— from Nicholas Power —
I have had absolutely no involvement in any way, at any time, with Mr. Morgan’s campaign activities. I have, however, successfully represented Mr. Morgan in several pieces of campaign finance litigation.
I understand that Mr. Dehlendorf does not “like” Mr. Morgan because Mr. Morgan reported a Political Action Committee for which Mr. Dehlendorf was the treasurer to the Attorney General for various campaign finance violations. That PAC was then found to have been in violation as alleged and was fined by the AGO. (I might note, I was not at all involved with that case either and learned of it only after its conclusion).
It is a fact of life for attorneys that in many instances parties blame the attorneys associated with opposing parties for their legal troubles. This is what is happening here. Mr. Dehlendorf is conflating the values and beliefs of his political adversary with those of his adversary’s attorney.
Attorneys are hired to represent the interests of their clients and present cases based on fact and law. Indeed, the rules that govern the practice of law require us to represent our clients’ interests without substituting our own interests and preferences for theirs. This is required by law.
I have represented hundreds of clients with hugely differing political viewpoints — from extremely conservative to extremely liberal. Were I to somehow “adopt” my clients’ world views and political beliefs as my own I would literally be schizophrenic. Rather I do what all ethical attorneys do — represent as best I can the interest of my client.
Make no mistake, I have been a life-long Democrat. Indeed I was, in fact, a delegate for Bernie Sanders in 2016 — and still have the faded bumperstickers on the family car to prove it. But I fear that Mr. Dehlendorf’s required orthodoxy is precisely the sort of exclusionary sentiment that is at the root of the party’s recent stumbles.
Underlying Mr. Dehlendorf’s critique is a presumption that the Office of Prosecuting Attorney should be wielded as some sort of partisan tool. To me this is the anathema of what the philosophy of the Office should be. That is it should be to prosecute and advise without regard to partisan or political interests.
The fact that I have successfully and faithfully represented parties from across the political spectrum is exactly what qualifies me to discharge the duties of the office faithfully and in the furtherance of justice.
Mr. Power you reiterate you were a delegate for Bernie Sanders; Does his self admitted politics agenda of “Democratic Socialist” coincide with your political philosophy?
I look forward to your reply, Terri Brower
Power insults the readers’ intelligence. Of course attorneys must represent their clients’ interests as required by law (and by ethics). We all know that.
But that’s not the point. Instead, the issue is that Power and other lawyers make their own personal decisions about which clients and which cases to represent. They are not obligated by anyone to accept a particular client or case except by their personal beliefs and by their need to replenish their bank accounts. In Power’s case, he voluntarily accepted four cases against Democratic organizations representing Glen Morgan, a right-wing fanatic in Olympia. Morgan has publicly bragged about filing more than 400 complaints with the Public Disclosure Commission against Democratic individuals and organizations, including the four involving Power, but not one against Republicans.
Power also represents the Freedom Foundation in a suit against Service Employees International Union 775. The Freedom Foundation is virulently anti-labor, not even recognizing Labor Day as a national holiday.
Power claims to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. Ask yourself if Sanders, if he were an attorney, would take on clients such as Glen Morgan and the Freedom Foundation?
Randy Gaylord has my vote! And he has been endorsed by the San Juan County Democrats.
Nick, is it true that Connor Edwards is your campaign manager, as he has claimed to be?
“But that’s not the point. Instead, the issue is that Power and other lawyers make their own personal decisions about which clients and which cases to represent. They are not obligated by anyone to accept a particular client or case except by their personal beliefs and by their need to replenish their bank accounts.”
So, should the voters assume that it is the belief of the SJC Democrats that it is right and proper for the office of the Prosecuting Attorney to make legal decisions based on the partisan personal beliefs of the person holding the office? Have the SJC Democrats endorsed Gaylord because they know or believe he has done that in the past? That he will in the future?
No, No, & No. It is the obligation of the PA to enforce the law and act in the best interests of everyone in the county. Gaylord has done that and will continue to do so if re-elected.
Mr. Power addressed the issues in regards to those clients at the League of Women Voter forum in Friday Harbor. There is a video of that forum for anyone to watch and see his answer related directly to those clients.
Choosing a client as an attorney is not as simple as some have led you to believe. I remember when I took my first criminal law class. I said to my professor, a retired deputy sheriff, that I could never be friends with a defense attorney that had represented a murderer or a child molester, etc. His response changed my mind: The attorney’s job is to uphold the law. It’s their job to review the merits of the case and present an argument that best suits their client. Look at the OJ Simpson case – do I think he committed the crime? Yes. People are mad about the defense team getting a not guilty verdict. Yes, I agree that’s a shame, but that case also brought to light how evidence is collected and stored. It brought about major changes in policies across the nation on proper evidence retrieval. This improved the system overall – helping to strengthen a case against future criminals or help prove innocence of someone who would otherwise be accused but is innocent.
You have to look at each individual case Mr. Power accepted and the actual merits of the case. We must first understand why each case was taken before trying to lump Mr. Power into being a bad guy, instead of just being outraged about who the client was.
Jenny makes a good point. Most non-lawyers don’t realize that while our system is adverserial lawyers are still officers of the court; throughout their tenure before whichever Bar they practice they owe a duty to the court, their client(s) and, I dare say, even their adversary’s counsel. Tainting an attorney by the client they represent is a slippery slope towards guilt by association. Lawyers don’t do this because they literally know better. Neither should an informed electorate. Stick to merits. No personal attacks. No impugning the character of an attorney based on your opinion about his or her client. Let’s play fair.
(and nothing in the above should give you the slightest hint as to who will get my vote)
I support Nick Power, I think its time for change, and I dont think the Prosecutors office should even have a following. I do not dislike the current prosecutor. Every citizen and every member of any political party and of every socioeconomic status deserves representation. That is why change is good. And, it is high time to consider not just public employees but the people that have to live with the decisions made that do not necessarily represent the citizens, all of us. I do find it disingenuous that While a few years back enforcement was supposedly pursued for the public good in occupation of an under permitted structure for habitability, an entire community represented their reasonable fear and “appropriately reasoned” disapproval with a planned installation at the onset of a HUGE High hazard Propane storage tank occupying front and center,in a Longtime peaceful residential community, devaluing properties and threatening peace and tranquility. Where is the representation HERE? Representation of local citizens in this community by our elected officials is the reasonable expectation. What is the Public Good if it isnt this? It is well established within the international community, this is not a compatible neighbor in this neighborhood or any residential neighborhood. We have island neighbors that will be severely injured please support them.
It is just time for a change!!!!!