King-56 Case Heads To Jury FOLLOW-UP The widows of the King-56 crew won a key legal battle this week in their lawsuit against the manufacturers of the Air Force plane that crashed into the Pacific Ocean in November 1996, killing 10 Portland-area reservists. Overcoming extraordinary legal protections enjoyed by defense contractors, the widows won a ruling from federal Judge James Redden that the product-liability lawsuit can go to trial. The women's victory came despite a federal law that grants defense contractors immunity from faulty-product lawsuits if they build equipment to government specifications and warn the military about any defects. "I'm so relieved that we will have our day in court," says Gayle Schott, widow of the plane's pilot. "Some manufacturers have been hiding behind this contractor immunity long enough. This is a victory for all military family members who lost a loved one as a result of a product defect. This could set a legal precedent." Lawyers for Lockheed Martin, the builder of the C-130 aircraft, and Allison Engine Co., which designed the engines, sought to have the case dismissed. But Redden ruled in his 22-page opinion that the contractors did not prove that the Air Force had approved all aspects of the plane. "There is no direct evidence to show what, if any, specific design features of the C-130 or the T56 engines were approved, disapproved or changed by the USAF," Redden wrote in his Aug. 2 opinion. Lawyers for the manufacturers argued that the Air Force's continued use of the C-130 for the last 40 years amounted to de facto approval of all its components. But the widows' lawyers--Keith Tichenor, Bill Galbreath and Helen Dziuba--disputed that logic. "It's not enough to broadly say the Air Force approved everything," Dziuba argued in Portland's Federal District Court on July 23. "The burden is on the defense to show who, what, when and where." The Air Force claims the C-130's four engines quit running, 80 miles from the California coast, because the crew mismanaged the fuel supply and didn't realize the plane was running out of gas. The widows' lawyers have long argued that the crew--which specialized in refueling helicopters--would not have committed the illogical chain of mistakes the Air Force claims were made. Instead, the widows' lawyers say a glitch in the plane's electrical system sent a signal to the engine controls to shut down the flow of fuel. Redden's opinion seems to support two of the widows' other claims: first, that Lockheed, not the Air Force, wrote the plane's emergency flight manual, which failed to warn pilots of the electrical problem; second, that the manual said the crew could safely remain inside the plane as it was ditched into the ocean, when, in fact, it was highly unlikely the aircraft could withstand such impact. Schott says she's not interested in settling the case. Instead, she maintains that "manufacturers should take responsibility for their aircraft," and she hopes a jury trial will help "change the whole accident-investigation process, which is shrouded in secrecy." --Bob Young Battling High Medical Costs Everyone knows medicine is expensive, but marijuana is the only drug patients have to pay for twice: once for the drug itself and once for permission to use it. When voters passed Oregon's medical-marijuana law last year, they were told the program would be self-sustaining. That meant that patients would have to cover the Oregon Health Division's administrative costs associated with issuing medical-marijuana cards. Based on a projection of 600 applications per year, the fee for a card was set at $150. For some people, it's a big barrier. Mike Assenberg of Waldport is one of the 209 Oregonians who've been authorized to get a card. But Assenberg, who lives with his wife on around $1,200 per month, says he simply can't afford the fee, so he requested a waiver from the Health Division. "I'm so far below the poverty line," he says, "that for one week a month we're eating Top Ramen. For the state to take another $150 is wrong." Assenberg's request was denied, and Portland lawyer Michael Rose filed a petition of agency review on his behalf with the Circuit Court in Lincoln County. Diane Densmore, who runs the Oregon Medical Marijuana Hotline in Portland, says Assenberg isn't alone. She says her hotline gets three to four calls a day from patients who have questions about the new law, and the No. 1 complaint is the cost of the card. Help may be on the way. Densmore says she is working with Oregonians for Medical Rights to establish a foundation that will give grants to people who can't afford the card. Kelly Paige, director of the Oregon Health Division's Medical Marijuana Division, agrees that cost is a factor. But, she says, the Health Division has no means to waive the fee. If Assenberg paid nothing, other patients would have to pay more. "I know it's a hardship for many people. We feel really bad," she says. "We wish we could get some general funds to pay for it." --Patty Wentz To reach the Oregon Medical Marijuana hotline, call 626-0498. To apply for a medical marijuana card, call Oregon Health Division's Medical-Marijuana Division: 731-4011, ext. 640.   Wrong Numbers Four years after the Marijuana Task Force opened for business and began making busts at a record-setting pace, its main tool has been taken away. On Monday, Aug. 2, Multnomah County District Court Judge Michael Marcus ruled that a device placed on the phone of American Agriculture, a Southeast Portland store that sells indoor-growing equipment, was illegal. The device, known as a "trap and trace," recorded the phone number of incoming callers. Those numbers were traced to addresses where police would look for evidence of marijuana growing ["Knock Knock, You're Busted," WW, March 10, 1999]. While the ruling went in favor of 40-odd defense lawyers whose clients' cases had been pooled for this ruling, Deputy District Attorney Jason Feldman is looking at the bright side. "After all these cries of misconduct and conspiracy," he says, "nothing was uncovered during eight months of discovery that led anyone to question the officers' honesty." What Marcus' ruling did do, however, was call into question the actions of two judges who repeatedly authorized the use of the device. By law, a judge must sign an order allowing the device to be placed on a telephone. After 30 days, if the police want the device to remain, they must present new evidence and obtain a judge's signature for a renewal. Every 30 days, the order expires and the process starts all over again. "They kept renewing these orders, but the police never provided any additional information," explained Portland defense lawyer Pat Birmingham. "Marcus ruled that all these successions of no new evidence [meant there was no] probable cause." Multnomah County Judges Charles Guinasso and Roosevelt Robinson signed all the orders in 1998 and 1999, the period Marcus' ruling covers. (Judge Ellen Rosenblum signed the initial order in 1995.) At Monday's hearing, the defense raised the issue that the police may have been judge shopping--that is, seeking out judges who would sign the trap and trace orders, no questions asked. "I know that Judge Guinasso has a reputation for signing a lot of search warrants," Phil Lewis, one of the defense lawyers involved in the case, told WW. And although Judge Robinson is described as hardworking and conscientious, he is a former deputy district attorney who often sides with the prosecution. The ruling affected 51 defendants, all of whom were targeted by the trap and later arrested by the task force and charged with growing marijuana in 1998 or 1999. The defendants challenged the charges, arguing, essentially, that their privacy rights were violated by the trap and trace. Although Marcus ruled the device was illegally placed on American Agriculture's phone, he has not yet decided whether the charges should be thrown out. "I think it's a close question," Lewis says. Marcus is scheduled to make his ruling on Aug. 31. --Maureen O'Hagan Condom Nation Baiting her hook with latex, national talk-radio maven Dr. Laura Schlessinger went on a fishing expedition last Thursday, asking listeners for their opinions about the presence of condom dispensers in two Multnomah County public libraries. The libraries received national air time because Edie Sedey of Southeast Portland recently went into the women's restroom at the Midland branch and had to explain to her 8-year-old daughter the purpose of the wall-hung condom dispenser (she would have also found one at the Gresham branch). Sedey was unsettled enough to e-mail Ginnie Cooper, the county's director of libraries, saying that she failed to see "any connection between books and condoms." Cooper explained that for the past few years the nonprofit Project ACTION has supplied the two branch libraries with condoms, dispensers and HIV/AIDS prevention literature as a means of giving teens "discreet access" to protection. That wasn't enough to stop Sedey from passing her e-mail and Cooper's reply along to the good doctor. Terrilyn Chun, a library spokesperson, says the rash of calls and letters that the library staff expected in response to Dr. Laura's program hasn't materialized. Perhaps that's not surprising. Chun says there have been few complaints about the dispensers in recent years. It appears that interest was rather low on Dr. Laura's end of the dial, as well. Her producer told WW that the L.A. radio therapist has not mentioned the topic since last Thursday and has no plans to do so again. --Philip Dawdy Amazing Grace FOLLOW-UP A clutch of activists held an impromptu Sunday meeting with the Rev. Keith Watkins, interim pastor of the First Christian Church. Characterizing their action as a "friendly vigil," the advocates voiced their concerns about the church's recent eviction of a 62-year-old disabled woman from the Rosefriend Apartments in order to renovate her apartment and increase the rent ("Getting On, Getting Out," WW, July 21, 1999). Watkins reaffirmed the church's commitment to affordable housing and told WW the church hopes other elderly tenants can remain in the building during the next round of renovations. The activists were representatives of Oregon ADAPT, the Community Alliance of Tenants, Oregon Public Employees Union Home Care and the Workers Organizing Committee. --Chris Lydgate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published August 11, 1999