To the Editor:
The Eagle interviewed both candidates in the 2014 election. One prominent issue was the 2004 "public reprimand" by the Oregon Supreme Court (SC S50321) stating that Mr. Carpenter "violated DR 1-102(A)(3)" by actions that disregarded a teacher's civil rights, which raised the question as to (Mr. Carpenter's) fitness to practice law, and whether he possesses the requisite trustworthiness and integrity to handle important matters involving legal rights of clients. According to Mr. Carpenter, his act of defamation (alleged sexual depravity, impersonation) by/of a teacher, and by extension, students, was fabricated as a joke. Official case documentation can be obtained on JUSTIA website, topic: In Re. Jim Carpenter.
In 2014, Mr. Carpenter also spoke of the necessity to uphold the Constitution and laws, preserve the safety of the public, protect rights of crime victims and pursue justice for all with skill, honor and integrity.
In regard to assuring the "safety of the public and pursuing justice for all," this is my experience:
In 2017, I was threatened with impending death by a band of wildlife scouting juveniles on the public road through my property. Verbatim: "You are (expletive deleted) dead!" A 911 call and a sheriff's report exist for verification. Mr. Carpenter chose not to prosecute. He cited the 1971 Oregon statute for harassment, which does not include death threats. He ignored the 2016 version which does, and of course, applied in 2017 (ORS 166.065 (4)(D)(i, ii, iii)). Since no action was taken, victim's rights didn't rise as issue, also leaving integrity, skill and honor somewhere far behind.
Brushing aside a death threat with purposely misconstrued application of the law is as egregious as the 2004 "joke." The OSC reprimand did not take root; lesson was not learned.
Best not to take the risk to test this reality on the bench into the future!