FYI, for those of you who think my coverage of Goldmark v. McKenna has been a bit one-sided, I have repeatedly attempted to communicate with the Attorney General’s office, but to no avail:
From: David GoldsteinDate: June 17, 2010 3:51:36 PM PDTTo: “Janelle (ATG) Guthrie” , “Dan Sytman (ATG)”Subject: Re: Questions RE: DNR caseJanelle & Dan,Not even a response to tell me that you’re not going to respond? Your office has talked to other journalists, why not me? Is it something I’ve said?DavidOn Jun 16, 2010, at 8:54 AM, David Goldstein wrote:Janelle,Having not heard back from you, I’m resending my questions while copying Dan, just in case you weren’t in the office.Since time is of the essence on this story, I would at least appreciate knowing if the ATG intends to promptly respond.Thanks,DavidBegin forwarded message:From: David GoldsteinDate: June 15, 2010 2:12:29 PM PDTTo: “Janelle (ATG) Guthrie”Subject: Questions RE: DNR caseHi Janelle,I was hoping the ATG might answer some questions regarding the recent controversy over its refusal to appeal the DNR case.1. Is there precedent in WA for a state agency or political subdivision successfully exercising eminent domain to to condemn Common School Trust lands?2. Are there other cases in which the ATG has declined a lawful request for legal representation from a state officer? Does the ATG take the position that Washington is a state in which the Attorney General can overrule requests of state agency clients?3. Isn’t it always the duty of an attorney to represent a client on appeal so long as the appeal is not frivolous?4. Does the ATG consider the DNR’s claims to be frivolous, and if so, why did the ATG pursue these claims in Superior Court?5. Since the appellate court reviews cases “de novo” as a matter of law, what difference does it make that the Superior Court ruled against DNR?6. Are other agencies nervous that an appeal could result in a ruling that no one can condemn Common School Trust lands?7. Has the AG or his staff discussed this case with representatives from the Okanogan PUD or the WA PUD Association? Whom? When?Thanks for your time. If some answers take longer than others, I’m happy to take them one at a time.David“Politics as unusual.”
Frankly, I find this snubbing as surprising as it is rude. ATG Communications Director Janelle Guthrie and her staff have always been very friendly and responsive — she even emailed me her condolences when she heard my KIRO show was canceled — but now, crickets. As for Dan Sytman, you’d think he’d show more empathy for one partisan hack from another, considering our shared history as budding talk radio hosts who had our respective dreams crushed by the suits at Bonneville.
Besides, with so little media left for the media relations folks to relate to, this just strikes me as bad strategy. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, and all that.
UPDATE:
By comparison, Goldmark Communications Director Aaron Toso not only replies to inquiries from apparently hostile parties, he even dives into their comment threads. I remember when Janelle used to do spontaneous stuff like that, but apparently the spark has gone out of our relationship.
Apparently you have not got the memo.
Former 1/2 term governor and failed Republican national candidate, Sarah Moosilini Palin, has demonstrated and is credited with discovering the strategy to not respond to the media when asked questions by journalists regarding crazy policy ideas of Republican office holders and office seekers.
Working well for Bobby Mac. He can blow all the smoke he wants about what “Constitution, state law and case law” mean, and the stenographers dutifully write it down.
Thanks Goldy!!
Maybe Janelle and Dan are keeping their mouths closed on the theory that a foot can’t get inside a closed mouth. Being press flacks, they probably read the news, so they’re likely aware that General Stanley McChrystal’s press flack just lost his job, and the general himself is about to become unemployed, thanks to intemperate remarks to the press.
Mike–
What a childish comment.
Seems like you folks must drag in Bush or Palin whenever things aren’t going your way.
KLOWNstein knows he needs to do a Public Records Request and she will have to respond.
Instead he plays around with a one way e-mail chain…proving that any idiot can write an e-mail. So what.
Do the Records Request David and report back.
