the court responds to what one might call the myth of Oregon exceptionalism. Will this belief in Oregon's uniqueness, powerfutin our political culture, find a footing in Oregon's free speech doctrine in the 21st century? The Cases

The vehicles that wilt help the justices probe these issues are two cases from smatter Oregon towns. The first, decided by the Court of Appeals in April 2002, has to do with the constitutionality of an Oregon statute prohibiting live sex shows, while the second, decided a few months later, concerns a Nyssa city ordinance prohibiting naked dancers from coming within four feet of patrons while they dance. In State v. Ciancanelli, 181 Or App 1, 45 P3d 451 (2002), an owner and operator of a Roseburg business offering live sex shows was convicted of, among other things, violating ORS 167.062, which prohibits the promoting of unlawful sexual conduct in a public show. On appeal he argued that the statute prohibiting these shows violated Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution (' I, 8'). In the majority en banc opinion upholding the constitutionality of the statute, Judge Landau opined that if live sex shows were considered conduct and not speech or expression, they would not be covered by I, 8. However, even if the court considered a live sex show to be expression, such a show would not be protected under I, 8 because the framers of the Oregon Constitution would not have permitted it. In the technical language of the Robertson framework, to be discussed below, the scope of the restriction (the statute prohibiting these shows) was 'wholly confined' within a'historical exception' in place in 1859 which was not displaced by the passage of the Oregon Constitution. Much of Judge Landau's opinion consisted of citations of statutes, cases and treatises from the 19th and eartier centuries showing that practices similar to live sex shows were proscribed in most American states before and after 1859. A few months later, a slightly different en banc majority of the Court of Appeals held that a Nyssa city ordinance requiring naked dancers to stay at least four feet from their patrons while dancing did not offend I, 8. City of Nyssa v. Dufloth/Smith, 184 Or App 631, 57 P3d 161 (2002). Rather than engaging in another detailed historical survey, the majority opinion simply cited the voluminous research of Judge Landau in Ciancanelli to buttress its decision. Both cases therefore anchored their opinions on the so-called historical exception of the Robertson framework. What makes the appeal to this exception so novel in Ciancanelli and City of Nyssa, however, is that the Oregon Supreme Court has never permitted the use of the exception to disallow any act of expression in Oregon. Under the guise of dispassionate historical research, then, the Court of Appeals is directly confronting the Supreme Court on one of its most long-standing and universally affirmed frameworks. The Robertson Framework and the Historical Exception Oregon's framework for analyzing free speech claims sprung forth without obvious signs of legal or historical derivation from the fertile and creative mind of Oregon Supreme Court Justice Hans Linde in 1982. Blessed with a rare combination of scintillating intellect, affable personality and coalition-building skill on the court, Justice Linde helped usher in the so-called state constitutional revolution of the 1970s and 1980s in Oregon and in Page 1 STONEMAN PAGE 3 American law generally. His 1982 opinion in State v. Robertson was the prime example of the state constitutional revolution as applied to the free speech provision of the Oregon Constitution. In the context of discussing the constitutionatity of a coercion statute, Justice Linde laid out the two basic principles for analyzing free speech claims under I, 8. First, when a court considers a statute that prohibits the substance of any opinion or any subject of communication (i.e., a'pure speech' statute), that statute must be unconstitutional untess'the scope of the restraint is wholly confined within some historical exception that was wel(-established when the first American guarantees of freedom of expression were adopted and that the guarantees then or in 1859 demonstrably were not intended to reach.' State v. Robertson, 293 Or at 412. He gave the following examples of pure speech statutes that would be'historical exceptions' under his test: statutes prohibiting perjury, solicitation or verbal assistance in crime, some forms of theft, forgery and fraud and their contemporary variants. What the quotation indicates to the careful reader is not simply that a test for free speech is in view but that the literary style of Justice Linde is often so elusive and even not fully coherent (is it 1791 or 1859 or both that is in view in the quotation?) that no one was fully clear on what he meant. What is meant, for example, by a law that is'wholly confined' in another law? One immediately conjures up a picture of Russian nesting dolls, but that certainly is no help. Or, what does it mean that the guarantee in 1859 (presumably the Oregon Constitutional provision) was'demonstrably' not intended to reach to certain proscribed conduct? Who demonstrates? What is to be demonstrated? With which texts is one to demonstrate something? In any case, historical exception anatysis under I, 8 became an immensely important tool over the next 20 years in Oregon. As mentioned, the Oregon Supreme Court has never found a historical exception that woutd put any restraints on free expression in the state. For exampte, in 1987 the court overturned the Oregon obscenity statute even though there had been an 1854 territorial statute concerned with distributing obscene materials where young people were in view, because the prohibition was apparently