Keep in mind this is an election and what people say they will do may be entirely different from what they actually do.

With this post I encourage you to be skeptical of the statements and opinion I post and to do your own investigation with what is given here. For anyone who has actually gone beyond Rosenblum’s "Oregon" public persona and experienced her work you may be in for a shock IF she is elected.

As an apparent movement feminist attorney, Rosenblum may represent a portion of the women in Oregon and the legal community's women but not “Oregonian values”. Aggressive pursuit of dead beat Dad's and blind eye to dead beat Mom's is I think likely.

A related topic, for those who have not intimately experience the Oregon legal community, I think you will find it a bed of cronyism with, thankfully, a number of bright spots. We need someone from out of state to assist in breaking up the cronyism not protecting it (see below). And let’s face it: The first women …., is not a qualification.

What the Law said:
“The court shall consider the contribution of a spouse as a "homemaker" as a
contribution to the acquisition of marital assets.” Emphasis added (ORS
107.105(1)(f))

What Rosenblum said:
“MR. FOLEY: ***[Wife] would never describe herself as a homemaker. Look at
page 240. She didn’t describe herself as a homemaker.
JUDGE ROSENBLUM: [CD 09:12:30 AM] May not have been a homemaker
but she took care of the kids and the house …
MR. FOLEY: So did [Husband]. So did [Husband]”. (Oral Argument Transcript,
Ex. D, App-25) [case A124982)

With the briefs before her citing the statute and the case law Rosenblum is still ignorant of the Massee and Massee interpretation of the statutory Homemaker requirement. A decision her appointing governor, Kulongoski wrote. A mere over sight? Consider the following.

At that same Oral Argument Wife’s attorney desperately and improperly asked for the 3 judge court to find away to reduce Wife’s alimony requirement. They are supposed to review the record not act as attorney for either party. Rosenblum eagerly took on the improper task ignoring the Appellate Court’s mandate for Stare Decisis and substituting it with Ellen or Feminist Decisis.

Though neither party raised the issue of IRA income at age 591/2 to lower Wife's alimony at trial or in the briefs, Rosenblum claimed IRAs were like defined benefit Pension funds when in fact they are defined savings and attempted to waste judicial resources by having the party's return to the trial court to determine the mandatory distribution amount was zero. A former Federal Financial prosecutor who doesn't know the difference between a Pension fund and an IRA? Apparently yes if it favors women who ask for help. Continued below

Part 2: As the authoring Judge for the above case, Ellen overturned long standing case law in a gender principled manner. For her a homemaker was not a gender neutral "spouse” who managed the house hold. For Rosenblum men need not apply nor is it ever a shared activity. In the cited case, husband helped raise 4 siblings from infants and taught Wife how to change diapers and took care of the kids while wife was on business trips (Wife's testimony). Facts suppressed by Rosenblum by avoiding wife’s concession to a Kunze analysis.

Again, those outside of her cultivated political base should take a look at the court filings of Appellate Court Case A124982 for a look at Rosenblum at work, particularly the Motion to Disqualify and the Petition for Reconsideration. Check it out your self, but I believe you’ll see also the devotion she has towards the legal profession is at the expense of the ordinary citizen.

On cronyism, see if you can determine what the purpose of Footnote 2 is in the original Rosenblum appellate opinion from A124982. Also take a look at the trial court transcript (a searchable, pdf version is available). None of the defamatory statements against Husband in footnote 5 are on the record but somehow Rosenblum claims all three judges found them on the record in this De Novo review. As Gold Hat might paraphrase in Treasure of the Seirra Madre: “Record, I don’t need no stinkin’ Record, I am Judge Rosenblum and I heard about you”. I think you will find this is cronyism at work. We need strong public records law and an outsider to stamp this out.

It may be tempting to dismiss the above to just a divorce. Think again. Check how Rosenblum handled the Will in A124982 and how she handled it in Olesberg A125072. I think you will find she reversed her thinking in Olesberg (favored wife) in order to favor Wife in A124982. Unlike a trial judge, an appellate judge is supposed to educate the bench and bar with consistent, principled decisions. I find Roseblum failed as an appellate judge.

After demonstrating gender bias in case A124982, Rosenblum gave a speech at City Club expressing her goal that the Judiciary should be unbiased.

And that leads to perhaps a higher principal. Many Prosecutors become judges. If you are influenced by Law Professor Benjamin Bartons book on the Lawyer Judge Bias in the American Legal System that practice is already questionable. But this Prosecutor –Judge- Prosecutor with no defense work is just asking for more unwanted bias in the system.

In my opinion, Parents’s who love their sons should be very worried about Rosenblum as Attorney General. And if you want to insure against cronyism consider Horton. He may end up being the AG from Hell, but I have no evidence to that effect.