HorsesAss.Org

Well, at least Mike?™ McGavick is finally making an effort to talk about an issue:

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Mike McGavick has proposed mandatory substance-abuse screening for welfare recipients with children.

In a speech to the Pasco-Kennewick Rotary on Wednesday, the former Senate aide and Safeco Insurance CEO proposed a “three-strike” requirement that could lead to mandatory drug-abuse testing and treatment, reduction of direct cash benefits and, in some cases, removal of children from the home.

Yeah… because… most people who have gone through the foster care system would tell you that they’d much rather do that than be with their parents and siblings.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for providing more treatment to parents with substance abuse problems, and I certainly recognize that there are times when removing the children from the home is in their best interest. But this “three strikes” crap is exactly the kind of pandering, simplistic campaign rhetoric that gets turned into pandering, simplistic law.

Washington state’s own assistance programs already include substance abuse screening, and uncooperative clients can be removed from the rolls. And of course Child Protective Services can already remove children from the home if the caseworker believes substance abuse is endangering their welfare.

Leaving aside the obvious irony of Mike?™ calling for a crackdown on substance abuse, I guess my biggest question for the candidate would be whether he has a dollar figure attached to his proposal, and how he expects to pay for it?

UPDATE:
The Seattle P-I editorial board chimes in:

He talks about help for states that would implement his ideas. That’s fine, except that states are overwhelmed with foster care challenges without mandating that more children be taken from their homes. Then there’s the shortfall in mental health care and treatment for all forms of abuse (including alcohol, which he overlooks). We’d like to see McGavick confront those politicians who slight these needs.

(The emphasis is mine.)

Yesterday I mentioned that I’ll be joining a panel discussion with Janeane Garofalo and fellow bloggers Atrios and Matt Stoller, at Town Hall on Oct. 7. Well, I’ll also be appearing at Town Hall next week, emceeing the Seattle Follies:

Seattle Follies: The Jeopardy Edition
Thursday, September 21 , 7:30 PM

Seattle Follies opens its fourth season with special guest Ken Jennings, the record holder of the longest winning streak on the TV quiz show Jeopardy. He faces off against Nicole Brodeur, columnist for the Seattle Times; Steve Scher, host of KUOW’s Weekday; and The Stranger’s associate editor and Police Beat columnist Charles Mudede. Channeling Alex Trebek is David Goldstein, KIRO radio host and the Seattle Weekly Readers’ Pick Best Political Blogger. Fifth Avenue Theatre stars Billie Wildrick and Candice Donehoo, with David Armstrong, producing artistic director, provide musical entertainment, accompanied by Seattle’s favorite cabaret performer and composer Rich Gray. Beer, wine, and copies of Brainiac, Jennings’ personal tour through the seamy underside of television trivia, will be available for purchase. Presented with University Book Store. Downstairs at Town Hall, enter on Seneca Street.

Tickets are $10-$12 through Brown Paper Tickets, or $13-$15 at the door. Please take pity on me and pack the house. It’ll be fun. I hope.

And while we’re on the subject of Town Hall, don’t forget that Jim Hightower will be there tonight at 7PM, speaking about just and sustainable economic development. Amongst many other things, Hightower is a pioneer in liberal talk radio, and a bit of a personal hero of mine… so I’m really pissed that I can’t make it.

Majority Action just bought a week of cable in the Seattle market. There’s blood in the water.

To Vicki Rippie – Executive Director
Phil Stutzman – Director of Compliance
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission

Sept. 14, 2006

Dear Ms. Rippie,

I am writing to request that you add my name to the complaint filed on Sept. 13, 2006 by Steve Zemke of Majority Rules, alleging that Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse is hiding the source of its funding in violation of PDC rules and Washington state statute.

Now that record amounts are being spent on judicial races — an astounding $1.7 million on behalf of challenger John Groen, weeks before the primary — it is more important than ever that voters be promptly and accurately informed of which special interests and individuals are providing the money. Anything less would make your Commission’s mandate virtually meaningless.

Thank you for your time,

David Goldstein

I sent this email this morning, and I encourage you all to copy my letter, modify it as you wish, and email it to Ms. Rippie.

That said, I’m rather discouraged that we can do anything to block far right-wing interests from completely taking over our courts over the next few years. We simply don’t have the financial resources to compete with moneyed interests who have so much to gain by buying Supreme Court justices. And pretty soon these right wing justices will have a firm enough majority to block any legislative reform that might limit the cash flow.

Once they have the Supreme Court, they will start focusing their efforts on Superior Court races. You think I’m being paranoid? Well, this is exactly what has already happened in a number of states around the nation, where the US Chamber of Commerce alone has spent $250 million on local races.

The Alexander-Groen race is the most important contest in Tuesday’s election; since there are only two candidates, there will be no general. I know I should have more faith in voters, but I simply can’t see how Alexander can survive the overwhelming tide of negative ads that have painted this Dan Evans Republican as a radical, senile baby killer.

And I find it ironic that there are those in the media who continue to express outrage at what they see as irresponsible muckraking on the part of bloggers like me, yet shrug off $1.3 million $1.7 million of vicious lies by powerful and wealthy business groups as nothing more than politics as usual. Fuck that.

UPDATE:
A combined $1.7 million has now been spent on behalf of Groen. I’ve updated this post accordingly.

Token-Republican Jim Nobles showed up at Drinking Liberally last night, as promised, breathalyzer in hand. Now all we needed was a victim test subject to conduct our scientific experiment to see exactly how many drinks it takes to score a .17 blood-alcohol level — what the Urban Dictionary will one day define as “Mike McGavick Drunk.”

Sandeep’s years at The Stranger certainly left him well trained for the event, but he was too sleight of frame to approximate a 35-year-old McGavick, whereas as Nigel, at 240 pounds, was definitely too big. As for me, I’m too much of a pussy; I don’t think I could get through a six pack with throwing up.

Then in walked a newbie, Patrick: about 30-years-old, 185 pounds, and brashly proud of his Irish heritage (“I could drink McGavick under the table,” he bragged when I challenged him to donate his liver to science.) Best of all, he arrived with his own designated driver, his wife Tara. We’d found our man.

Patrick raised his first Mac & Jack’s at 8:25, and determinedly worked his way through four pints over the next hour with nothing but a hummus plate and some roasted garlic to buffer the alcohol. “I’m definitely drunk… I shouldn’t be driving” he told us at 9:25, before he courageously knocked back another pint.

At 9:35, five beers and an hour and ten minutes into the experiment, Patrick blew a 0.125, well past the legal limit of 0.08, but far short of McGavick’s state title.

At this point, I should take a moment to talk about what constitutes “a beer” or “a drink.” In my earlier posts on McGavick’s DUI I pointed out that all the online blood-alcohol calculators and charts suggest that it would take 8 to 9 drinks over the course of any hour for a 200 pound man to reach a 0.17, but of course, different beers have different alcohol content. For example, a Pyramid Snowcap might pack a 7.0% alcohol wallop, while it may surprise you to learn that at 4.0% Guinness has one of the lowest alcohol contents of any beer.

McGavick claims to have been drinking beer that fateful night, and we can be pretty damn sure that back in circa 1993 DC, he wasn’t drinking hopped up microbrews. Corona and Rolling Rock were pretty hip with the East Coast in crowd back then, both of which come in at 4.5% alcohol, while imports like Becks, Heineken and St. Pauli Girl top out at about 5.0% (as do standards like Coors, Budweiser and Miller.) So for the sake of comparison, let’s just assume that McGavick was drinking a 5.0% beer.

Patrick on the other hand was drinking a heftier, 5.5% alcohol Mac & Jack’s… at least he was until 9:48 when half-way through a sixth pint he switched to whiskey because he was getting too full.

10:05, halfway through a generous double Jack & Coke, Tara notes that her hubby of four months was “gettin’ loud,” and at 10:12, 1 hour and 37 minutes, and 7.5 drinks into the evening, Patrick blew a disappointing 0.14.

Patrick was clearly having trouble keeping up with his liver’s alcohol-processing capacity. Squinty-eyed, he started to question the test results

“I’m drunk… I’m so drunk you don’t even know,” Patrick slurred. “If I got in your car right now, I’d hit the car in front and behind me. FURTHERMORE, we need to look at how far he drove, because I couldn’t even make it a block.”

But drunk as he clearly was, he still wasn’t Mike McGavick Drunk, because he still had the common sense to know that he shouldn’t drive.

Still, nothing gets an Irishman’s Irish up like a challenge unmet and a drink undrunk, and so Patrick soldiered through yet another Jack & Coke. Finally, at 10:55, two hours, 30 minutes, and 8.5 drinks into our experiment, Patrick blew a .216.

Considering that McGavick blew his .17 nearly 90 minutes after being pulled over, we considered Patrick’s goal to have been met. Plus, we started to feel sorry for him, so we called the experiment a success.

Adjusting for alcohol content, I’d say Patrick’s 5 and a half nearly-topped-off pints of Mac & Jack’s was approximately equivalent to about 7 12-ounce bottles of Heineken, giving Patrick a McGavick-adjusted total of 10 drinks over 2 and a half hours. But what makes McGavick’s accomplishment all the more impressive is that he maintained his BAC over several hours, and still managed to blow a .17 at least an hour and half after he stopped drinking.

But however you want to compare the two’s alcohol consumption, there is one thing our little experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: .17 is stinking drunk… well beyond the level of intoxication that even a drunk man would consider to be within the safe driving range. McGavick had been quoted as saying that he knew he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel the minute he was pulled over. But I’m pretty sure he knew he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel the minute he got behind it.

As for me, after my usual three Manny’s (5.5%) over a typical two and a half hour evening, I blew a .039%, less than half the legal limit. So there.

Foolproof Performing Arts is bringing actress, comedienne and liberal radio talker Janeane Garofalo to Seattle’s Town Hall to headline a panel discussion:

Janeane Garofalo and friends* discuss Politics and the Press:
Fair and Balanced or Lazy and Cowed?

October 7, 2006 — 8:00 PM
Tickets: $25.00 to $75.00

Janeane’s “friends” include bloggers Atrios, Matt Stoller and, um… me.

Well, actually, I’ve never met Janeane, but I wouldn’t mind counting her as a friend. I’ve always had a thing for funny women.

Anyway, I’m not sure I really belong on a panel like this, but I guess I’m there to give the local angle. The discussion will be moderated by Mother Jones Radio host Angie Coiro, and I expect it not only to be a fascinating evening, but damn entertaining.

This is a special fundraising benefit event for Foolproof, and I expect it to sell out, so buy your tickets soon. And oh yeah… most of the cost of your ticket is tax deductible.

The results are final, and of the 266,034 signatures Tim Eyman submitted for I-917, the Secretary of State’s office rejected 46,859, leaving Tim 5,705 signatures shy of the 224,880 signature threshold. That’s a rejection rate of 17.6 percent… a pretty typical number.

As the Seattle Times’ David Postman reports, Sec. of State Sam Reed will have to ask the Legislature for a supplemental appropriation to cover the $125,000 cost of I-917’s month-long signature verification process. There has been some discussion in Postman’s comment thread about how we might raise the revenues to pay for Tim’s folly. My suggestion is an excise tax on the sale of fraternity watches.

Although I have a reputation as one of the state’s most vocal Eyman-bashers, I’ve actually been rather unenthused about covering Timmy’s latest debacle, leaving the task to other, equally-abled bloggers. There was a time when I thought the steady weight of bad (ie. accurate) press could crush Eyman’s operations by drying up his fundraising, and as Emmett posts over at Olympia Time, the number of contributions to Timmy’s campaigns have indeed plummeted from over 5,000 with 2001’s I-747, to around 700 for I-917. But just last year Tim picked up a sugar daddy in the form of multi-millionaire investment banker Michael Dunmire, and as long as he has one really rich guy willing to personal bankroll Tim’s initiatives (and rather comfortable lifestyle,) there’s really no way to keep him off the ballot. That is, unless Tim fucks up.

Which leads me to a post over at NPI, in which Andrew speculates on exactly how Tim managed to fuck up I-917. The most plausible explanation, Andrew thinks, is that Tim, well… fucked up. He thinks Tim simply miscounted, and by the time he discovered his mistake it was too late.

I think another plausible explanation is that Tim had a track record of $30 Car Tab initiatives to go on, and he simply stopped paying for signatures in early June because he assumed a certain quantity of volunteer signatures would pour in by the end of the month, like they had in the past. But believing his own press releases, Tim didn’t count on the degree to which his grass roots support had collapsed over the intervening years (as evidenced by the collapse of his grassroots fundraising,) and the expected signatures simply never materialized.

Of course, we’ll never know the truth because, at the risk of restating the obvious, Tim Eyman is liar — a simple fact of life reinforced when Andrew once again catches Timmy in yet another lie.

Tim stubbornly sticks by his claim that he really turned in over 300,000 signatures, and in a recent email to supporters he attempts to back this up by producing a week by week log of signatures gathered. For example, his weekly report shows that way back on June 6th of 2006, Tim had already collected 200,694 paid signatures, and 63,032 from volunteers.

Problem is, as Andrew astutely observes, Eyman gave a press conference back on June 6th in which he told a rather pissed off throng of reporters that he had successfully gathered exactly 142,613 signatures at that point in time.

As far as “Save Our $30 Tabs” Initiative 917 is concerned, in the past 4 months, our thousands of supporters have successfully gathered 142,613 signatures. We need an additional 140,000 signatures in the next 4 weeks. Reaching the halfway point in signatures is a huge milestone but it’s clear that we’ve got our work cut out for us. We need one last big blitz of signatures from our supporters before July 7th to qualify for the ballot.

He was either lying then, or lying now, or as I’m guessing, lying both times. But any way you look at it, Tim’s a liar.

Not that this is news or anything. But is does make you wonder why a supposedly respectable businessman like Michael Dunmire would continue his business relationship with Tim when he has so clearly proven to be both incompetent and dishonest?

Admittedly, I’ve been a little tough on Mike?™ McGavick recently, so as a gesture of good will (kinda a bipartisan PSA,) I thought I’d pass along this message that recently went out to Eastside Republicans:

Mike McGavick will be taping a TV commercial today, Tuesday, September 12, at 2:00 p.m. at the Downtown Bellevue Park just south of Bellevue Square. They’re looking for a big crowd of people to be “extras” in the commercial. If you have time that afternoon and can come on down for the taping, I’m sure it will be fun! We’re asked to wear “nice” clothes, preferably not T-shirts and jeans. Hope to see you there!

So if you happen to be in the area, stop on by — it’ll be fun! But remember, no T-shirts. And especially, no T-shirts that say things like “Maria Cantwell for Senate” or “Bush Lied,” because that would just be inappropriate. I also wouldn’t wear a T-shirt advertising Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or WSDOT’s “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” campaign. Hats and T-shirts advertising beer or liquor products also probably wouldn’t be a good idea… though I’m told Mike?™ has a fondness for Guinness (who doesn’t?) so maybe he’ll make an exception for that?

And whatever you do, don’t show up and set off air-horns every time the cameras start rolling, like those bastards gleefully did some years back at a Hillary Clinton rally, drowning out the speech so that none of us in the back could hear a word she was saying. That would be just plain rude.

I’m just saying.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Our intrepid leader Nick sent out an email implying that we’ll have a breathalyzer at tonight’s event, so perhaps we’ll finally have our first annual Mike McGavick Drink Off to see exactly what it takes to get to a 0.17 blood-alcohol level. Once again I’m offering a free copy of Sen. Byron Dorgan’s new book, Take This Job and Ship It to the first person to show up with a functioning breathalyzer, and a free ride home to our victim.

And FYI, we may not be recording a Podcasting Liberally this week as our producers Richard and Gavin are both out of town, and Richard’s ETA is rather tentative. So if you’ve got some good recording gear and would like the honor of being Producer for A Day, come on down.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, and here’s a full run down of WA’s ten Drinking Liberally chapters:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	September 27
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	September 14
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	September 13
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	September 18
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	September 12
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	September 13
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	September 13
Tri-Cities:	Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	September 12
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	September 12
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	October 6

“I put this out there because I did think it was a part of my past that shaped who I am, that the public should know.”
— Mike McGavick on KING5 News Up Front with Robert Mak

If you haven’t already seen Robert Mak’s interview with Mike?™ McGavick on KING-5 News Up Front, you’ve gotta watch it. More than two weeks after Mike?™ made a public show of confessing his private sins, the controversy refuses to die.

At times he seemed to be taken aback by Mak’s blunt questions, and I’m guessing Mike?™ probably wishes he could take back a few of his answers. In this latest interview the Republican US Senate wannabe continues to contradict both himself and reality, while confirming my basic analysis of the rhetorical focus of his campaign. No wonder reporters have grown unwilling to accept his words at face value.

Take for example Mike?™’s dismissal of a charge that he lied about winning a state track title, an allegation I first raised, and one that he laughs off as “absurd.” Mike?™ is shown telling an audience that this is the type of tabloid journalism that is poisoning modern politics.

“A member of the press had been convinced that I hadn’t actually won a track meet that had been discussed in an article, and they were going to run it as a lie unless I proved that I’d won that track meet. Aren’t you glad I spent the weekend trying to find that news clipping about that track meet. But this is what politics has been reduced to.”

Umm… but I never disputed the fact that he won a track meet. In fact, I specifically cited a contemporary who says he did win a race, albeit a “dinky little indoor meet” with no school affiliation or state title attached. The question is whether Mike?™ won a “state track title” as he apparently told the Seattle Times:

McGavick pumped gas to help pay for Seattle Prep. He won a state track title his senior year and argued he should take the summer off to train for nationals

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

If you have sent me email over the past 24-hours or so, and you are awaiting a response… don’t hold your breath.

As the result of a really stupendous spam attack (at its peak I was receiving hundreds, if not thousands of emails a minute) my mail server has been down for almost a day. I do not know if this attack was commercially or politically motivated, but either way it is an attack on my Constitutional right to free speech, and either way I just want to tell the perpetrators: FUCK YOU!

This is a cowardly, selfish and rude way of doing business, whatever your business may be. I would have added the descriptor “unAmerican,” but too often these days, this is how I see my fellow Americans treating their fellow man.

Happy Birthday Mom. And Bob.

(I guess, life goes on.)

The Seahawks (and the Eagles) won, and I’m not preempted… so what better way to celebrate Sunday night than to pop open a cold beer and tune in to “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, tonight from 7PM to 10PM.

The lineup could change in response to breaking news, but here’s what I think I’ll be talking about tonight:

7PM: We’ve already got two Johnsons and a Dick on the state Supreme Court, two of which clearly dress right, but that’s not enough for the BIAW, who keeps slapping their members on the bench, this time pulling a Groen and whipping out yet another Johnson in their drive to take control of the court. Joining me to discuss the enormous sums of money the right wing is spending on our formerly low profile judicial races is Jenny Durkan, one of our state’s most prominent attorneys, and a co-chair of Citizens to Uphold the Constitution.

8PM: Curious about tonight’s broadcast of Path to 9/11, but can’t bear to bring yourself to watch ABC’s propagandistic, lying piece of crap? Well, turn off the TV and tune in 710-AM, because Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis is on East Coast time watching it for you. After he’s done, he’s gonna call in to critique the movie and discuss the controversy surrounding it.

