#oshatz
LightNews LightNews
maccoinnich.bsky.social
The City of Possibilities exhibition is really great
The unbuilt CA Bright tower by Robert Harvey Oshatz The old Bureau of Planning downtown Portland model The Columbia building by Skylab
March 1, 2025 at 10:27 PM
markrakey.bsky.social
Robert Oshatz takes us through his amazing new flower design build!

Please subscribe to my youtube channel!
#realestate #architecture #designer #videography #photography #interview #architect #realestatedesign #oshatz #portland #interiordesign
Architect Robert Oshatz gives us a Tour of his Flower Inspired Unfinished Home!
YouTube video by Mark Akey
youtu.be
December 18, 2024 at 4:20 PM
drcrob.bsky.social
www.oshatz.com/text/stevens...
Stevens / Harnell Residence | Robert Harvey Oshatz | Organic Architect
www.oshatz.com
April 26, 2026 at 11:04 PM
markrakey.bsky.social
Another video interview with Robert Oshatz and his amazing new flower design build!
#realestate #architecture #designer #videography #photography #interview #architect #realestatedesign #oshatz #portland #interiordesign
Touring A Portland Architect's Stunning Flower-inspired Home!
YouTube video by Mark Akey
youtu.be
December 15, 2024 at 8:40 PM
that1polly.bsky.social
If you’re free tomorrow night, 7/12 come by for the opening from 5-9 PM - at the gallery located inside
Urbanite PDX
1005 SE Grand Ave
Portland, OR 97214
Overheard of a photo of an architectural model by Bob OShatz, next to a photo of mixed media artwork by Sonia Kasparian
July 12, 2025 at 3:56 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00103127.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00103127
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00102999 | EFTA00103127 Contrary to the defendant's argument (Def. Mot. 11 at 16), this case is distinguishable from United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). There, the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case, "was reluctant to be deposed because of the pending indictment, and he agreed only after the parties in the civil case stipulated that the deposition would be sealed." Id. at 699-700. The court found that the subpoenas for the deposition transcript were "unenforceable" because the "government has not argued that the protective order was improvidently granted or that there are some extraordinary circumstances or compelling need, in view of the holding in Martindell."43 Id. at 701. The court found that the protective order served the "'vital function" described in Martindell, as the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case for almost seven months; the defendant "consistently resisted the use of his testimony in the criminal action against him"; and the Government did not seek the deposition "to aid it in a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding." Id. at 700; see also Botha v. Don King Productions, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (noting importance of policy concerns of Martindell where Government obtained an indictment against witness "long before his deposition in the civil action" and where federal criminal case remains pending after civil action is resolved). Here, by contrast, Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 22). As she noted in her opinion, the situation was distinct from Oshatz "where the Government was trolling for evidence to use at a trial, rather than seeking information as part of a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding." (Id. at 24-25). As Chief Judge McMahon already concluded, Oshatz does not warrant a different result here. In Martindell, the Second Circuit explicitly deemed it "unnecessary for us to decide the Fifth Amendment issues raised by the parties." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297. 102 EFTA00103127 Epstein Web iOS app on the App Store.
April 21, 2026 at 9:08 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00103018.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00103018
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00102999 | EFTA00103018 United States v. Nitsche, 843 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2011) United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v. Page, 657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) United States v. Pena, 932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y.I996) United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Pbro, 212 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (MN), 2018 WL 1737236 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2013) United States v. Polos, 723 F. App'x 64 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) 201, 202 282 164 138 146 147, 148 205, 209, 210, 220 252 253 115, 161, 162 221 281 passim 253 229 passim 291 195 226 passim 4 251 xix EFTA00103018
April 21, 2026 at 9:03 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00100304.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00100304
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00100287 | EFTA00100304 government's claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell's first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perhay. This Court should adhere to Oshatz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress. The government's final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell's argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show "improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon's finding of "extraordinary circumstances" was fatally tainted by the government's misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. CONCLUSION For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. 13 EFTA00100304
April 21, 2026 at 7:08 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00100069.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00100069
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00099941 | EFTA00100069 Contrary to the defendant's argument (Def. Mot. 11 at 16), this case is distinguishable from United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). There, the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case, "was reluctant to be deposed because of the pending indictment, and he agreed only after the parties in the civil case stipulated that the deposition would be sealed." Id. at 699-700. The court found that the subpoenas for the deposition transcript were "unenforceable" because the "government has not argued that the protective order was improvidently granted or that there are some extraordinary circumstances or compell ing need, in view of the holding in Martindell."43 Id. at 701. The court found that the protective order sewed the "'vital function" described in Martindell, as the defendant had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case for almost seven months; the defendant "consistently resisted the use of his testimony in the criminal action against him"; and the Government did not seek the deposition "to aid it in a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding." Id. at 700; see also Botha v. Don King Productions, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (noting importance of policy concerns of Martindell where Government obtained an indictment against witness "long before his deposition in the civil action" and where federal criminal case remains pending after civil action is resolved). Here, by contrast, McMaho circumstances, As she noted in her i'no" In I. trolling for eviden investigation or gran concluded, (Matz does not warrant a different result here. 43 In Martindell, the Second Circuit explicitly deemed it "unnecessary for us to decide the Fifth Amendment issues raised by the parties." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297. 102 EFTA00100069 Epstein Web iOS app on the App Store.