not widespread enough or specific enough at the time of the Oregon Constitutional Convention to be a legitimate historical exception. State v. Henry, 302 Or 510, 732 P2d 9 (1987). It was this historical exception analysis that the Court of Appeals turned on its head in Ciancanetli and City of Nyssa. Rather than looking at the historical exception analysis in very narrow terms, the appeals tribunal read the exception very broadly and found historical exceptions in both cases. It found an appropriate historical exception for naked dancing for paid patrons in a private club (City of Nyssa) in 19th century prohibitions against public nudity or indecency. The prohibition of live sex shows, even for paying customers in the privacy of individual booths or rooms, could be said to be'wholly confined' in colonial and 19th century laws regulating public sexual conduct (Ciancanelli). Indeed, a close reading of Ciancanelli would permit its analysis to be applied to any act of public nudity. The second principle of the Robertson framework is that if a statute restricts speech but also has a provision describing the harm that is meant to be avoided by the law, the law may be constitutional so long as it is not overbroad - that is, that it does not reach constitutionally protected activity. This principle received its most full exposition in a 1988 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court, also authored by Linde, overturning a City of Portland ordinance imposing location and spacing restrictions on adult businesses. City of Portland v. Tidyman, 306 Or 174, 759 P2d 242 (1988). Though Linde's opinion appears to allow restrictions on expression if the harm is property articulated in a regulation or statute, a close reading of his baffling prose suggests that any'time, place or manner' restriction would probably not pass constitutional muster. Cracks in the Robertson Framework By 1990, then, the two principles of the Robertson framework were in place and construed narrowly by the supreme court, giving Oregon its reputation as a state with expansive protection of free speech. But two developments in the 1990s began to erode the stability or clarity of the Robertson principles. First was the growing sense in a few law review articles and the 2002 decisions of the Court of Appeals that the historical exception of Robertson was itself not historically well-founded. Second was the protiferation of child pornography in the 1990s and the consequent scrambting of the Oregon Supreme Court to outlaw this material, even though its reasoning in previous cases using the Robertson framework might have given scant reason to Page 2 STONEMAN PAGE 3 condemn the practice. Both of these developments have either questioned or stretched the Robertson framework considerably. Consider the fotlowing. As shown above, the historical exception prong of the Robertson framework requires two things: first, that for any present-day statute restricting'pure' speech to.be constitutional there had to be a showing (it had to be 'well-established') that it or something very Like it was not allowed in 1859 and second, that the framers of the Oregon Constitution, in I, 8, did not intend to permit the practice after 1859. While the meaning of \aell-established' is open to considerable debate, the second part of the test (that I, 8 was not'intended to reach' a proscribed practice) is nearly meaningless for anyone who has studied the rudiments of early Oregon history. Even a brief review of the newspaper articles collected by Charles Carey summarizing debates during the 1857 Constitutional Convention will convince the reader that many of the constitutional provisions were adopted with little or no debate. There was no debate, much tess consensus, on whether a constitutional provision would supersede or leave untouched various 'well established' statutes. Thus, the Robertson requirement that in order for a 'pure speech' statute to be constitutional the Constitutional Convention somehow had to express a unified sentiment regarding whether it would survive implementation of I, 8, is like setting the high jump bar at 7 feet at a junior high track meet and wondering why no one can clear the height. Judge Landau was only abte to get around this part of the test by subtly redefining it, which the dissenters eagerly pounced on in their dissents. Second, continuing to honor the historical exception test would have the effect of making all constitutional lawyers historians and having those who have no training in history, the judges, to be the evaluators of the better historical arguments. There woutd be a premium on hiring Ph. D.'s in history to be law clerks at the courts and special masters would regularly need to be appointed with expertise in legal history. Indeed, on a practical note, the few remaining copies of the Oregon Territorial Statutes that exist in this state should then be rebound and prominently displayed in reading rooms rather than hidden away in protected vaults or rare book rooms. When judges function as historians, it can lead to facile and even comical caricatures of the past. When the supreme court overturned the obscenity statute in 1987, it did so because it accepted a one-word characterization of the pioneer generation of Oregonians-they were'robust.' Because these Oregonians were products of a'robust' and not a'prudish' age, they would certainly have opposed any restrictions on obscene material. State v. Henry, 302 Or 510, 519, 523, 732 P2d 9 (1987). Again, the historical exception analysis might itself be the subject of a searching question. Why should we as 21 st century Oregonians want to confine our understanding of the limits of free speech to what historians may find was permitted or proscribed more than 140 years ago? Isn't there a better way? The second prong of the Robertson framework is likewise subject to question. Recall that under this test a statute implicating speech might be permissible if that statute specifies the harms the statute was intended to avoid. But what kind of harm is in view? Must it be an actual harm? An imminent harm? A feared harm? In addition, the supreme court's handling of the child pornography issue in 1996 opened another dimension to the problem. State v. Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 920 P2d 535 (1996). In that case the court was confronted with the problem of whether the statute prohibiting distribution of child pornography offended I, 8. Even though the statute had nothing in its language which specifically dealt with harms to be avoided, the court concluded that harmful terms can be inferred from a statute even if they are not explicitly spelled out. Indeed, one might infer from the larger statutory context as well as from the harm that the statute itself seems to presuppose that a harm is in view even where it is not explicitly mentioned. While this manner of reasoning enabled the Oregon Supreme Court to uphotd various laws prohibiting distribution of child pornography, it did so at the cost of further muddying the Robertson framework. For if harms now may be implied as well as express, if they may be divined from the larger statutory context of an enactment as well as from the statute itself, then a harm can be found almost anywhere in any statute. One could use this analysis, then, to bring every potentialty difficutt statute out of the 'pure speech' category by arguing that the statute really intends, implicitly or explicitly, to proscribe certain harms. Then, one woutd just Page 3 STONEMAN PAGE 3 have to argue that the statute survives an overbreadth challenge and one would be home free. Restrictions on pure speech could be redefined as implied restrictions on the harms flowing from speech and then could regularly be upheld. Options for Decision The Oregon Supreme Court is certainly not in an easy or enviable position. Though it is impossible to guess how the court might decide these cases, four options come to mind. First, the court might take the easy way out, leave the framework untouched and decide the cases on different grounds. It might decide that the activity involved in the Roseburg sex show and the Oregon statute prohibiting it really concerned conduct rather than expression. Conduct is not covered by I, 8, and so the court would not have to deal with the Robertson framework. And, it could decide the Nyssa case on grounds that the four-foot restriction is a reasonable time, place or manner restriction consistent with Tidyman and thus not implicating free speech at all. To take the easy way out does not mean that the court is tazy or unprincipled. Sometimes the easy way is the right way. Chances are, however, that the court will not do this. It probably did not grant review in these cases in order to hear oral arguments and then decline to reach the real issues at hand. It might decide, conversely, that now is the time to dispense with the Robertson framewbrk altogether. It might consider, as suggested above, that the framework has become so unmanageable and malleabte that it can be used to reach the most contrary decisions. It might decide that leading the bench and bar down a difficult road of historical analysis really is not where the future of constitutional analysis in Oregon resides. Support for abandoning the framework can actually be derived from I, 8 itself. The promoters of the framework have always emphasized the absolutist language of the first half of the provision. Almost ignored is the second half: 'but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.' The state in its brief to the supreme court in Ciancanelli took a position it has been arguing for years: that the text of I, 8, when considered as a whole sounds remarkably tike a balancing rather than an absolutist provision. If the court considers this suggestion too radical, it might choose a third option: maintain the Robertson framework but take care to clarify the nature of the historical exception. That is, the court might want to consider what an analogous statute is or what it means for one enactment to be'wholly confined' in another. This court, as many others, is skilled at coming up with three-part tests; perhaps an analogous statute might be one where the subject matter is the same, the conduct proscribed is similar, the sanctions in view are comparable. By tinkering with the framework, the court could not only render a principled decision in both cases but could potentially breathe life into a framework badly in need of some fresh breath. Finally, the court could modify the framework significantly by pruning back the historical exception and the harms doctrines but otherwise declare the framework sound. It could eliminate the second part of the historical exception test because it presents an insuperable obstacle to the use of the framework. Thus, one would be teft with a historical exception test that stressed only the first prong of the framework. Consensus could possibly be reached on what constituted a well-established exception. Then, it could also prune back the harms doctrine by confining the implied harms approach to the facts of Stoneham. This may be difficult at first because the court has resolutely refused to use the word 'implied' to characterize the harm to children in the child pornography statute. Yet, by concluding that the harm sought to be avoided needs to be either expressly stated in the statute or be clearly deducible from the legislative history, the court could control the potentiatty unruly application of an implied harms doctrine. Conclusion

