Greg Lettiecq has bought into the stupid argument about lawyers representing illegals. So my question is, since Greg has endorsed Paul Nichols, did Greg get a pledge from the Nichol's law firm that they don't represent illegal immigrants? They do a lot of different types of law:
Nichols Zauzig Sandler, P.C. practices in the following areas of law: Domestic Relations, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Criminal, Real Estate, Banking Law, Business Law, Traffic Offenses, Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody, Matrimonial Law and Separation Agreements.
Illegal immigrants could need those kinds of services. So, how can the President of HSM, having claimed that a candidate is disqualified if they represent illegals, endorse a lawyer who cannot pledge NOT to represent illegals?
I searched the Nichols firm web site (link above), and found no mention of denying service to illegal immigrants.
For example, the nichols firm web site says:
Nichols Zauzig Sandler, P.C. is comprised of ten lawyers devoted to the zealous representation of their clients. The law firm is committed to the advocacy of its clients' causes of action and the justice system. With emphasis on personal injury, medical malpractice, products liability, domestic relations (family law), commercial litigation, banking and real estate, this law firm provides the experience needed in handling complex litigation in the Northern Virginia area.
Illegal Immigrants may well need help with real estate transactions, because it could be harder to get through the process without legal papers. Nichol's firm promises "zealous representation" of their clients, so if they don't prohibit illegals, it means his firm stands ready to help illegal immigrants buy and move into a house.
Or what about "medical malpractice". Illegal immigrants use our medical services, and it's likely that from time to time they don't get better. Without a firm policy denying legal representation for illegals, it seems the Nichol's firm is committed to the advocacy of illegal immigrant client who, having used our public system to get free health care, might sue american citizens when they have a bad outcome.
Or what about Paul Nicho's specialty, Family Law/Divorce/Child Custody. Without a policy to ensure no illegal immigrants are signed as clients, Paul Nichols could be helping illegal fathers to get custody of american children from citizen mothers.
Fact is, the idea that people charged with violating immigration law don't deserve legal representation is stupid. Nichol's law firm would NEVER pledge not to represent people who are alleged to be illegal. Nothing on their web site says they refuse to serve illegals, nor should it.
But it is the height of hypocrisy for Paul Nichols to attack his opponent for representing people charged with immigration violations, when his own firm does not have any statement refusing representation to illegals. And it is also hypcritical for Greg to attack one candidate for being in a firm that represents people alleged to be illegals, and then to endorse a candidate who is a partner in a law firm that has no policy to refuse to represent illegals, or gang members, or hardened criminals, or fathers who cheat on their wives.