Connect with us

Oregon

The women of an Oregon suburb have said for years their family doctor abused them. Now he’s facing criminal charges | CNN

Published

on

The women of an Oregon suburb have said for years their family doctor abused them. Now he’s facing criminal charges | CNN


EDITOR’S NOTE:  This story contains disturbing descriptions of sexual assault.

A former family doctor who has been accused of abuse by more than 160 of his patients surrendered to authorities Friday in Oregon, where he was arraigned on felony sexual abuse charges.

David B. Farley turned himself in at the Clackamas County Jail in the early hours of the morning. A county grand jury indicted Farley on nine counts of sexual abuse and two related counts, all felonies, involving three female patients over a span of 11 years. One of the patients was under 14.

Farley, 67, appeared for his arraignment Friday afternoon via closed-circuit TV and pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The courtroom’s gallery was crowded, with some observers weeping quietly during the brief proceeding. A judge set a December 6 trial date.

Advertisement

The moment marks a dramatic turning point in what has been a years-long journey for the scores of women and girls who allege Farley sexually abused them under the guise of medical treatment. Some of the survivors have been urging authorities for more than five years to bring him to justice.

“The relief that ran through my body…is indescribable,” a former patient of Farley’s told CNN, speaking anonymously out of caution over the ongoing legal proceedings. “Just to know that finally something is being done on the law enforcement side after so many failures from prior law enforcement agencies brings peace in my life.”

The doctor was first investigated in 2020, when former patients came forward to file complaints with the Oregon Medical Board and local police about his conduct.

Those complaints ranged from excessive breast and pelvic exams on underage patients to ungloved pelvic exams and Farley taking naked photographs of minors for what he claimed were educational purposes. Patients described sexual abuse as well as being subjected to medically unnecessary and painful procedures such as “hymenectomies” in which Farley would insist on breaking their hymens with his hand, telling at least one teenaged patient he was doing so to “make sex more pleasurable.”

Through his attorney, Farley has consistently declined to comment on the allegations against him.

Advertisement

CNN reported on these allegations against Farley last year, sitting down with several of his former patients who described abuse they said they’d experienced and their quest for accountability.

Many of the women found Farley through church. They were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in West Linn, Oregon — just south of Portland — and say he was seen as a leader in their tightknit Mormon community. The women say his status as a respected elder in the congregation conferred a level of trust that allowed him to take advantage of them.

“I had no idea,” one of Farley’s former patients, Nicole Snow, told CNN last year. “I thought this was normal.” Snow said the abuse led to health problems that later caused her to drop out of high school.

The Oregon Medical Board conducted an investigation and revoked Farley’s medical license in October 2020. Meanwhile, the West Linn Police Department began to conduct its own investigation, led by District Attorney John Wentworth, and in 2022 the case went before a grand jury. But after deliberations, the grand jury said it did not have enough evidence for a criminal indictment, and Farley was not charged.

Farley’s former patients allege Wentworth and his team fumbled the case, only allowing testimony from a small fraction of women who had filed police reports. In a March 2024 op-ed for West Linn’s newspaper, Wentworth defended his handling of the case, noting that “all known patients with a colorable claim of abuse testified before the grand jury.” In an email to CNN last year, he blamed “a litany of issues outside our control” for prosecutors’ inability to convince the grand jury.

Advertisement

Many of Farley’s patients joined together in a 2020 civil suit against the former doctor. The lawsuit now includes more than 160 patients – some as young as five years old. The patients also continued to push the only available avenue for Farley to face criminal charges – lobbying for the state’s attorney general to reopen the criminal case.

In December 2024, after years of defending its handling of the case, the Clackamas District Attorney’s office issued a request that the Oregon attorney general take over the investigation. The attorney general’s office did not comment publicly on the matter, except to say that it was reviewing the case.

But the office had quietly been moving forward, conducting confidential sessions with a grand jury that heard witnesses and resulted last week in the indictment. The charges against Farley relate to alleged incidents that occurred between February 2009 and July 2020.

“When these survivors first came forward in 2022 … their claims were scrutinized and dismissed rather than properly investigated,” said attorney Tom D’Amore, who represents Farley’s former patients in their civil lawsuit. “Their commitment to accountability, even in the face of such disregard, is nothing short of heroic.”

“When I was assaulted, I thought I was alone, I thought I had misread things,” former patient Katie Medley, who detailed her abuse in an interview with CNN last year, said in a statement Friday. “My faith in our justice system was tried over the years. But my sister survivors and I have never stopped speaking out and now we have been vindicated.”

Advertisement

Farley has since moved to Nephi, Utah, where he lives with his wife. A longtime friend of his told CNN that as of last year, Farley was still an active member of his church community there.

A judge on Friday set bond for Farley at $500,000. Farley is permitted to leave the state if he posts bond, but signed an extradition waiver stating he won’t contest orders that he return to Oregon for court appearances and to stand trial.