April 21, 2026 at 6:58 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00099960.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00099960
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00099941 | EFTA00099960 United States v. Nitcche, 843 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2011) United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) United States v. Page, 657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) United States v. Pena, 932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y.1996) United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2013) United States v. Polos, 723 F. App'x 64 (2d Cir. 2018) United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) 201, 202 282 164 138 146 147, 148 205,209,210,220 252 253 115, 161, 162 22I 281 passim 253 229 passim 291 195 226 passim 4 251 xix EFTA00099960
April 21, 2026 at 6:53 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00097666.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00097666
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00097649 | EFTA00097666 government's claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell's first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perhay. This Court should adhere to Oshatz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress. The government's final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell's argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show "improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon's finding of "extraordinary circumstances" was fatally tainted by the government's misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. CONCLUSION For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. 13 EFTA00097666 Epstein Web iOS app on the App Store.
April 21, 2026 at 5:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00097348.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00097348
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00097331 | EFTA00097348 government's claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell's first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perhay. This Court should adhere to Oshatz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress. The government's final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell's argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show "improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon's finding of "extraordinary circumstances" was fatally tainted by the government's misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. CONCLUSION For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. 13 EFTA00097348
April 21, 2026 at 4:55 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00088207.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00088207
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00088205 | EFTA00088207 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 24, 2020 Page 3 confidentiality stipulation's protection outweighs by far the government's need for the deposition transcript...." United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); see also Pahnieri v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1987); Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA, Case 2015-cv-5826 (CBA) (MDG), 2016 WL 11613256 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a presumption in favor of enforcing protective orders against grand jury subpoenas."); United States v. Kerik, 07 CR 1027, 2014 WL 12710346 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014). It seems that a majority of courts in this district have rejected the claimed "standard practice" arguments made by the Government before Judge McMahon. A notable difference is that the other applications were not conducted ex parte. Review of the sealed materials further illustrates the point. One of the two judicial officers presented with the government's application ex pane agreed that it was not appropriate and denied the request. The other questioned the irregularity of the procedure, applied a legal test not urged by the government, but ultimately agreed to grant the application. That she may have been incorrect remains to be litigated; Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today. But Ms. Maxwell is seeking in both the Second Circuit and before Judge Preska that the status quo be maintained until the issue can be litigated. If, for example, without the benefit of this information, the Second Circuit and/or Judge Preska order Ms. Maxwell's deposition unsealed, the cat will be out of the bag. Should this Court ultimately decide that it was inappropriate for the government to have obtained the materials pursuant to the subpoena, the government most assuredly will claim inevitable discovery, that even though it was unconstitutional to have obtained the discovery when they did, there is no harm because the documents are now in the public domain thanks to the unsealing process. Perhaps the government's desire to have the materials publicly unsealed, or at least their failure to intervene to stay the unsealing process, can be explained by their hope to rely on that doctrine when the ultimate question is presented to this Court. The Government Does Not Explain How Any "Secret" Investigation Will be Compromised. Third, the government claims that the materials at issue are "Confidential" because the "full scope and details" of their very-public proclamations of an ongoing criminal investigation "have not been made public." Resp. at 3. This argument too is nonsensical: the sealed materials that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file, under seal, do not disclose the "full scope and details" of the government's criminal investigation, as a simple review of the materials makes clear. The sealed materials are comprised of applications to serve a subpoena on a law firm and the two courts' rulings on those applications. Nothing in the sealed materials reveals the names of other targets, even though the criminal discovery produced to date reveals that other named targets are fully aware of their status as such and have been interacting with the government lawyers, as Ms. Maxwell was prior to her indictment. Further, the indictment itself makes clear that the government has obtained the sealed materials from the subpoena recipient because it quotes from those materials. Certainly the subpoena recipient, otherwise known as counsel for the adverse party to the Civil Litigation, knows the two things that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal in EFTA00088207