Trust that Goldmark will also be deluged with records requests…especially if that is the path you desire.
Robbie’s having a bad day due to Goldy’s inquiries and postings. I would guess that surliness is the mood in his office today.
McKenna got hammered with lots of listener questions about the Goldmark/DNR situation and the health care lawsuit during his bit on KUOW this morning.
He seemed a bit annoyed and was acting like more of a prick than usual.
Cynical @ 3: “KLOWNstein knows he needs to do a Public Records Request and she will have to respond.”
Goldy knows that’s a failing strategy.
Months from now, after a judge has already ruled on Goldmark’s suit, the A.G. office will respond to a public records request with a few filing cabinets worth of irrelevent documents, and a statement that everything else is protected as “attorney-client work product”, and “not disclosible due to ongoing litigation”.
Goldy will then have to file suit to compel the withheld documents, and a Superior Court judge will, around 2013 or 2014, decide that Goldy is indeed entitled to about half of the requested documents, and order them disclosed.
McKenna will appeal and the order will be stayed pending appeal. The Court of Appeals will hear the case around 2014, and the Supreme Court around 2016. Then it will be remanded back to the trial court for additional findings, at which point the appeals process will begin again.
So about 15 or 20 years from now Goldy will get documents which will, or will not, have some relevence to a lawsuit and governmental powers dispute that was resolved one way or another a generation beforehand.
A much faster approach would be for Goldmark’s lawyers to ask for the same documents as part of their civil discovery proceedings in their lawsuit for a Writ of Mandamus. The trial court has broad discretion to order disclosure of documents to another party to a lawsuit prior to trial.
@2, Roger Rabbit said General Stanley McChrystal’s press flack just lost his job, and the general himself is about to become unemployed . . . .
How very far we ahve come. Back in granddad’s day the top Military brass, like General Bradley (my source), didn’t vote in Presidential elections because they didn’t want to be seen as trying to influence public policy for their benefit. Today we have McChrystal openly lobbying against the President (again). President Obama should treat him like Harry Truman treated MacArthur when he was insubordinate.
# 7: Gen. George C. Marshal (Army Chief of Staff during WWII) refused all of F.D.R.’s attempts to get friendly, insisting on calling him “Mr. President”, and that F.D.R. call him “General” or “General Marshal”. He even refused invitations to private luncheons and dinners.
It wasn’t that he disliked F.D.R., it’s just that as a professional military man, he felt that he needed to keep his relationship with his superior as strictly professional.
Goldy: Ran across this at Sullivan’s blog:
check out this job listing:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/.....93318.html
Why would they want to talk to someone who’s mission is to twist facts and do everything he can to make the AG look bad?
People tend not to have much patience, or respect, for party hacks.
Sorry, but I would tell you to piss off as well.
What facts have been twisted?
As far as looking bad, the AG is doing a good job doing that all by himself.
Maxie @ 11
With all your whining, I’ve got to believe that someone gave you yet another wedgie. Maxie, you really need to protect your backside better.
Regarding all the legal analysis you have been posting regarding McKenna vs. Goldmark, is this completely your (David Goldstein) work or are you getting help from a another party (or parties)?
I’ve posted the question on a couple of threads, and you’ve ignored them. I guess it’s called irony or somethin’.
14 – Does it matter? I think the point Goldy has been making for many months now is that cash-strapped and politically compromised local media isn’t doing their job.
So a cash-strapped blogger is doing their job for them.
He reports. You decide.
@15 So a cash-strapped blogger is doing their job for them.
He reports. You decide.
They have – that’s why he’s cash-strapped and reduced to begging for donations – no audience!
@16
He seems to have you for an audience.
YLB spews @15
Of course it matters. While I wouldn’t expect David Goldstein to be unbiased. I would expect him to not to be a plagiarist. Or to be expressing an opinion that was given to him by someone else. Especially if there was money or some non-monetary mutually beneficially arrangement involved. Otherwise, this blog is no different than the local media so vehemently criticized here for putting their own economic self interest first.
give em hell Goldy…..this is important shit that as ususal no other media wants to cover.
