Larry Mitchell
Redmond Prosecutor
P.O. Box 97010
Redmond, WA 98073-9710
c/o City Clerk
Cc: King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Is the City of Redmond picking up the tab by prosecuting Jane Hague for drunk driving?
I asked this question of someone who works in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office and he thought perhaps so—that normally this kind of thing is done as a professional courtesy. (He wasn’t privy to the details in the Jane Hague case.)
Now…I am a big believer in Redmond being a good governmental citizen and helping out King County when necessary. Cooperation among regional and local governments strikes me as a very positive thing. I don’t mind if my neighbors and I occasionally pick up the tab to ensure criminals are brought to justice and there is fairness in the process.
The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office turned the Hague case over to Redmond to avoid a conflict of interest in prosecuting King County Councilmember Hague. I mean, surely she has personal and political connections in the office. And I can sort-of buy that, even though Dan Satterberg, the Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney, claims to be non-partisan.
Here is what I don’t get. That very same Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney who handed the effort and expense of prosecuting Jane Hague over to us is jointly headlining a Republican fund raising event with Jane Hague this evening.
Yeah…suddenly I’m completely convinced that this is a genuine case with conflict of interest. At the same time, I can’t help feeling abused by it all. The City of Redmond is picking up the tab; so, instead of prosecuting Ms. Hague, Mr. Satterberg is joining Ms. Hague to raise money for Republicans!
It sure feels to me like the citizens of Redmond are, effectively, making a contribution to the King County Republican Party.
That is, unless, Mr. Satterberg’s office intends to fully reimburse Redmond for our expenses.
Yours,
Maybe Satterberg and Hague will get drunk together, then you can get a two-fer in District Court.
Scenes We’d Like To See Dep’t
Remember this feature of the old-time Mad Magazines? Well, here’s the Roger Rabbit version, circa 2007:
Two cars, each driven by a prominent local politician who has just come from a fundraiser where they appeared together, have collided in an inrtersection and the stumbling-drunk drivers are standing in the middle of the street yelling at each other …
If this is indeed true, then clearly a complaint should be filed with the Washington State Bar Association with the following instructions from the site:
http://wsba.org/public/complaints/default1.htm
If you believe that a lawyer has acted unethically, you may file a grievance with the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Filing a grievance is a very serious matter because you are charging a lawyer with unethical conduct.
Before you consider filing a grievance, and for a discussion of what the Bar Association can and cannot do, please carefully review “Lawyer Discipline in Washington.”
You guys are really making something out of nothing. The county GOP is holding a fundraiser in which they have invited their two top candidates this year– shocker! Satterberg acted correctly in not kicking it from the County office, now you are saying that he can’t associate with the Party he is running with? I will guarantee that you people would have no beef if the D’s had a conflict of interest when it comes to holding a fundraiser (ie you have been strangely silent RE: Gregoire).
Interesting that ‘Rule of Law’ is advocating a bar complaint. Any commments or opinions of the numerous bar complaints and sanctions against Pope???
Good Lord, you really need to find new hobbies…
Ben Franklin,
“…now you are saying that he can’t associate with the Party he is running with?”
You have it backwards. Dan has been disassociating himself with the KCGOP. We have been pointing out that he is a good, loyal Republican.
I just don’t want to pay for him be a good Republican.
Edit above: should read ‘kicking it from the County office’ — forgive the ‘not’ that shouldn’t be there.
It would be worth a look by the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel as it appears to be a novel question in the realm of ethics re: conflict of interest.
In 5 –
My last reading of the WSBA Ethics Rules seems to indicate that “being a good Republican” is not part of the ethical requirements an attorney must adhere to in this State. The bedrock in the code is that ethics transend party – which it should – and an attorney must make every effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially under these facts.
Well shoot – the invite doesn’t say if its an open bar…
Hate to burst your bubble, Darryl. But he did exactly as he should by transfering the case to Redmond becuase of a conflitct of interest. The only grounds for a bar complaint if if he didn’t transfer the case to another prosectuor’s office.
And don’t worry about Redmond’s money – DUI’s are a cash cow for the cities and district courts.
Boy, Darryl, even if you’d put a sign on your back saying “Kick me hard,” you couldn’t have done a better job of making youself look like a dumbjohn than you did with your letter.
First, you ask a question, and then, before getting an answer from the person to whom you address your letter, you presume the answer you want to hear, then proceed to complain about it all.
Letters like yours get passed around the offices of public officials for a good laugh on a slow day.
It’s a routine matter to in potential conflict-of-interest situations to transfer jurisdiction or change venue. This is about as big a deal as whether you take one lump or two…or have one lump or two.
You won’t be happy until you’ve successfully criminalized every opinion but your own.
If you want to beef about something, take Richard Pope’s candidacy to the Consumer Protection Office at the SAG and charge him with falsely advertising himself as competent to run for or hold office. You’ll get more mileage.
The Piper
@7
It’s a “novel question” because it’s clearly not a violation, and thus it’s never been pushed. Further, it would be deplorable for anyone to use the Bar’s ethics process to create election-related harassment of candidates. Sickening.
@5 – Darryl, how are you paying for Satterberg being a Republican??? Unless you are attending this event and donating to the KCGOP, what the hell is your point?
Man.. are you fuckers all really that dense? Nah… I’m guessing not. Whenever I see a bunch of new names here, I know I’m dealing with a bunch of walking talking points.
THE POINT IS… Satterberg is so non-partisan that he’s co-headlining a Republican fundraiser with Republican Jane Hague, after he had to pass her DUI case off due to a potential conflict of interest.
If the PAO really was a non-partisan office, he wouldn’t have had to take a pass on Hague’s DUI. And if Satterberg really was non-partisan, he wouldn’t risk his reputation raising money for a drunk-driving, police-abusing, resume-lying Republican. It’s that simple.
at 12 –
Agree on “novel” and that would be for the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel to decide, and perhaps some fact finding may aid in getting an understanding the facts(either way)and the upside would be some guidance for the future on these novel questions for the benefit of us all. Also, just because the matter was assigned does not relieve the conflict of interest requirements, per the rules. The test is what they knew.
@8…R of L…
The WSBA ethics rules do not so state, as you note. But if Darryl, who never misses an opportunity to stick his brogan his his mouth, has his way, being a “good Republican” will become not only an unethical practice, but a criminal act. Unless, that is, you’re a pathetically failed perennial office seeker who polluted the ballot claiming to be a Republican until he ran that pony dead into the ground only to switch to a donkey upon which to ride even as the donkey’s owner told him they’d rather he didn’t.
Still…I shouldn’t expect anything different…nor do I.
The Piper
@14…Goldy…
Shoe on your foot…If Bill Sherman was who he claimed to be, he wouldn’t act like your best buddy since HA is the most hard-core, left-wing, partisan Democratic pimp parlor since the days of George Washington Plunkett and Tammany Hall.
Give it a rest…
The Piper
– 16
I’m afraid that you haven’t read them or understand them.
Have a read and then post.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court.....38;set=RPC
@17…R of L…
Hey! I was agreeing with you! The Ethics rules don’t say an attorney must be a “good Republican.”
My point was that Darryl would have being a “good Republican” become an unethical practice, if not criminal offense. It’s evident form his rhetoric that he’s all for criminalizing policy disputes and politics or ranting such that a routine move by the KCPAO is a scandal on the order of the Dreyfus Affair…”J’accuse!”
Well, Emile Zola he ain’t!
The Piper
@11
Boy. Piper, it’s a real hoot that YOU would comment about somebody making themselves look stupid; You have the market cornered, and nobody could ever hope to compete with you.
That you are a Republican evangelist is a given, so why would we pay any more attention to your present commentary than any of your other strident shilling for Satterberg?
And, have you done your part and purchased a case of Thunderbird for Jane Hague to further her career?
@17
If you want to pass yourself off as the expert here, please make more specific citations to authority to support your point, whatever it may be, as you haven’t bothered citing sections of the RPCs, comments, opinions, or related case law.
Satire and irony are concepts lost on Republicans it appears. Mock indignation and political correctness are their only tools right now and they are in desperate danger of over using them to the point that they will be taken out of their arsenal also. They really should save it for issues that matter, but they just can’t seem to grasp that reality. It is truly sad.
17 Rule;
Hint: DO NOT expect Piper to read or understand ANYTHING you post here. All that informs his opinion, so frequently and redundantly expressed, is what HE THINKS he saw you say, or you might have said, as long as it it can be a reason for his response. The Piper non-sequitur is part of daily life here, and it will aid your understanding of him if you simply accept it. If not, he will gladly shriek at you what he thinks might be a clever response to what you really didn’t say, but….well, you get the idea.
Will an appeal to the ethics outfit have any practical result? I don’t know how effective it has been. Not that it would be a bad thing to have a precedent for future altercations.
@22, chadt: So if I think Piper is delusional, and then write that he is delusional, does that make it universally true? In my universe only? In Piper’s?
I’ll say this. He is quite adept at running rings around arguments that nobody makes.
oops…@23.
Delusional fingers.
Goldy,
You are such a riot. If Satterberg had kept the case your head would be exploding with outrage b/c unless she got the death penalty you would accuse him of going soft. Instead, since he passes the case on he is incurring your partisan wrath for…being non-partisan and avoiding a conflict of interest. The King County Prosecutor advises the King County Council…any prosecutor would have to recuse themselves. If you knew anything about legal ethics or the law generally you would know this..or perhaps you do and are just conveniently ignoring it becasue you are the Time Eyman of the Left. If you think for one second anyone believes you would have applauded him keeping the case if he hadn’t done some GOP fuindraiser you are as deluded as you are bald and sweaty.
Piper @17,
Sherman stops by DL because he’s not ashamed to be identified as a Democrat! My point is, and always has been, that both Sherman and Satterberg are partisan… the only difference is, Satterberg denies it. That’s a lie, pure and simple.
Asshole @26,
Good thing your so thick, else you might tear every time somebody fucks you up yourself. I’ve never said that Hague case shouldn’t have been passed on. I’m saying that the GOP fundraiser with Hague should have been passed on too, that is, if Satterberg is as non-partisan as he claims to be. (Hint: he isn’t.)
It’s OK if you’re a (fucking) Republican.
Being a Republican means you never have to say you’re sorry.
Being a Republican means it fine to line the pockets of your contributors at the expense of the general Public.
Being a Republican means it’s fine to illegally campaign before you announce your candidacy (see Thompson, Fred and Rossi, Dino(sore).
See everybody…it’s EASY!!!!!
What’s a little conflict of interest among “friends”.
Goldy,
Yeah cause I’ve never saw Gregoire attend any fundraisers when she was AG.
Btw, if Dan is such a hard core partisan why is Jenny Durken (Gregoire’s head lawyer in the recount) and Democratic prosecutors in Pierce and Snohomish Counties endorsing him?
I’ve asked this twice and you always seem to find some other bullshit issue to talk about. Typical for you but telling given your passion for the race.
Regardless of whether Satterberg’s conduct violates any particular Rule of Professional Conduct, it clearly fails the smell test. For the acting King County Prosecutor to head a fundraiser for an individual who is being prosecuted for a crime allegedly committed within his own jurisdiction reeks of the appearance of impropriety. Can anyone say, “what the fuck was he thinking?” Satterberg’s action suggests he’s a bit short on judgment.
asshole @33:
“Yeah cause I’ve never saw Gregoire attend any fundraisers when she was AG.”
If she (Gregoire) did attend such functions, she at least was not trying to pass herself off as ‘non-partisan’ everywhere else.
“Btw, if Dan is such a hard core partisan why is Jenny Durken (Gregoire’s head lawyer in the recount) and Democratic prosecutors in Pierce and Snohomish Counties endorsing him?”
How dare they! Democrats endorsing Democrats? Whoever heard of such a thing!
“I’ve asked this twice and you always seem to find some other bullshit issue to talk about.”
See post 27
Goldy at 14, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Satterberg passed off the Hague DUI NOT because he happens to be of the same political party (which, moron, would NOT be a conflict), but because her work crosses over at times into that of the office (which COULD create at least the appearance of conflict). So his decisions on the one hand to conflict out of the prosecution but on the other hand to raise money for this election in the same room as her are as disconnected from each other as you are from intelligent thought
Goldy at 17-
Much as you like to play fast and loose with words, Dan has never denied being a Republican. He just doesn’t trumpet his affiliation like Bill does, because unlike Junior Deputy Bill- party affiliation is not the sum total of his qualifications for the job.
I meant at 27, not 17…
@36 & 37…TDOG…
I thought you’d been kidnapped by pirates!
Don’t you find it frustrating arguing fine points of law with chowderheads whose legal education is restricted to the University of Matlock? I hear there’s been a run on light blue seersucker suits just so they can dress the part. And they’re also adopting that quaint, G.O.B. twang to impress the jury.
Any time they wish to see a legit conflict of interest, all they need do is find the closest mirror. The hard and bitter partisanship on display here ought to be of concern to voters.
Could Bill Sherman be a zealous prosecutor on behalf of all the citizens, or just a favored and chosen few? What happens if, at some point, a clearly Democratic office holder falls under his prosecutorial scrutiny, or an ACORN-like situation crop up again? Will he address those issues as vigorously and scrupulously as he’s willing to accept HA campaign contributions?