Source link

Advertisement

Oregon

Oregon leaders celebrate, slam Supreme Court ruling on trans athletes

Published

on

Oregon leaders celebrate, slam Supreme Court ruling on trans athletes


play

States can ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a June 30 ruling celebrated by Oregon’s Republican candidate for governor and criticized by Democrats.

The decision is another setback for the LGBTQ+ community from the high court, which has issued a series of recent rulings against transgender Americans.

Advertisement

The court said West Virginia’s and Idaho’s bans on female transgender athletes do not violate either the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said schools “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.”

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” he wrote.

In a partial dissent that was joined by her two liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have given the student challenging West Virginia’s law a chance to show that the ban should not apply to her.

“In opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports,” she wrote. “Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent.”

Advertisement

Twenty-seven states have passed similar bans, saying they are trying to ensure fairness and address safety concerns for non-transgender women. Similar proposals have not been successful in Oregon.

The transgender students who challenged the laws said hormone therapy and other medical treatments they’ve taken have blocked any physiological advantages from being born male. The laws, they said, should not apply to them for that reason.

The students were also banking on a landmark 2020 Supreme Court decision protecting transgender employees from workplace discrimination.

But since that unexpected 6-3 decision by a conservative court, the justices have often ruled against transgender Americans. That includes their 2025 decision that states can ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

Advertisement

Sen. Christine Drazan, Oregon Republican gubernatorial candidate, celebrates ruling

Oregon Republicans have proposed legislation to ban transgender students’ participation in sports.

Sen. Christine Drazan, R-Canby, who will face off against Gov. Tina Kotek in November, raised the issue during an April Republican gubernatorial debate.

“We’ve got to get politics off of our sports fields. No more boys in girls’ sports, no more men in girls’ locker rooms,” Drazan said.

Rep. Ed Diehl, R-Scio, and Chris Dudley, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican Party’s gubernatorial nomination, promoted similar stances while campaigning.

Drazan issued a statement June 30 in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Advertisement

“This ruling is a victory for fairness, common sense and for the progress achieved by generations of women who fought for and earned the right to compete,” Drazan said. “Girls and young women across Oregon are still competing on an unfair and unsafe playing field.”

Drazan said she’s always supported women’s right to compete and as governor would do everything she could to ensure girls can have a chance to compete.

Diehl also thanked the court for the ruling on social media, saying in part, “this ruling upholds Equal Protection and clarifies Title IX does not force male athletes onto girls’ teams.”

OSAA reviewing ruling, Oregon Democrats speak against court decision

The Oregon School Activities Association, which oversees high school sports and other extracurriculars in Oregon, said it was reviewing the ruling with its legal team.

OSAA’s policies allow students to participate on the team that aligns with their gender identity.

Advertisement

“The association will work with the Oregon Department of Education on the ruling’s impacts on state law and OSAA policy in order to provide updated guidance to member schools as needed,” a spokesperson said in a statement to the Statesman Journal. “The OSAA remains committed to ensuring interscholastic activities remain a safe and welcoming environment for all student-athletes.”

Kotek’s office did not provide comment by deadline.

Two Democratic state representatives issued statements against the justices’ decision.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating departure from decades of civil rights progress. By inviting discrimination, the court has empowered a coordinated effort to push transgender people out of public life altogether. We cannot go backwards on the road to inclusivity,” Rep. Jules Walters, D-West Linn, said.

Rep. April Dobson, D-Happy Valley, similarly criticized the ruling and said she would fight to defend Oregon’s laws.

Advertisement

Kyndall Mason, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, a nonprofit group that advocates for LGBTQ rights, said in part the group wants to “assure Oregonians that trans kids are still allowed to play in our state.”

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon – La Grande Observer

Published

on

Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon – La Grande Observer


Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon

Published 9:00 pm Monday, June 29, 2026

Although Native Americans had lived in what became Northeastern Oregon for millennia, when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, the better part of a century would pass before settlers began to start towns in the region.

Tens of thousands of immigrants rolled through the area, following the Oregon Trail, starting in the 1840s.

Although their destination was the trail’s end at Oregon City, and ultimately a farm in the Willamette Valley, eventually some retraced the ruts to the northeast corner of Oregon, which became the nation’s 33rd state on Feb. 14, 1859, while others halted their wagons in the valley of the Powder or Grande Ronde river, or in the Columbia Basin on the west side of the Blue Mountains.

Advertisement

The first post office in Eastern Oregon actually predates the state. The Umatilla post office was established on Sept. 26, 1851, although it was closer to present-day Echo than to the city of Umatilla. The post office closed just a year later.

The region’s first official jurisdiction was Baker County, which the Oregon Legislature carved out of Wasco County on Sept. 22, 1862.

That was prompted by the region’s first gold rush, which followed Henry Griffin’s discovery of gold in a gulch, a few miles southwest of what would become Baker City, on Oct. 23, 1861.