Well, he has an audience of trolls and conservatives like @ 18 that’s a bit concerned about what he’s writing.
Instead of countering his legal reasoning with some sound counter-arguments, they seek to undermine him or discredit him.
Speaks volumes.
Hmmmm.. Nope.. You’re attacking the messenger.
Let’s see you attack the message.
ConservativeFirst @14,
I write my own posts on topics of my own choosing. Isn’t that obvious?
That said, I did consult with a couple of attorneys, as any non-lawyer should do when writing legal analysis.
@22 That said, I did consult with a couple of attorneys, as any non-lawyer should do when writing legal analysis.
Would you care to divulge their names/firms?
23 – Oh this is too rich.
Care to offer any counter-arguments to Goldy’s position on the issue?
# 23: Does it matter?
@23
Hmmmm, Goldy, on the subject of communication, I’m also curious to know who you relied upon.
bruceN trolls @23:
I have it on good authority that Goldy has been talking to Hugh Louis Dewey of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe.
Goldy spews @22:
Actually that’s not obvious, at least lately. Based upon the frequency and volume, the Rossi bashing and the McKenna vs. Goldmark both smell of someone feeding you information.
I think you would have been better served consulting an attorney prior to your unfounded smear trying to link Rossi to bankrupt developer Michael Mastro.
I didn’t miss that you attempted to sidestep the issue of whether or not you were provided, by some other party, the information that you used to write your post. And, whether or not you were compensated, in some form, for doing so. Because, as we all know, communication is important.
@28
The question is, why would Goldy steadfastly refuse to reveal the law firms providing him legal counsel if, as he claims, he’s receiving such counsel? And why would the attorneys involved not want to be identified in a case that is, according to Goldy, so important? There aren’t a lot of firms that I know of that are willing to working quietly behind the scenes in cases that can help build a reputation.
Why the secrecy Goldy? Indeed, why the very SAME silence that you accuse Janelle of?
Hey Brenda,
Speaking of communication… Didn’t general McChrystal vote for Odumba in 2008? He is one with the cojones to tell the world he has become disillusioned with Odumba. You know the great “communicator”, who wasn’t prepared and poorly communicated for three months on Afghanistan. Very telling to Puddy. Then when McChrystal met with Odumba he still wasn’t prepared. So it looks like you are another libtardo devoid of facts.
29: “There aren’t a lot of firms that I know of that are willing to working quietly behind the scenes in cases that can help build a reputation.”
Then, you must not know of the ethical rules that guide attorney conduct. Working “behind the scenes” is what attorneys do all the time. The good ones, at least. Those that draw attention to themselves are those that push ethical boundaries. Sorry to say it, js, but you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Go get some more talking points from whomever it is that is feeding you.
@31
Absolute nonsense, counselor. Attorneys love to promote themselves, their accomplishments. They love the Best Lawyer accolades, the Super Lawyer and Rising Star honors, the appearances in Corporate Counsel editions, and those big, fat “10” rankings of Avvo.
There are NO ethical issues with these, and absolutely none with Goldy’s behind-the-scene counselors revealing themselves. What tripe.
And speaking of tripe, counselor, point us to your Avvo profile. Didn’t you once claim your clients loved you? Let’s check that claim out, speaking of RPC issues.
You do offer an Avvo profile for client review, don’t you counselor? You DO know what this is, don’t you?
Show us.
Meanwhile, time for some revelations of your own, Goldy.
js @29,
Who said I consulted with “law firms?” I know some lawyers. I’m sure you do to.
FYI, long term readers will be well familiar with my history of providing lengthy, cogent and ultimately dead-on legal analysis, dating back to 2005 and the copious reporting I did on the gubernatorial election contest… thanks in part to the aid of the pseudonymous “Lawyer X.”