At the end of the day, however, what may weigh most on the justices' minds is the supple belief in Oregon's unique legal status as evidenced by the protections under its state constitution. Most if not all the current Oregon Supreme Court justices either came of age or were strongly influenced by the clarion call of Oregon's uniqueness echoing from the refined cadences of the speech of Gov. Tom McCall. For them to overthrow the legat framework that is a link to that period would be tantamount to burying a hope that fueled this state for at teast two decades. Oregoh may be ready for some limitations on naked dancing or live sex shows, but we are Page 4 STONEMAN PAGE 3 probably not yet ready to dispense with the message that Robertson still sends to us: vie Oregonians are a unique and exceptional people. ABOUT THE AUTHOR William R. Long is an adjunct professor of law at Willamette University College of Law. Before coming to Willamette he was an attorney at Stoel Rives, Portland. His most recent article in the Bulletin, 'A Time to Kill? Reflections on the Oregon Death Penalty,' appeared in April 2002. Endnote 1. 'No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shalt be responsible for the abuse of this right.' © 2003 William R. Long

Page 5 Exhibit Three t

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WYANDOT COUNTY, OHIO DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

SCOTT 6VILLIAMS, Case No. 06-DR-0105

Plaintiff, ^

vs. ^ MEGAN E. WILLIAMS, JUD^NT^NTkt^ :: T^G -13 Defendant. ^s ...... V3 ui

This day the Court comes on to consider Plaintiffs Motion for Modification and/or

Clarification of Temporary Orders filed July 5, 2007 and Defendant's Opposition thereto filed July

6, 2007.

Plaintiff requests that Defendant be Ordered to keep the parties' child from having any

contact with Defendant's paramour, John M. Fitzpatrick, based on allegations that he promotes

deviant sexual behavior. Plaintiff included attachments to the motion which included a synopsis

of a fihn produced by Mr. Fitzpatrick, Defendant defends Mr. Fitzpatrick stating that he is a well

known "anti-pornography activist." To support her opposition, Defendant filed a video tape of the

show referenced in Plaintiffs attachment, whieh stated that John M. Fitzpatrick was the producer

of said video tape/show. The Court viewed the tape and found that interspersed in a long discourse with a First . Amendment attorney, were clips of pornographic material which appeared to be gratuitous and

j unnecessary to understand the topic. The description of the video on Plaintiffs first attachment

appear accurate in that the video does have clips depicting bestiality, anal and oral sex and simulated, cartoon characters of a child's age, involved in a sexual act.

This case is not about Mr. Fitzpatrick, but about the health, safety and welfare of a young

child. Since all of the foregoing has been brought to light, post final hearing, it will be necessary

to have further hearings to determine if John M. Fitzpatrick is a suitable person to have contact with

the parties' minor child. If the Court is in error in this decision, it is error that will favor the well

being of a child..

Accordingly until a full hearing may be had, the Court Orders that Defendant, Megan

Williams, conduct her visitation time with her child without John M. Fitzpatrick being present and

she is prohibited from bringing the child into contact with Mr. Fitzpatrick.

The Court further Orders that as this is a recent development and one for which Defendant

may be unprepared , that Defendant be given the opportunity to obtain the child on Saturday

morning at 9:00 o'clock A.M., this weekend, if she cannot make necessary arrangements to

accomplish the Friday pick up consistent with this Order.

The Assignment Commissioner shall schedule this for further hearing as soon as possible

onsistent with the parties schedules.