Just five days after designating Baker County, on Sept. 27, 1862, lawmakers shrunk Wasco County even more by creating Umatilla County.

Two years later, on Oct. 14, 1864 — apparently a busy day in Salem — the legislature added two more counties in Grant and Union.

Advertisement

Grant County was made of parts of Umatilla and Wasco counties, while Union County was originally part of Baker County.

On Oct. 14, 1887 — it’s not clear why Oct. 14 seems to have been 19th century lawmakers’ favorite day to create counties — the legislature designated a chunk of eastern Union County as Wallowa County.

In many cases, such as Umatilla, post offices were started before towns were incorporated.

And most cities in the region were settled years, or even decades, before they were incorporated.

People were living in what became Baker City, for instance, in 1863, but the city was platted in 1865 and incorporated in 1874, eight years after the post office was established.

Advertisement

La Grande was already a town when it was incorporated in 1865.

And two cities — Umatilla and Canyon City — were incorporated even earlier, in 1864.

Incorporation dates for other cities in the region:

Pendleton: 1880

Hermiston: 1907

Advertisement

Heppner: 1887

Boardman: 1921

Milton-Freewater: 1950 (Milton, 1873; Freewater, 1890)

Enterprise: 1889

Elgin: 1891

Advertisement

Echo: 1904

Haines: 1909

Halfway: 1909

Huntington: 1891

Imbler: 1922

Advertisement

Ione: 1903

Irrigon: 1957

Island City: 1904

John Day: 1901

Joseph: 1887

Advertisement

La Grande: 1865

Lexington: 1903

Long Creek: 1891

Mount Vernon: 1948

North Powder: 1903

Advertisement

Pilot Rock: 1911

Prairie City: 1891

Richland: 1917

Stanfield: 1910

Sumpter: 1901

Advertisement

Summerville: 1885

Union: 1878

Unity: 1972

Wallowa: 1899

Weston: 1878

Advertisement

Athena: 1904



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court to hear $1B PacificCorp wildfire case

Published

on

Oregon Supreme Court to hear B PacificCorp wildfire case


play

The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the billion dollar class action lawsuit between survivors of four 2020 Labor Day Fires and PacifiCorp.

The state’s high court will hear arguments at 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 3 in Salem, in a case with billions on the line for thousands of victims impacted by one of the worst disasters in state history.

Advertisement

The review represents a win for wildfire survivors, many of whom live in the Santiam Canyon and lost everything in the fires, and who stood to lose billions in jury awards following an April decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals.

How did we get here?

In June 2023, a Multnomah County jury found PacifiCorp at fault for causing the Santiam, Echo Mountain, 242 and South Obenchain fires and liable to a class of roughly 2,000 victims.

In the years since the verdict, juries have awarded more than $1.2 billion to 189 wildfire survivors, over the course of 18 “mini trials” designed to determine awards to fire victims.

On April 8, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled the 2023 verdict was flawed, writing that instructions to the jury were “prejudicial to PacifiCorp.”

Advertisement

The appeals court reversed and remanded the case, which would have wiped out all awards and previous legal decisions.

Lawyers for the wildfire victims filed an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, also in April, and the high court granted certiorari on June 25.

The timeline for Oregon’s high court hearing the case appears swifter than normal, perhaps representing the need to bring some resolution for a case that’s been ongoing for five years.  

“The thousands of Oregonians whose homes PacifiCorp burned are grateful that the Oregon Supreme Court will hear their case quickly,” lead council for the wildfire victims said in a statement.

Advertisement

PacifiCorp issued a statement saying they expected the court of appeals decision to be upheld.

“We respect the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision to review the case and will continue to participate fully in the process, presenting our position through the Court’s established briefing schedule,” a statement from PacifiCorp said. “We look forward to the Court’s consideration of the key issues and to the Court affirming the unanimous Oregon Court of Appeals decision.”

What will the court decide?

In reversing the original verdict, the Court of Appeals ruled that a set of instructions given to the jury, in the 2023 case, was in error and prejudicial to PacifiCorp.

The offending instruction, the ruling said, centered on the trial court telling the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.”

Advertisement

“We conclude … that instruction was legally erroneous, because certain evidence at trial, particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member,” the appeals court wrote.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that “the challenged instruction was appropriate” and that the Court of Appeals ruling “rests on a misinterpretation that no party held at trial and no juror adopted,” they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.  

In a news release announcing it would take up the case, the Supreme Court said it would examine the jury instructions and ruling by the appeals court.

Zach Urness has been an outdoors reporter in Oregon for 18 years and is host of the Explore Oregon Podcast. He can be reached at zurness@StatesmanJournal.com or 503-399-6801. Find him on X at @ZachsORoutdoors and BlueSky at oregonoutdoors.bsky.social



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending