MICHELLE-VLACH-ING — DAVE-CARLSON
So, after getting absolutely crushed in the election by Michelle Vlach Ing, Dave Carlson—who has been lawyering around Salem for something like three decades—found himself in an even more humiliating mess. Fast forward to August 27th, 2025, and there he is, standing in a courtroom, with Judge Vlach Ing herself calling the shots. Talk about salt in the wound. Aaron Wider basically wiped the floor with him in under an hour.
Or maybe it was just a rant—depends on who you ask. Dave tries to play it off as humility, but, come on. The real jury here? The crowd watching. And they were not kind. Judge Vlach Ing didn’t just rule against him—she metaphorically busted down his front door and handed him a public smackdown right there in court. Case dismissed. Ouch.
The proceedings were not merely routine; they quickly escalated into a dramatic episode that called into question both the integrity of the legal process and the standards upheld by the practitioners within it. The incident unfolded with remarkable speed. Within just a few minutes, Judge Vlach- Ing subjected Carlson’s management of an eviction case to intense scrutiny. The recordings of the trial are a matter of public record where is right here for your listening pleasure.
If you’re looking for the particularly dramatic moment, it’s right near the end—when the timer shows 4:40 left on the recording. That’s four minutes and forty seconds remaining, not the time of day, just to be clear. Judge Vlach- Ing left Dave Carlson speechless.
Honestly, if you’re a lawyer, knowing the law and playing by the rules isn’t just a suggestion—it’s the bare minimum. When an attorney messes this up, either because they’re clueless or, worse, they start pulling shady moves in court, that’s not just embarrassing, it’s a slap in the face to everyone who expects the system to work. Sometimes, yeah, calling them out in public isn’t just fair, it’s necessary. Look at Karla Winans—she’s basically a walking caution sign. Ask yourself this question, did Dave Calson and Karla do this, or was it Aaron Wider that allowed it?
Karla Winans didn’t just trip over a little mistake; she got caught straight-up lying and twisting facts, not to mention perjury that’s literally on record. That’s not just a bad day at work, that’s the kind of thing that makes people lose faith in the whole justice system. The proof’s right there in the documents: the summons and complaint show an eviction notice for $1379.00, but Dave Carlson just made up his own story—claiming rent was $500 plus utilities. Sorry, Dave, but that’s not how any of this works. You can’t just rewrite the law to fit your story.
Karla Winans’ involvement as Dave Carlson’s campaign manager—especially given the campaign’s lackluster outcome—raises more than a few eyebrows, particularly when factoring in the alleged quid pro quo arrangement that’s floating around. When you stack those issues together, it’s more than just a footnote of poor judgment; it’s a glaring example of what happens when ethical boundaries get blurred by personal ambition and questionable maneuvering in both the legal and political arenas.
It’s a scenario that underscores, in a fairly dramatic fashion, why competence and integrity aren’t just buzzwords—they’re essential if you don’t want things veering off the rails. Notably, neither Dave Carlson nor Karla Winans can reasonably dispute these concerns, since Carlson himself acknowledged the issue on the record. His failed campaign against Judge Michelle Vlach-Ing, with Winans directing the strategy, can hardly be considered a minor setback—it’s a concrete example of how ineffective leadership and dubious alliances can torpedo a candidacy. To compound matters, Carlson also lost to Aaron Wider, who represented Winans in another matter, with the loss hinging on factual misrepresentations that were, once again, made a matter of record.
In sum, this situation does more than just highlight individual failings; it offers a case study in the consequences that can arise when ethical and professional standards are treated as optional. The intersection here between legal missteps and political maneuvering serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who might be tempted to cut corners in either field. The record is clear, and the implications are hard to ignore. Now were going to court a third time (3)
This was not a matter of trivial or technical errors. Rather, the judge identified substantive and procedural deficiencies that threatened to undermine the very legitimacy of the eviction action. The public nature of these proceedings amplified the consequences, turning what might have been a private critique into a moment of professional reckoning broadcast to all present in the courtroom. At the center of the controversy were significant inconsistencies in the factual narrative presented by Carlson’s client, Karla Winans.
Official court documents—including the summons, complaint, and eviction notice—clearly stated the disputed rent amount as $1,379.00. Yet, in a startling turn during the trial, Winans abruptly revised her testimony, lowering the claimed amount to $500.00. This contradiction did not merely represent an oversight; it raised significant legal and ethical concerns.
Such a discrepancy not only cast doubt on the veracity of the plaintiff’s assertions but also introduced the specter of perjury and fundamentally destabilized the factual basis upon which the eviction action stood. Judge Ing’s response was immediate, incisive, and firmly rooted in the principles of judicial oversight. Through pointed questioning and a direct challenge to Carlson’s handling of the matter—on the record—she underscored the judiciary’s essential role in ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to the standards of accuracy, transparency, and accountability. The judge’s intervention did not simply highlight procedural sloppiness; it served as a vivid illustration of the court’s responsibility to intervene decisively in the face of misrepresentation or material contradictions. The episode also illuminated broader issues concerning the risks inherent in inattentive or careless legal representation.
Carlson’s apparent failure to reconcile or address the discrepancies in his client’s documentation and testimony left his case vulnerable to attack. The fact that these flaws became the focal point of a public, highly scrutinized hearing only intensified the humiliation and professional risk for Carlson. Judge Ing’s forthright criticism was not merely a personal rebuke; it signaled to all in attendance that the court demands rigorous standards from those who practice before it. Observers in the courtroom witnessed not only the unraveling of Carlson’s advocacy but also the judiciary’s unwavering expectation of integrity. Furthermore, the incident’s implications extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. Perhaps most notably, the fact that Aaron Wider, a non-attorney, was able to expose the deficiencies in Carlson’s case in a matter of minutes stands as a stark indictment of the latter’s preparation and competence. The trial’s recording now functions as a sobering case study, illustrating the potential for even experienced practitioners to falter when they fail to maintain the vigilance and precision required by the legal profession. In sum, Judge Vlach Ing’s public admonishment of Carlson for incompetence and factual misrepresentation was not simply a matter of personal embarrassment. Rather, it represented a reaffirmation of the foundational values upon which the legal system depends: accuracy, integrity, and accountability.
Carlson’s silence in response to the judge’s critique was itself telling, suggesting not only a sense of shock, but also a recognition of the seriousness of his professional lapse. This episode thus stands as a compelling reminder of the necessity for diligence and honesty in legal practice, and demonstrates the judiciary’s essential role in safeguarding the credibility of the courts. Ultimately, the incident serves as a cautionary tale for all legal practitioners, reinforcing the imperative that rigorous standards and ethical conduct must never be compromised, regardless of one’s tenure or experience in the field.
For comments
Contact Aaron Wider
[email protected] 971-35-8812
830 Holladay Street
Portland, Oregon 97232
