It’s endorsement week at the Mercury. That means, for the next few days, we’ll be releasing endorsements in one or more selected races here on Blogtown. Think of it like a slow buildup to the unveiling of our pick in this year’s mayoral race, which won’t be revealed until the paper hits newsstands later this week.
Today, we announce our choice in the closely contested state Attorney General’s race. Which race will it be tomorrow? Come back to find out.
John Kroger, recently revealed as the next president of Reed College, handpicked his preferred successor at the Oregon Department of Justice a long time ago: Dwight Holton, the political scion and federal prosecutor who, for almost two years, stepped up to lead Oregon’s US attorney’s office.
In placing his imprimatur on Holton, Kroger could have done a lot worse. Holton is collaborative, can claim solid management experience, and has a clear judicial track record of taking on polluters and other reprehensible types. Nor is he a reactionary, having come up in the Clinton White House before taking work as a federal prosecutor first in New York and then, since 2004, in Oregon.
But as agreeable as we found Holton, we were just slightly more impressed by his only rival in the race, Ellen Rosenblum—a former appeals court judge and former state court judge who also, many years ago, spent some time as a federal prosecutor. She’s also smart and likeable and unquestionably progressive.
In truth, both Rosenblum and Holton would make a worthy attorney general—and whatever daylight there is between them is minimal and ought to be measured in something more akin to microns than inches. Neither will tolerate fraud, etc. And they both thunder about protecting seniors and consumers and homeowners, etc. Whoever wins the primary, because no Republicans have filed, will undoubtedly assume the office next year.
Two things tipped our choice—and neither had anything to do with Rosenblum having worked and lived in Oregon way longer than Holton. The first is Rosenblum’s more nuanced approach to medicinal marijuana. Rosenblum has said she’d prioritize other crimes over marijuana and has found herself (even if it’s all just been a grab for national marijuana lobby cash) in a position to foster enough trust in patients and providers to make meaningful changes in the legal gray area where shady dispensaries have begun to thrive.
Holton, backed by district attorneys and law enforcement officials from all across the state, will have a harder time doing that. He carries a lot of baggage stemming from his federal job, which made him play the role of the heavy, and he did himself no favors by inflaming the medicinal pot advocates by calling Oregon’s pot laws a “trainwreck.” In our interview, he insisted he supports the state’s pot law—but we worry all the same about how he’ll enforce and interpret it.
The second point for Rosenblum was her unbidden nod toward completing Kroger’s work on reforming public records law in Oregon. Kroger couldn’t manage to browbeat legislators into loosening the state’s shamefully expensive, opaque, and loophole-filled statutes; maybe she can. Of course, it came after both candidates disappointed us with weak stances on releasing public employee pension information—stances that seemed more designed to please backers in big labor than actual citizens.
Holton very nearly overcame all that by offering what’s likely the more robust platform on police accountability. He notes accurately that he helped push for the ongoing federal probe of the Portland Police Bureau’s use of force, he speaks clearly about the breakdown in trust between the cops and some community members, and he even has an endorsement from one prominent member of the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform, Dr. T. Allen Bethel.
But his plan to look at whether his office could emerge as a state hub for deadly-police-force investigations, among other things, is more exploratory than solid. We question whether he could effectively stand up to skeptics among his law enforcement backers to make it happen.
We’re also just slightly dismayed by Holton’s relationship the with white-collar law firm that hired him after he left the US attorney’s office. Lane Powell represents and takes money from the kind of companies—Wells Fargo among them—that an attorney general ought to be rankling instead. Holton plays down the relationship, but also acknowledged using office space at Lane Powell to do campaign work.
That’s a gift, but it hasn’t shown up yet in his state campaign finance records. Instead, his campaign says, Lane Powell will wait until after the campaign to submit invoices. Which is, conveniently, after voters who’d otherwise take umbrage at such an arrangement would’ve already cast their ballots.
BIG SURPRISE HERE.
So, Denis, you guys *are* aware, I hope, that the ballots have already reached us. Which means that PEOPLE ARE VOTING NOW. Either you assume that Mercury readers just let things slide or you’ve waited just a bit too long.
But what the heck do I know? I’m just an Inner-Southeastside Guy.
Thank you for endorsing the true Oregonian who respects the will of the voters and not marching orders from out-of-state special interests. Ms. Rosenblum will better prioritize our limited law enforcement resources and tax dollars to more effectively fight serious and violent crime.
It is not legal to receive in-kind contributions and not report them until after the election. Use of Lane Powell offices by Dwight Holton for the campaign is probably worth more than $1,000 per month. The campaign is required to report those in-kind contributions, by state law, promptly upon knowing about them.
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.
James Buchal not only attended Harvard but while he earned his Bachelors degree in physics he was on the Harvard debate team then he earned both his Law and MBA from Yale simultaneously. I cannot think of a more brilliantly gifted candidate to run for office in past 100 years. Geniuses generally do not find a calling run for partisan political office, but I was lucky enough to convince James Buchal to run for Attorney General of Oregon. James understands from years of trying cases against the government that it needs to be fixed and the only way to do that is to elect good leaders with integrity.
Watch these videos judge for yourself whether you think Ellen Rosenblum is the obvious choice for any office in Oregon let alone Attorney General:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS7kA4H2D0…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkIXIGWEB1…
Lisa Michaels
Campaign Manager
Buchal for Attorney General
http://www.Buchal4AG.com