Or shall I check on-line to see if Nordstrom carries jailhouse dungarees so that when I’m gulagged I’ll be ready.
The Piper
You’d have more credibility here about partisanship here, Piper, if you’d wipe the white liquid off your face after you indulge in circle-jerks et. al. with your Republican buddies. And your pretensions to have expert legal knowledge are laughable. Credentials, please….
@441…CHURLISH/Chump/Chimp/Chowderhead/Chicken/Chadt…
You’re so good at outing me and posting my full name and website, you go find my academic and professional licensure credentials.
While you’re at it, identify yourself…of does that concern you given that this link is being followed by a goodly number of prosecuting attorneys?
The Piper
Piper:
As you VERY well know, I was not the one to “out” you, and that can easily be verified in the archives here.
I have nothing to fear from prosecuting attorneys, my conduct and record are clean.
As for your website, what on earth would make you think that I would believe that any more than anything else you say?
That’s REALLY a leap. There are wonderful sites out there from great, low-interest mortgage companies, miracle weight reducing drugs, overnight body-building machines, gauranteed job agencies, etc.
And would you believe any credentials I would post, were I so inclined, at this juncture????
You’re really NOT very bright, for ALL your pretensions to the contrary.
-34 and 14
Nails the point on the head. The RPC generally provides: an attorney must make every effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The sniff test applied here is what prompted my interest in this matter and postings as I live by the oath and RPC.
Goldy’s sniffer seems to be working as well, and I’m more of a pointer than a spotter, using a hunting metophor.
-36
A conflict of interest does not end with the assignment of the matter, per the RPC and my thus point, not to mention the judgement question raised by Goldy. Simply poor judgement and would demand better from the “office”.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Republican Satterburg turns the case over to Redmond Court where Judge Peter Nault gets the case. Who is he? He is the same judge who opposed Richard’s District Court Judge election. Why? because of Richard’s position against easily throwing out DUI breath tests. Seems to be quite the racket for Eastside DUI Lawyers.
Many recall Richard’s judicial race last year where this came up. The press caught wind of this recently and during Jane Hague’s October 1st 07 DUI hearing, Judge Nault, according to the presiding judge had to “attend family business” and was not at the hearing. Who was? Judge Pro Tem Richard Jones. As it turns out he is a Republican activist with a criminal record. See: http://www.komotv.com/news/10216011.html
When the foxes are in charge of the chicken coup, we’re all screwed. Sad thing is most eligible voters don’t even know what’s going on. What’s the sense of having freedom to elect our leaders when we won’t exercise our right to vote?
Those seeking local office and get obscene amounts of campaign contributions are usually in the pockets of special interests. Just look at Jane Hague: raised probably $300,000 – much of it from Eastside developers.
How can we change this? First go to http://www.popeforcouncil.com and watch Hague Vs. Pope Debate. It’s only 7 minutes but a real eye opener. Then call or email 10 people on the Eastside you know and have them watch the debate. Ask them to do the same: contact 10 people they know etc. If the 200 people who read this blog do this we could make a difference.
Who’s willing to put their bid in for a better democracy? Who’s willing to say that our right to vote means something?
The proper thing for Satterberg to do is “Throw her under the bus and back over her.”
I actually agree with Goldy on one point. I don’t think Dan should stand side by side with Hague at some GOP fundraiser (although I don’t see it as a conflict of interest). I think the people running his campaign are a bunch of idiots! So maybe that does show some bad judgment on Dan’s part (for picking idiots to run his campaign).
But having said that, Dan Satterberg is still the best man for this job (by a loooooooooooong shot). The more and more I listen to Bill, the more and more I dispise him. The guy is so slick and slimey it makes me want to puke. Both candidates were on NPR yesterday and Bill answered maybe half of the questions asked of him. The rest of the time he kept giving his canned blah, blah, blah, Babbitt, blah blah blah, red tape, blah blah blah, front-line, blah blah blah… It really sucks, because I used to like the guy.
Now I only see him as a P.O.S. politician.
Help me understand how “bad judgment” trumps “slimey” in your words. Most think of attorneys as slick, but poor judgment is not something to vote for… really!
@44
The clip at http://www.popeforcouncil.com is a great clip. If I were in that district instead of Ferguson’s, I’d have no choice but to vote for Richard.
My comment was an expression of my personal opinion. I don’t like Hague (I like that retard Pope even less). Therefore, it bothered me a little to know that Dan (someone I have a great deal of respect for) is going to be associated with Hague. When I say “bad judgment” it is like me commenting on someone’s bad taste in ties.
That is VERY different from someone who is disingenuous (i.e. slimy).
Hi Chadt- @40: I didn’t know Piper had a bunch of Republican buddies on here. I thought all he had was a few Dem’s who actually work in the office you and your sisters are so cavalierly willing to fuck up and who, unlike you and your brethren, are actually capable of looking at qualifications instead of party affilication.
And as for you not having anything to fear from prosecutors– are you sure? I have no reason to doubt your record is clean, but do you know for a fact you or your loved ones will never be victims of a crime? Because that’s what we prosecutors do- we represent victims of crime. Real crime, that is- not the “environmental crime” which Bill suggests he’d create a new unit for but which a) is not really the issue of the day in King County, b) is already prosecuted quite ably by the Feds and the AG and c) is only touted by him so he can repeat his tired refrain “and that’s why I’m proud to say I have the sole endorsement of the Sierra Club”. Dang, Chadt- you’d think we lived in Three Mile Island or something by the way Bill trumpets his commitment to environmental scofflaws.
But I know reality is not really your issue
So, shall I infer that I should fear you if I’m antagonistic to your preferences? Is this a veiled threat? If so, fuck you, I’m not intimidated.
@ 51
You miss his point entirely. He’s not threatening you. He’s saying that you should fear Sherman as the elected prosecutor. Boy, you must have been picked on a lot as a kid to be so jumpy.
– 51
Agree. That is their tone, unless of course you are Jane and Dan tonight, “because that’s what we prosecutors do- we represent victims of crime.”
-51
Is DUI a “real crime?” -at least according to the law “we prosecutors” are charged with enforcing not ducking.
No chadt- it’s not a veiled threat, you asshole. It’s an attempt to point out to you that if you elect as your prosecting attorney a rookie who doesn’t know shit about what it means to be a prosecutor, far less what it means to run the office of the prosecutor- you should be worried. Trust me, my ignorant friend, if you come across my desk as a victim- I will spend every waking minute making sure you see justice. That’s what Norm did. That’s what Dan would do. And that’s what Bill doesn’t know a damn thing about.
Oh but wait, says Bill, you’re safe with me if someone steals your spokes, ’cause after all “I have the sole endorsement of the Cascade Bicycle Club”
Rule of Law-
Maybe I took a vacation for the past few months, but if I recall correctly: we charged Jane’s case as we would any other case referred to out office. Then when we later discovered she was actually Jane “Hague”- the council member- not Jane “Springman”- the name under which the case was charged, we did what any prosecutor with any experience would have done, which is to conflict out of the case. Now I know that would never have occured to Bill (because it takes a wee bit more that 2 years real-time in the office to discover that sort of nuance), but tell me what the problem is with that. I know this may be tough, Rule, because it requires you to actually know something- but give it a shot….
-55
Complete BS and untrue.
Who would believe that BS and fear mongering?
Come on of course, offenders will be charged with a crime and put through the process (most (95%) of which never go to trial. Voters care about judgment or lack thereof and Dan is not performing well in that regard tonight and is the point under this topic.
@43
Way to demonstrate your expertise and buy into a “sniff” test for conflicts of interest for attorneys. For sure, Satterberg’s judgment as a candidate is at issue here – but you’re being patently dishonest when you try and state (or imply, I’m still not sure what rule the sniff test relates to) that his case-related or campaign-related actions rise to the level of an ethics violation.
-54
What, exactly, is the KCPAO “ducking” here? There is a clear conflict with the prosecutor’s office handling a case of a county council member. Maybe you don’t know this, but the Council approves the KCPAO budget, which includes number of deputies, new programs, etc… Moreover, they pay for the KC judges, the courts, etc… Clear conflict. Not sure where you got your law degree, but you might want to take a few basic-law CLEs in the near future.
-56
Cool. So the question is simply why is your man stumping with her? Does he normally promote DUI offenders as good leaders? What is the exception we need to know about here or loophole (some elected drunks or all)? Will this be a new defense? I was drunk, but I’m an elected (for now) leader… because that’s what “we prosecutors do- we represent victim of crime” in the public eye. Nice work. I’ll vote for some more of that.
@ 57
So want to put Sherman in charge of the largest law firm in King County b/c Satterberg’s at a fundraiser with Hague? Have you actually heard any of these “debates” between Dan and Bill? Bill dodges tough questions. It’s like having a witness on the stand that talks and talks but never answers the question. Jurors hate that, and for good reason. It means that person cannot be trusted.
Did you know that when his campaign first started, he claimed to have tried a bazillion cases? People called him out on it, so he had to change his website.
Did you know that Bill tried to claim as his own original idea that we should lobby the state legislature to have stiffer punishment for repeat domestic violence abusers, when in fact he knew quite well that Dan, Norm, and Bill’s boss (the head of the office’s DV unit) had already been working their tails off to get that done?
Like I said, Bill is slimy. It’s now no longer just about his lack of experience, it’s about his lack of integrity.
I’m sorry, Rule- are you drunk? That word salad was entirely unresponsive to anything I raised. Have another drink. Write back when you’re sober. Oh- and maybe when you’ve done some actual research about our plea rates- something, again, about which I have little doubt Bill is as ignorant as you. “95% of which don’t go to trial”. Huh?? where the F did you get that number??
You embarass yourself. Here’s a little advice: when you are arguing with people who actually work in the KCPAO, don’t try to argue the facts, because you don’t know them. Do what Goldy, and Darryl, and Rabbit, and Outlaw do- argue bullshit like: “Dan is R, thus Dan is Evil. Bill is D, thus depsite the fact he is at least a decade away from being qualified to run an office of 260 lawyers and 330 support staff, he is God and therefore I will vote for him”
I know it takes longer to type, and is even more ridiculous than what your wrote, but it is for those very reasons a little tougher to dispute.
Goldy, Rule, FSMP (apparently in absentia), Chadt, Outlaw- whoever.
Here is a letter written by a criminal defense attorney to your girlfriends at the PI who endorsed your boy friend Billy- It can be found on-line at the PI (I know it’s long, and I know y’all have short little spans of attention shortened even more when the topic is the truth, but give it a read nonetheless):
[Link]
[Another author’s material deleted and replaced by link — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@62…TDOG, et al…
Time to take this public?
Outside interest is developing, people are taking notice that the crew on the ranch is concerned that a new foreman might run the damn thing into the ground by not properly tending to affairs…the more Sherman talks, the less people like him.
You can take this over the top.
The Piper
@ 60 – “Does he normally promote DUI offenders as good leaders?”
You are so blinded by this whole D vs R thing that you make the biggest unfounded leaps. When has Dan promoted Hague? He is a guest of honor at a dinner. So is she. To think that his presence equates to approval of her actions is ridiculous. You’re an idiot.
@63…TDOG…
Darryl, the censor, operating under cover of HA posting “rules.” of all things irksome to Darryl may dump your post since it’s an entire LTE. That you include a short ‘graph of commentary may save it. Would that it be the case.
But trying to persuade the gang at HA is like paying someone to teach a pig to dance…it’s a waste of good money and only serves to annoy the pig.
The Piper
@ 66 – Piper
Well, if they do delete TDOG’s post, fair-minded people can read it for themselves here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....trs23.html
Hey Pipes- we’ve concluded we simply can’t go public. But we’re feeling good nonetheless. We’ve received some good advice from unexpected sources…. and have shifted our approach from trying to introduce brain dead zombies on this blog to the truth, to chatting with folks less lobotomized. As one wise blogger once said- it’s not done until we let it be done.
This has been an educational experience though, and if I’m reminded of any lasting lesson, it’s that facts are a terrible thing to introduce to ill-informed opinions….
As an undecided voter looking for information (thanks Google, not a HA Blogger (well now I am) and voicing an opinion on the ethics of this matter and simply suggesting that the WSBA is the best resource for these matters, have decided not to vote for “God” as my understanding is he/she will not be holding this office. Thanks for providing the tone of the KCPAO and would prefer a more reasonable voice from the representatives “with [or without] the facts” as juries decide those things (the people) going forward. (-1) As for the rest of your personal attacks, you clearly have no facts.
way to go, DPA- show me up for the technological neophyte I truly am!
@69
What a pathetic, tail-between-the-legs revisionist description of yourself and your posts. In your post @3, you even quote the WSBA’s language regarding how serious an ethics charge is to make, and how seriously it’s taken: “If you believe that a lawyer has acted unethically, you may file a grievance with the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Filing a grievance is a very serious matter because you are charging a lawyer with unethical conduct.”
As for the rest of your post @69, I must quote our fellow poster @62 – “word salad.”
Rule- I’m sorry if you were offended by my (our) tone. I just re-read your posts and honestly do not see in them an interest in objectively looking for information. But if you really are objectively looking for information- I, and any of us who work in the office, would be happy to answer any questions you have- and I don’t say that to be patronizing, I say it because the reality is we know things about this office, what it does, and what it takes to run it that most posters on here don’t….
@69 Rule of Law
I have no idea what you just said. Is that code? Anyway, if you truly are an undecided voter, I suggest that you really listen to what the candidates say. Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.kuow.org/programs/t.....hive=10-22
Sherman is all fluff.
No code just citing @ 62, which appears generally harsh (not really good PR for the cause), Dan is not God, per the claim below and the staff really are not the best troops to appeal to voters.
“You embarass yourself. Here’s a little advice: when you are arguing with people who actually work in the KCPAO, don’t try to argue the facts, because you don’t know them. Do what Goldy, and Darryl, and Rabbit, and Outlaw do- argue bullshit like: “Dan is R, thus Dan is Evil. Bill is D, thus depsite the fact he is at least a decade away from being qualified to run an office of 260 lawyers and 330 support staff, he is God and therefore I will vote for him”
Rule of Law,
I must agree with TDOG that your posts did not paint you as the “objective information seeker” that you now claim to be.
Nevertheless, here is my two cents. Dan has declared as a REPUBLICAN. He has made that bed and needs to sleep in it. Now if you are one of those people that believes your vote for a Republican for any political position somehow means you are supporting GW and the war in Iraq (or as someone else put it recently… like being a jew voting for Hitler), then cast your vote along party lines.
Now, if you are one of those people that wants to vote for the candidate that will best serve the community you live in, I would suggest that there is really no choice when you look at their qualifications and the type of support they are getting from the community (i.e. broad bi-partisan support from the people who know what it takes to be the Prosecutor, vs. a bunch of party endorsements from politicians who don’t have the guts to ruffle the feathers of their rabid partisan base who keeps them in office).
Rule of Law @74
I think TDOG meant that Goldy et al believe BILL is “God” b/c he is a Dem and for no other reason. Whereas they believe Dan is “Evil”.
Wow, things have picked up in my absence. Rule of Law, if you’ve really had a sudden conversion where your interest in truth trumps blind partisanship, we prosecutors would be happy to explain why we’d rather have Dan leading us..
@74
Ahhh…I think you misunderstood. TDOG is saying that a lot of these HA bloggers are so blinded by party lines that they think SHERMAN is God b/c he has a D next to his name.
I’m sorry if you were turned off by the tone. As you can see, this is a topic very dear to many of us in the KCPAO. Most of us are democrats and we know both Bill and Dan. For those really in the know, Dan had the goods to run this office well and non-politically. Bill does not.
Doesn’t it say a lot about Norm and Dan that most of the office is comprised of D’s? The letter to the editor posted by TDOG is a good example of a democrat who is using his brain rather than just a label.
Rule- I meant it when I said I am sorry if my tone seemed harsh. I’m somewhat of a newbie here, and even as such don’t recognize you. So your introductory remarks suggested to me that you were like the other crazies on HA who have no interest in hearing from reasonable people who actually DO know more than them about a) the candidates, and b) the position for which they are running. And yes- I (and we) can get pretty amped up about that because we care about justice in this community to a degree that almost no one (except maybe our spouses and best friends) can possibly understand.
But I promise that if you are interested in getting some insight into things that may not be obvious to “outsiders”, any one of use will do our best to objectively answer your questions. Having done that, none of us would begrudge you your decision- it is only the idiots on here who blindly subscribe to the “Dan is R thus Dan is evil” thing above, who will continually warrant our vitriol….
@72…TDOG…
Never apologize to a set-up artist, it’s a sign of weakness…This Rule of Law dude has all the earmarks of a plant who comes with talking points and an agenda.
Ostensibly neutral in tone and overly concerned about precision in the rules, what you find is someone who is the spider to your fly.
Remember…this is politics, and a knee to the groin has to be expected.
Use your wit…Yours is whole, theirs is half…
The Piper
Please have your troop’s debate with decorum.
Is calling me “drunk” with no facts evil (a lie and sin)?
That is a hard to overcome.
Please have the true author post with the integrity required to ask for a vote.
@81
Dude, it’s over. TDOG apologized. Have you gone back and read your posts? It’s not like you weren’t pissy, as well.
OK, Rule- you lost your chance. You started this war (read your first posts) and now you’re crying because you’re getting your ass kicked. If you want information, ask us. If you want to cry- go to bed.
@81…RofL…
What an oxymornic name!
You want decorum? Go to a finishing school…At HA, I learned quick that posters may neither ask for quarter nor are they given any…it’s root hog or die.
These are HA rules…I didn’t make them…And it’s pointless to object to being called a name. Those who do so are regarded around here as sissy’s. NOTE: I didn’t call you a sissy, I said others will regard you as one.