I IT IS SO ORDERED. Exhibit Four 6/2007 12:48 5032946008 STEVENSNESS PAGE 03/05

3 MAR 13 1996-^' 1 MAR 12 1996 4 Distriet a Circu(t Cours •i4uitnomaM, younty, Oregun 5

,^'^ 8 ^ T^ ^'«at^ ^iYIr^TN^1A^! 9 ,°^^^a t^lBL^,^k^^ss^ ^ C^^^^3o, %51l- oS35z f-MiN77-ff -j ^ _^4itlFT^^2^cG^ aqvlr , ^ ^^^ '^iB^^ =LgE7rjE9) 15

/xv cCP/ t>f ^-A 411!5rr^^ 18 i^ O_5 /w/y /99S ^t/ To kp^,-^,^d OOE-,^^^^ _

^•4^^ ^^ /Z 7)4 cj:-^/"l

1!'AE40w-14^ 07 12:48 5032946008 STEVENSNESS PAGE 04/05

Tuesdav, 20 February 1996

Mr. John Fitzpatrick 17 Walking Woods Drive Ci Ci uiiCourts Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 ^1 ah Ot'egon

John,

The following is my remembrance of our meeting in my office at 9:30 AM on Tuesday, 18 April 1995:

You began the conversation with the subject of Obscenity Law in Oregon and the failed Measqre 19 from November 1994; You spoke of the importance of social )ssues inmodern political campaigns; You showed me a one page outline of a proposed cable access program on obscenity law which would inciude clips of sexually esplicit material; I expressed concern you were taldng the debate beyond where it was on Obscenity and Pornography; You mentioned political work you had done on the pornography issue in California; You spoke of your belief that the material itself was the best impetus for effective political debate; I said good luck and that I would watch for press report5 of the show.

1Cour efforts to promote more informed debate on the Ob.scenity and Pornograph^ issue in Oregon have been noticed. OLA Quarterly Volume 1, Number 4- Winter 1996

Intellectual Freedom and the Oregon Legislature: Looking Back and Looking Ahead by Nan Heim, OLA Lobbyist

Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was a rare occasion when the Oregon legislature even considered a bill which might seriously threaten intellectual freedom. Occasionally during the '80s, a censorship bill would get scheduled for a hearing. 01 A would oppose the bill, and it would invariably die in conunittee.

Today, those seem like the good old days! In the 1995 session of the Oregon Legislature, dozens of bills threatening intellectual freedom were introduced and seriously considered.

Legislature passes "Son of 19" Senate Joint Resolution 41, dubbed the "Son of 19" passed the Legislature in the closing days of the 1995 scssion. SJR 41 proposes a constitutional amendment nearly identical to Ballot Measure 19 opposed by OLA and defeated by Oregon voters in the November 1994 general election. The "Son of 19" will be on the statewide ballot in November 1996. If it passes, it will allow state and local governments to censor "obscenity" as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

In testimony, letters and other contacts, OLA opposed SJR 41 and its companion bill, SB 1120, the ballot title for the measure.

"The Oregon Library Association opposes SJR 41 and SB 1120. OLA stands in opposition to any measure that weakens the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution.... SJR 41 and SB 1120 would open the door to more restrictive local definitions of obscenity and would increase materials being challenged. More materials, including classic literature and books on health, would be removed from our libraries. Freedom to read is a basic individual right. We must not deny the citizens of Oregon this fundamental right by allowing the few to decide what the rest can or cannot read."

From OL,A's memo to legislators on SJR 41 and SB 1120, June 1, 1996

OLA supported Minority Report There was a battle in the House over SJR 41 Reps. Lee Beyer, D-Springfield, and Tony Corcoran, D-Cottage Grove, introduced a Minority Report to limit the effect .of the bill to child pornography. OLA supported the Beyer Corcoran Minority Report, as did the ACLU. If there was a definitive vote on freedom of expression in the 1995 Legislature, it was probably the House vote on the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report to SJR 41. If a legislator had any interest in protecting intellectual freedom, he or she could vote for the Minority Report and still be against child pornography. The Minority Report was a"rnoderate" proposal and should have been a relatively easy vote. But in the 1995 Legislature, there were few easy votes on intellectual freedom. The House defeated the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report by a close vote of 28 'yes' to 32'no' and then went on to pass the original SJR 41. The measure had already passed the Senate.

SJR 41's companion bill, SB 1120, also passed the Legislature. But Gov. John Kitzhaber vetoed it. He had no opportunity to veto SJR 41 because measures that refer constitutional amendments to voters do not go to the governor for signing. OLA supported the goverrtor's veto of SB 1120. Had it become law, it would have prescribed the language for the ballot title of "Son of 19" With the veto, it is now up to the attorney general's office to write the ballot title and there is hope for more neutral language than what was prescribed in SB 1120.

