watchingyou
Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.117

It was upsetting to find these factual documents on the internet about someone you thought you knew well.

And then it became more painful to watch those documents being scrubbed from the internet in almost real-time.

As if it never happened.

You can read for yourself and make up your own mind what to think.

H. Summary of Material Facts At the time set for the hearing on Tyler Bloks Motion to Reduce Bail, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Wipper imposed as a condition of Tyler’s security release that he have no contact with his father, who is his best friend and closest advisor. Tyler, now 24 years old, faces Measure 11 penalties for conduct he allegedly committed as a child. The indictment charges one count of first degree unlawful sexual penetration and three counts of first degree sexual abuse. The charges relate to alleged sexual contact between Tyler and his younger cousin six to ten years ago, when both were minor children. With the no-contact condition in place, Tyler faces the burden of navigating his legal defense without the wisdom and emotional support of his father. At the hearing on Tyler’s Motion to Reduce Bail, the state asked the court to impose the “standard” supervisory conditions recommended by the Washington County Circuit Court Release Office in Measure 11 cases. These 'standard' conditions are cookie-cutter conditions recommended without consideration of the facts presented in individual cases, and include a blanket no contact order with witnesses. During argument at the hearing, the state identified Relator’s father, , as a potential state witness. The state has not served with a subpoena. Defense counsel’s review of the state’s discovery reveals that is not a fact witness to any of the alleged abuse. The state did not argue or present any evidence that Tyler’s contact with his father presented a danger to the victim or the community. No matter, Judge Wipper ordered that Relator have no contact with his father. Tyler posted bail and executed the Security Release Agreement (ER-1). Pursuant to Judge Wipper’s order, the Security Release Agreement requires that Tyler have no contact with

In "Exhibit D" why would this person have passed the Bar Exam but not receive a Favorable Recommendation immediately?

Unless, there was something "unfavorable" on their Bar Application?

Factual and Procedural Background The state charged relator with several sexual offenses in Washington County Circuit Court. (Att 1 (Indictment)).1 All of the charges relate to conduct occurring between 2001 and 2005 between relator and his young cousin. One of the offenses qualifies as a Measure 11 offense.2 In November 2011, the trial court held a bail hearing to determine the amount of relator’s bail and whether to impose conditions on his release. (Att 5).3 Prior to the hearing, the court reviewed a “Confidential Release Report” that recommended several conditions, including a condition that relator not have contact with the state’s witnesses. (Att 2).

The original tip was found on Stocktwits 2025 July 27.

The prosecutor responded to relator’s arguments by describing to the court the particulars of the alleged crimes, including the fact that they occurred when the victim was between seven and ten years old. He then described an incident in which relator supposedly apologized to the victim: 'The victim’s father and defendant’s father confronted defendant some time later at a family gathering. The defendant apologized to the victim for treating her as he did and the family thought this was over at that point.' The prosecutor explained that, although the family apparently knew about the alleged abuse at the time of the apology, they did not report it, and the police had learned of it through a mandatory reporter. The prosecutor ended by suggesting that the declaration by the victim’s father that relator had submitted to the court reflected the entire family’s inappropriate view that a resolution within the family was all that mattered: 'The family members have known about this for some time and it is no surprise to me that the victim’s father is declaring in the exhibit presented by counsel that he doesn’t think that defendant is a risk because, as far as the family is concerned, defendant apologized and was forgiven.'

The original filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 July 27

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The now modified filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 October 08

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

Side-by-Side comparison of the two different versions.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The Adverse Party's Answering brief filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 July 27

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

The now modified Adverse Party's Answering Brief filing PDF document properties as observed and downloaded on 2025 October 11

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

Side-by-Side comparison of the two different versions.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TYLER ANTHONY BLOK, Defendant-Relator.(CC C112414CR; SC S059925)

What are the chances that this topic would be published by the same person?