Funny to see the neanderthals go after Goldy’s legal sources. Trying to create a counter-controversy to distract attention . . . and perhaps even intimate those attorneys as well.
How thuggish. If that’s the best the neanderthals can say then they know Goldy’s analysis is spot on. McKenna’s in trouble.
Mrs. Cynical @34,
What’s really funny here is the attempt to disparage my motives, when my motives are obvious: I’m trying to trash Rob McKenna. No secret there.
Also no secret is that I’m a proudly liberal, partisan blogger, and a fierce Goldmark supporter who played a significant role in helping him win office by taking down his predecessor with a sexual harassment scandal that the rest of the media refused to cover before I blew it wide open.
I guess I could reveal my legal sources — there’s no particular reason not to, and nobody told me to keep them off the record — but since it seems to irritate the trolls so much, I think I’ll just remain mum.
I’m not disparaging your motives, but instead the means by which you are attempting to achieve your goals. So I’ll keep asking.
Were you provided, by some other party, the information that you used to write your posts regarding Rossi and McKenna vs. Goldmark? If so, were you were compensated, in some form, for doing so?
funny..
goldy proudly proclaims that he is a partisan propagandist(read: party hack twister of facts/outright liar)….then he constantly complains that he is never taken seriously as a journalist or member of the “media”.
connect the dots goldy.
Conservative @36,
Of course I’m provided with information by other parties; that’s how journalism works. In fact, what I’m complaining about in this post is that the AG’s office won’t provide me with information.
And no, nobody has ever even offered to pay me to cover a specific story.
Uh oh @37,
Facts are facts, and I trust my readers are smart enough to judge them and my analysis within the context of my admited bias.
At least I’m honest about my bias instead of pretending to be “fair and balanced” like most of the rest of the media.
Oh… and one last comment to the trolls on this subject before I abandon this thread: fuck you.
I’ve got a damn fine legal mind for a non-lawyer, and my legal posts are some of those of which I’m most proud. In fact, I’m not sure there’s a journalist in this state who has provided better legal coverage than I have over the years.
I’m just plain good at this stuff, so deal with it rather than trying imply that my excellent legal analysis was fed to me by some third party source.
. rhp6033 spews:
Stefan Sharkansky had the balls & fortitude to do it. Goldy is lazy and tries to get answers by bullying, being mean-spirited etc.
The proper path is to at least start the Public Records Request process.
It might take him an hour.
@38 In fact, what I’m complaining about in this post is that the AG’s office won’t provide me with information.
Which seems quite ironic since you refuse to provide the names of the legal counsel you sought you, spinning this refusal as sticking it to the trolls. Why shouldn’t readers have this information? They may be hacks within the AG office with an axe to grind for all we know. Who are these people, what are THEIR motives, and what is YOUR connection to them?
My guess is they would be deathly afraid to have their identities revealed despite your spin above. That speaks volumes.
Let’s get a little information out of you, eh?
29. js spews:
Good point. Are these law firms charging you their customary $400/hr. for the advice Goldy? Or is it a gift to you?
At what point does Goldy have to register as a PAC??
If required, then Goldy would have to disclose all contributions (including Free Legal Advice)
43 – It’s pretty funny how ugly you get when Goldy takes your favorite politicians to task for their fuck-ups..
Ok trolls. Goldy’s on the record.. No money. He can reveal his help in this matter but why?
Why not offer counter arguments instead?
Because you’re just a bunch of miserable SOB’s who can’t stand to see your standard bearer of 2012 being soiled by his own incompetence.
@39
Goldy, there is a difference between “bias” and being an outright propagandist.
@40
LMFAO
someone’s getting frustrated.
Goldy,
Don’t yield one millimeter to these miserable taunting partisan bastards.
They have NOTHING but resentment that someone would hold McKenna accountable for his incompetence in the least case and corruption in the very worst case.