Other obscenity legislation in the '95 session OLA played a role in the legislature's consideration of other bills related to obscenity in 1995.

One was House Bil12310, introduced by Rep. Kevin Mannix, D-Salem, to make it a crime to furnish obscene material to minors by electronic means, In February, this bill had a hearing before a subcomnuttee of the House Judiciary committee. After consulting with OLA's leadership, I presented testimony recommending an exemption for librarians. Actually, we had concerns about the bill itself But we wanted to make sure that, if it did pass, librarians would be exempted. The subcommittee agreed to the amendment. During the hearing, however, a number of other problems with the bill surfaced and HB 2310 eventually died.

Rep. Del Parks, R-Klamath Falls, introduced I-IB 2692, a bill to make it a crime to encourage child sexual abuse. The definition included "knowingly possessing or controlling any photograph ... or video tape of sexually explicit conduct involving a child for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the person or another person."

Rep. Parks' bill was considered the moderate alternative to the Constitutional amendment proposed by SJR 41. Our main concern with HB 2692 was making sure that the librarians' existing statutory exemption on distribution of such materials applied to this bill as well. Rep. Parks made sure that it did. HB 2692 passed both chambers, but it did not stop the Legislature from passing SJR 41.

The changing political climate

"All in all, the 1995 Legislature was the most perilous session for civil liberties since the late 60s."

Dave Fidanque, ACLU lobbyist Why was the 1995 Oregon Legislature so different from those in the recent past? The key difference is the political climate and the candidates who are winning elections. In district after district throughout our state, voters are electing candidates who have promised to be "tough" on crime. Few candidates today even address the question of protecting individual liberties.

What can you do about all this? You can get involved. Get to know your legislators. Attend their town hall meetings. Call OLA's lobbyists at (503) 224-0007 and ask us about their records. For starters, we are including the House vote on the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report and the House and Senate votes on the final passage of SJR 41.

Thank those legislators who have done a good job for intellectual freedom and support them. This year OLA's Intellectual Freedom Committee is giving Champions of Intellectual Freedom awards to legislators who have fought for individual rights. This exciting project will not only give recognition to legislators who deserve it, it will also help inform OLA members who in the Legislature is most concerned about intellectual freedom.

What if your legislator has not done a good job on intellectual freedom or is retiring? Get to know the candidates in your area. Anyone intending to run for the Oregon Legislature for 1997 must file by March 12, 1996. Find out who they are and what they stand for. Organize your colleagues and volunteer for a campaign.

Getting involved politically is not rocket science. It's easy. And it is not off-limits to public employees. In fact, volunteering for a campaign on your own time is your legal right, not to mention your responsibility.

Can you make a difference? Absolutely! With just three rnore votes in the Oregon House, we could have passed the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report and effectively taken the life out of SJR 41. That's just three more legislators who would give some priority to freedom of expression.

Maybe we can't bring back the "good old days" when the Legislature barely considered bills threatening intellectual freedom. But we must all stay vigilant in. trying to defeat the challenges which have become so common these days.

If we give up, these challenges will surely succeed.

As OLA's lobbyists,we urge you to remember John Kennedy's words on how to have an impact in politics: "Things don't just happen. They are made to happen."

If we want to defeat the challenges to intellectual freedom in our state, we must help make it happen.

House vote on the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report to SJR 41 The House defeated the Beyer-Corcoran. Minority Report, which would have Iiinited the effect of SJR 41 to child pornography, on June 8, 1995, by a vote of 28 'yes' to 32 'no.' The Senate did not vote on the Beyer-Corcoran Minority Report to SJR 41. The following representatives voted 'yes,' in support of OLA's position: Lee Beyer Tony Federici (D-St. Lisa Naito Gail Shibley (D-Springfield) Helens)M (D-Portland) (D-Portland) Kate Brown Avel Gordly Del Parks (R-Klamath Frank Shields (D-Portland) (D-Portland) Falls) (D-Portland) Chuck Carpenter Eldon Johnson Kitty Pierey Larry Sowa (R-Beaverton) (R-Medford) (D-Eugene) (D-Oregon City) Margaret Carter Bryan Johnston Floyd Prozanski Vera] Tarno (D-Portland) (D-Salem) (D-Eugene) (R-Coquille) Tony Corcoran Denny Jones Anitra Rasmussen Terry Thompson (D-Cottage Grove) (R-Ontario) (D-Portland) (D-Newport) George Eighmey Tim Josi Lonnie Roberts Judy Uherbelau (D-Portland) (D-Tillamook) (D-Portland) (D-Ashland) Mike Fahey Mike Lehman Barbara Ross Cynthia Wooten (D-Portland) (D-Coos Bay) (D-Corvallis) (D-Eugene)