April 20, 2026 at 9:54 PM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00086709.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00086709
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00086685 | EFTA00086709 To Be Filed Under Seal destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation— that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boies Schiller] and its related Application." (Gov't Letter Br. at 5.) To be sure, the convenience of having potentially incriminating testimony readily available does not in and of itself rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. In Martindell itself, for example, the Second Circuit found no extraordinary circumstance because "the Government, by discharging the grand jury investigating the matters in connection with which the Government sought the witnesses' deposition transcripts, apparently chose not to use grand jury investigative prorecses to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "[T]he possibility that [an individual] might one day invoke the Fifth Amendment at her criminal trial does not automatically create for prosecutors a compelling need for the testimony that [the individual] might have given [in the civil proceeding] . [.] Prosecutors often make do without the testimony of a defendant." Id at 595-96 (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Here, however, the extraordinary amount of publicity surrounding all aspects of what I will call the Epstein matter does create practical limitations to the grand jury's ability to secure certain information with the secrecy it requires to conduct an appropriately thorough and thoughtful investigation. Moreover, it does not appear to this Court that we are in a situation in which the Government seeks information merely to "ascertain the truth of much of what it has independently discovered." Minpeco, 832 F.2d at 743. This is not a case, like United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), where the Government was trolling for evidence 24 SDNY_GM_00000898 EFTA00086709
April 20, 2026 at 8:41 PM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA01263269.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta01263269
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA01263246 | EFTA01263269 To Be Filed Under Seal destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation— that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boies Schiller] and its related Application." (Gov't Letter Br. at 5.) To be sure, the convenience of having potentially incriminating testimony readily available does not in and of itself rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. In Martindell itself, for example, the Second Circuit found no extraordinary circumstance because "the Government, by discharging the grand jury investigating the matters in connection with which the Government sought the witnesses' deposition transcripts, apparently chose not to use grand jury investigative processes to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "[T]he possibility that [an individual] might one day invoke the Fifth Amendment at her criminal trial does not automatically create for prosecutors a compelling need for the testimony that [the individual] might have given [in the civil proceeding] . . . [.] Prosecutors often make do without the testimony of a defendant." Id at 595-96 (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Here, however, the extraordinary amount of publicity surrounding all aspects of what 1 will call the Epstein matter does create practical limitations to the grand jury's ability to secure certain information with the secrecy it requires to conduct an appropriately thorough and thoughtful investigation. Moreover, it does not appear to this Court that we are in a situation in which the Government seeks information merely to "ascertain the truth of much of what it has independently discovered." Minpeco, 832 F.2d at 743. This is not a case, like United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), where the Government was trolling for evidence 24 CONFIDENTIAL SONY_GM_00000898 EFTA_00114982 EFTA01263269
February 14, 2026 at 5:29 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00019014.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00019014
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00018997 | EFTA00019014 government's claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell's first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perhay. This Court should adhere to Oshatz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress. The government's final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell's argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show "improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon's finding of "extraordinary circumstances" was fatally tainted by the government's misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. CONCLUSION For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. 13 EFTA00019014
February 12, 2026 at 8:15 PM
idisposable.github365.com
This is one of the coolest homes I've ever seen http://www.oshatz.com/text/wilkinson.htm
Wilkinson Residence | Robert Harvey Oshatz | Organic Arch...
www.oshatz.com
December 2, 2024 at 8:38 PM
portlandbriefly.bsky.social
Steven Oshatz was a dedicated set designer for Eugene Ballet, known for his innovative and enthusiastic artistic contributions over 40 years.
Save What Matters
Curate Feeds | Make Collections | Customize Email Briefs
briefly.co
April 9, 2026 at 12:07 AM
ddonato.bsky.social
Eu também. Mas é perto do metrô? RT @andrelasak Quero morar aqui: <a href="http://is.gd/75Doh" class="hover:underline text-blue-600 dark:text-sky-400 no-card-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-link="bsky">http://is.gd/75Doh
Canopy Living: The Ultimate Tree House
    There’s the tree house your Dad built for you in the backyard, and then there’s the tree house Robert Harvey Oshatz built in the forests of Portland, Oregon. Designed in 1…
is.gd
January 26, 2010 at 4:44 PM
orartswatch.org
Known for his work with the Eugene Ballet and his wearable art designs, the artist also maintained a vibrant studio practice throughout his life.
Remembering Steven Oshatz: “Marking the contours” • Oregon ArtsWatch
Known for his work with the Eugene Ballet and his wearable art designs, the artist also maintained a vibrant studio practice throughout his life.
www.orartswatch.org
April 8, 2026 at 11:54 PM