Read posts on other threads, and see what I get called all the time. If you don’t like the rough stuff, then you’ll never survive the truly tough stuff. This is a jungle.
Now that I’ve enlightened you, let me say that you have the ring of phoniness about you. False humility, overly concerned about prissy details, a righteous indignity reminiscent of “I’m shocked, SHOCKED to learn that there’s gambling going on here.”
Give it a rest…
The Piper
@82…DPA…
No apologies for hurting someone’s feelings! Trust me, HA regulars won’t ever apologize for hurting yours.
You don’t apologize when a defendant is convicted, so why here when a humbug and his hubris are exposed and forced to back off?
To paraphrase a line form one of the Hornblower novels, “It’s the duty of a blog poster to shoot and be shot at.”
The Piper
@81
Re-read your post @69. You do seem drunk. It’s kind of funny.
@69…RofL…
All that’s missing from your post is, “It was a dark and stormy night.”
You practicing for a bad prose contest? If so, you’re well on your way to a blue ribbon effort! Congrats!
The Piper
I just re-read @69…
Rule of Law, what does “(-1)” mean?
Piper @ 7*/8*:
You sound just as pathetic as our friend Rule of Law coming in after those with knowledge lay some smack down and:
a) bringing up your issues with HA from other posts;
b) gloating when people who know something about these issues show up at HA and happen to be on your partisan side.
zzzzz, and the difference from your belated and grand entrance would be?…..
Dude: Only suggested Jane was drunk (as charged), and Dan hanging around that mess, was only tainting himself (run away) as a matter of common sense (throw her under the bus)and how that jumped to me is really out there, but normal and proved a point(won the point). Understanding what you are up to here, do not want to be apart of it. (-4 now and growing). All the best.
Recantation aside, offer’s still open, Rule- if you want to know something relevant to your decision on 11/6- I’ll talk to ya….
Hi TDOG, reference 12, 21, and then a bus ride, dinner, some work, and then 58 on. And I never claimed it was grand.
-88
Minus (-) one (1) vote for your cause.
well hell, zzzzz- ya gotta tell us when you’re leaving the string, hoppin’ on the bus and headin’ to work. Otherwise what else can we think but that you’re just layin’ back and waiting to cherry pick?
@91 – You’re like Kevin Neelan’s Mr. Subliminal with all of those confusing ()’s
…or drunk…
What part of my screen name here don’t you understand? I spend a lot of time trying to work the sleeper angle. And I’m not sure why I need to tell latecomers about “leaving the string.” Maybe you should spend some time reading the string in the first place…
Everyone’s so touchy here tonight. I think TDOG was actually making fun of himself…
DPA is drunk (without any facts just a post) to attack.
@99:
Touchy? Who’s touchy? Not me!
@89…ZZZZ…
You’re just as incomprehensible as RofL…
And I didn’t just cruise in…Ask TDOG…
The Piper
By now Zzzzz is drunk (just don’t drive).
I must be drunk to still be up blogging on this site at 12:50am. I’m going to bed.
Rule – I can’t believe that you don’t see how your post come across as nonsense.
-96
Write code so habit forming.
Geez, y’all- relax. I was kidding, ZZZZZ. This is a blissful opportunity to blog in the absence of the nonsensical vitriolic drivel of Darryl FSMP and the like, and if I was more comfortable with the emoticon, I’d have tossed in a smiley face here and there.
we ALL must be drunk. Let’s all go to bed (apart, DPA, apart)
PEACE- AND VOTE FOR DAN ‘CAUSE HE’S THE ONLY ONE REMOTELY QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB!! :-)
@106:
I apologize for my inability to convey and/or respond to humor in my posts. However, please note that humor was intended in posts 98 and 101. Thank you.
First of all, TDOG’s right about why the case was handed off: the civil division of the prosecutor’s office provides legal advice to the council. It would be a total conflict of interest for the council’s lawyer to prosecute a member of the council.
Second, although King County tried to have Redmond take over the case, the Redmond’s Prosecutor’s Office also had to conflict out because someone in the office had contributed to Hague’s campaign. Lynn Moberly, who contracts to do prosecution for several local cities, is actually handling the case.
Third, Richard Pope actually ran against Judge Frank Lasalata, not Judge Nault. Although you’re definitely right that Judge Nault is VERY friendly to the DUI defense bar.
I’m so tired of both Hague and Pope. Please, if you are in District 6, vote NONE as a write in vote. See http://noneforsix.blogspot.com/ for more information.