9PM: Jim Hightower, one of the pioneers of progressive radio will not be on the show tonight. But he will be at Seattle’s Town Hall on Thursday, September 14, headlining a conference on energy, agriculture and sustainability. I’ll be talking with some of the conference organizers in the first couple segments, then a representative from the No on I-933 campaign will join me to talk about how that dangerous initiative could kill Washington’s efforts at sustainable growth.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

The other day the King County Bar Association clarified its “not qualified” rating for judicial hopeful, perennial candidate and HA regular Richard Pope. Some have suggested that the KCBA has some sort of bias against right-wing candidates, but association President John Ruhl insists that they took this unusual step because Richard is, well… unusual unqualified.

The basis for Richard’s extremely low rating (you can’t get any lower without losing your license) is “unprofessional conduct” in four court cases where Richard was sanctioned and/or fined for missing filing dates, frivolous motions and other court delays. So as a public service, I thought I’d publish a few of Richard’s Greatest Hits Misses, culled from the court records, so that you’d all get a feel for what Richard does for a living when he’s not commenting in the threads here or on (un)Sound Politics. (Names and addresses have been excised, and the emphasis is always mine.)

In this first case, Richard is appealing an anti-harassment order the ex-wife of a client had obtained against Richard. The Court refused to hear the appeal as moot because, um… the order had since expired.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
Janet M., Respondent, v. Richard L. POPE, Jr., Appellant.
Nos. 36277-1-I, 39470-3-I.

March 31, 1997.

*1 Richard Pope appeals from the district court’s renewal of the anti-harassment order issued to Janet M. He argues that the district court applied the wrong standard for renewal and that it did not have jurisdiction to renew the order. [FN1] We decline to reach the merits of Mr. Pope’s issues and dismiss his appeal as moot because the order has expired and we can provide no relief. In addition, although we recognize that the order may be renewed again, we do not believe that the appeals raise any issues of substantial public interest which require review even though they are moot.

That must have been quite a divorce, and from the looks of it Richard’s client got the worst of it. Could it have been due to bad representation? These next two are from the underlying divorce case, in which Richard was representing the husband.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
In re: Janet M, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. John H., Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
No. 37870-8-I.

Sept. 2, 1997.

Counsel for Appellant(s) Richard L. Pope Jr.,

…

We note that John H failed to pay for some of the clerk’s papers he designated in time for their transmission to this court prior to oral argument. Indeed, payment was forthcoming only after repeated notifications from this court. As a result, the papers were not filed in this court until after oral argument, thus preventing our review of some of the issues raised in preparation for oral argument. The unacceptable delay in perfecting the record is an egregious violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and is entirely attributable to John H and/or his counsel. See RAP 9.7. To consider these late papers would be to ignore the legitimate purposes of the rule and to reward dilatory conduct. Accordingly, we will not consider the late-filed papers and will resolve issues requiring reference to these papers against John H.

…

We grant Janet M’s motion for sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9(a) based upon the conduct of John H’s counsel during the pendency of this appeal. As discussed, this court’s review of some of the issues raised in this appeal prior to oral argument was precluded due to counsel’s failure to pay for a part of the clerk’s papers he designated almost 12 months earlier. After several inquiries from this court, and dunning letters from the superior court clerk, counsel finally paid for the papers and they were filed with this court two days after oral argument. As a result, we were unable to review issues raised in the briefs. Because we resolve those issues against John H, we do not impose any additional sanction for that violation.

*7 Many other violations occurred, however. At each step of the appellate process, John H failed to comply with the time limits of the rules, resulting in significant delay. He failed to timely file the statement of arrangements, the report of proceedings, his opening brief, and his reply brief. Despite frequent notices from the court, numerous motions by Janet M and at least three hearings, John H almost never complied with any deadline set by the court unless notified that failure to do so would result in automatic dismissal without further notice. For example, upon John H’s request, he was granted an extension until March 17, 1997 to file his reply/cross-respondent’s brief. The commissioner’s ruling specifically stated that no further extensions would be granted, and reserved for the panel Janet M’s motion for sanctions. In complete disregard of this order, John H did not file his brief until April 24, 1997. Another commissioner imposed modest sanctions (totaling $500) for the late filing of the reply brief. Additional sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 are warranted here.