The following representatives voted 'no': Ron Adams (R-West Leslie Lewis Bob Montgomery Ken Strobeck Linn) (R-Newberg) (R-Hood River) (R-Beaverton) Ray Baum (R-La Jane Lokan Chuck Norris Bob Tiernan (R-Lake Grande) (R-Milwaukie) (R-Hermiston) Oswego) Tom Brian (R-Tigard) Dennis Luke Carolyn Oakley Liz VanLeeuwen Bev Clarno (R-Bend) (R-Bend) (R-Albany) (R-Sweet Home) Peter Courtney Lynn Lundquist. Eileen Qutub John Watt (D-Salem) (R-Baker City) (R-Beaverton) (R-Medford) Bill Fisher Kevin Mannix Bob Repine (R-Grants Larry Wells (R-Roseburg) (D-Salem) Pass) (R-Jefferson) Jerry Grisham Bill Markham John Schoon John Meek (R-Beavercreek) (R-Riddle) (R-Rickreall) (R-Hillsboro) Cedric Hayden Patti Milne Lynn Snodgrass Jim Welsh (R-Elmira) (R-Lyons) (R-Woodburn) (R-Boring) Sharon Wylie John Minnis Charles Starr (R-Gresham) (R-Troutdale) (R-Hillsboro)

* now deceased

House and Senate Votes on SJR 41

In the Honse, SJR 41 passed by a vote of 49 'yes' to 11 'no.' Thc following 11 House members voted 'no,' in support of OLA's position: Kate Brown Tim Josi Floyd Prozanski Gail Shibley (D-Portland) (D-Tillamook) (D-Eugene) (D-Portland) George Eighmey Del Parks (R-Klamath Anitra Rasmussen Judy Uherbelau (D-Portland) Falls) (D-Portland) (D-Ashland) Bryan Johnston Kitty Piercy Barbara Ross (D-Salem) (D-Eugene) (D-Corvallis)

The Senate passed SJR 41 by a votc of 19 'yes' to 11 'no.' The following 71 Senators voted 'no,' in support of OLA's position: Brenda Brecke Bill McCoy Bill Dwyer Cliff Trow (D-Coos Bay) (D-Portland) (D-Springfield) (D-Corvallis) Randy Leonard Ron Cease Dick Springer Jeannette Hamby (D-Portland) (D-Portland) (D-Portland) (R-Hillsboro) Stan Bunn Peter Sorenson Shirley Gold (R-Newberg) (D-Eugene) (D-Portland)

The following Senators voted 'yes': Brady Adams Paul Phillips Lenn Hannon Greg Walden (R-Grants Pass) (R-Tigard) (R-Ashland) (R-Hood River) John Lim Gene Derfler Shirley Stull Bill Kennemer (R-Gresham) (R-Salem) (R-Keizer) (R-Milwaukie) Ken Baker Marylin Shannon Tom Hartung Mae Yih (D-Albany) (R-Clackainas) (R-Brooks) (R-Beaverton) Bob Kintigh Randy Miller (R-Lake Joan Dukes Gene Timms (R-Springfield) Oswego) (D-Astoria) (R-Bums) Neil Bryant (R-Bend) Gordon Smith Rod Johnson (R-Pendleton) (R-Roseburg)

About the Author Nan Heim is OLA's lobbyist. Her associates, John Donovan and Jody Fischer also lobby for OLA. Nan has managed an independent government relations firm for the last 15 years, representing such groups as the Oregon Academy of Ophthalmology, Oregon Psychological Association and Tri-Met, as well as OLA. Nan is president of the Oregon Capitol Club, the lobbyists' professional association. Jody, an attotney, has lobbied with Nan for the last eight years. John joined them during the 1991 session.

[PHOTOGRAPH: (left to right) Nan Heim, John Donovan, and Jody Fischer]

Back to the Table of Contents

[TopofPage].

Search OLAweb: f nd;l t!: L Exact Match search

Oregon Library Association P.O. Box 2042, Salem, OR 97308-2042 Phone.•(503)370-7019 [email protected]