Oregon House Bill 3025 was signed into law on June 26, 2015 and Oregon became one of 23 states in the United States to enact ban-the-box laws restricting employers from inquiring about an applicants criminal background during the initial stages of the application process. (Ban-the-box refers to the box on employment applications where an applicant indicates whether they have a criminal history.) Effective January 1, 2016, covered Oregon employers are now prohibited from requiring an applicant: To disclose a criminal conviction on an employment application; To disclose, prior to an initial interview, a criminal conviction; or If no interview is conducted, to disclose, prior to a conditional offer of employment, a criminal conviction. The new ban-the-box law applies to all employers, unless the employer falls within one of the following exemptions: Employers who are required by federal, state or local law to consider an applicants criminal history (e.g. pharmacists, bank employees, teachers); Employers who are law enforcement agencies (e.g. police or district attorneys); Employers in the criminal justice system (not defined by the new law); and Employers seeking a non-employee volunteer. Importantly, the new law does not prevent an employer from considering an employee’s criminal convictions when making the hiring decisions. Oregon employers may still notify applicants that they will later be required to disclose convictions or that a criminal background check will be performed as part of the hiring process. It is also important to understand that the new law does not provide an applicant with a private right of action against a covered employer. Applicant must file administrative charges with and pursue remedies through the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

What is an Oregon Measure 11 offense and the mandatory penalties ?

In November 1994, voters passed Ballot Measure 11, now codified in ORS Chapter 137, which required mandatory minimum prison sentences for “serious crimes against persons.” Measure 11 originally applied to sixteen offenses and has since been amended to include a total of twenty-one. The crimes which fall under Measure 11 and the mandatory minimum sentence they carry are as follows. Persons convicted of Measure 11 offenses receive no parole or reduction of sentence for good behavior while in prison. Measure 11 also mandates that juveniles age 15 and older charged with the felonies listed above be tried as adults. In 1994, the voters adopted a companion measure to Measure 11, Ballot Measure 10. Measure 10 allows the Legislature to change Measure 11, but only by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Since its enactment into law, the Legislature has made several changes to Measure 11. The 1997 Legislature passed Senate Bill 1049, which softened Measure 11 by allowing judges to impose lesser sentences for Assault II, Kidnapping II and Robbery II if the offender has a minimal criminal history. Senate Bill 1049 also added to Measure 11 the crimes of compelling prostitution, using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, and some types of arson in the first degree. The 2001 Legislature passed House Bill 2379 which, among other things, allows: (a) the Department of Corrections to release an inmate up to three days prior to the inmate’s release date if the inmate otherwise would be released on a week-end or holiday; (b) a court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence, rather than Measure 11, for Rape II, Sodomy II, Unlawful Sexual Penetration II, and Sexual Abuse I if: (i) the victim is not under 12; (ii) the defendant is not more than 5 years older than the victim; (iii) consent was not obtained by violence or threat of violence; and (iv) the defendant does not have a criminal record for Measure 11 offenses or certain other listed crimes.

What are examples of Oregon Measure 11 sentencing ?

More instances of data scrubbing occurring daily.

Here's one that used to exist.

https://wlo.willamette.edu/orsupreme/2012/09/state-v-blok.html

But the Wayback Machine remembers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250805170550/https://wlo.willamette.edu/orsupreme/2012/09/state-v-blok.html

Continuing instances of data scrubbing occurring daily. Here's one that's been "sanitized."

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/834808/state-v-blok/

But the Wayback Machine continues to remember.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250815214405/https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/834808/state-v-blok/

And in a twisted sort of way, the Court's Opinion heading and article heading were changed from "TYLER ANTHONY BLOK" and "Blok" to "T.A.B", respectively; however, the URL still maintains the "state-v-blok".

Oh, and you're forbidden from clicking the "PDF" selection because it has in big letters at the top - "TYLER ANTHONY BLOK". No, you shouldn't do that.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Court_Records_Search_on_Tyler_Blok_in_Tualatin_OR_Redacted.pdf
Search_by_Case_Number_on_C112414CR_Redacted.pdf
Please email abuse@cytodine.com to report concerns or abuse. But before you do that, it is suggested that you read this.