…

We impose sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 in the amount of $1,500 against John H and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Janet M.

Man… this case didn’t go very well for Richard and his client. So of course, Richard appeals. That’s when the judge really lays into him.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
IN RE THE MARRIAGE of: Janet M, Appellant, and John H, Respondent.
No. 42755-5-I.

Aug. 16, 1999.

Richard L. Pope Jr., Seattle, WA, for Respondent(s).

…

This is the third appeal in a case between former spouses Janet M and John H regarding child support modification. Each appeal has been marked by delays, endless motions, and failure to comply with court rulings. John H and his attorney Richard Pope failed for some 20 months to pay sanctions awarded jointly and severally against them in the first appeal. [FN1] Due to this failure, John H’s separate appeal from the decision on remand and his cross appeal in this matter were dismissed.

FN1. After oral argument on this case, attorney Richard Pope was ordered to appear before this court on April 6, 1999 to show cause why he should not be precluded from further participation in any appeal or proceeding before Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals for failure to pay sanctions imposed in this case and another. At that appearance, Pope provided proof that the above sanctions had been fully paid by that date and on April 23, 1999 this court ordered that no further action is required as to the sanctions.

…

Even if Janet M. received appropriate notice of the claim and failed to object or follow through in the bankruptcy court, as is claimed by John H, his attorney Richard Pope remained liable for the sanctions. The order of this court was for a judgment against John H and Pope, jointly and severally. A discharge of John H in bankruptcy does not serve to release Pope from the obligation.

We impose additional sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 in the amount of $1,500 against John H and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Janet M., for their flagrant disregard of this court’s previous order to pay sanctions. This amount shall be reduced to judgment by the superior court immediately upon mandate of this opinion, with interest to accrue at the statutory amount. Failure to pay the amount within 30 days thereafter may result in additional sanctions.

At this point some of you might argue that continuing to cite Richard’s court record would be frivolous. But since Richard has been sanctioned himself for making frivolous claims, it only seems fair.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
Richard K and Nancy K, Appellants, v. Tip R; Lora R; Michael N; and Kameron C., Respondents.
and Richard L. Pope, Jr., Appellant.
Nos. 42001-1-I, 42245-6-I.

Aug. 16, 1999.

We affirm the court’s award of sanctions against Richard Pope as it relates to two of the K’s three claims but remand for redetermination the amount of the award in light of this opinion.

Apparently, Richard has learned from the best. In this case, the trial judge was Jeanette Burrage. Yikes. She awarded sanctions and the court of appeals added to them for a frivolous appeal.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
AUBURN CHEVROLET, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. Scot K and ‘Jane Doe’ K, Appellant.
No. 46924-0-I.

Nov. 5, 2001.

Appeal from Superior Court of King County, Docket No. 99-2-15604-8, judgment or order under review, date filed 06/09/2000; Jeanette Burrage, Judge.

Richard L. Pope Jr., Seattle, WA, for appellant(s).

Auburn Chevrolet obtained a money judgment against ‘Scot Kuchta Columbia Landscape’ for payment on a contract. That judgment was not appealed. The trial court entered an order confirming a sheriff’s sale of equipment owned by Columbia Landscape Services, LLC (Columbia) to satisfy that judgment. Columbia appeals, arguing that its assets were improperly seized and it was not liable on the judgment because it was not properly named. Orders shortening time and sanctions imposed by the trial court are also challenged. Finding no error, we affirm and award attorney fees to Auburn Chevrolet for defending a frivolous appeal.

…

Although the trial court denied that motion, it entered findings explaining that it imposed sanctions because Columbia engaged in ‘inappropriate and improper conduct’ and acted in bad faith.

…

Columbia appeals the trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions against Auburn Chevrolet, its imposition of $3,200 in sanctions against Columbia, and its denial of Columbia’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court explained that it imposed sanctions against Columbia because it engaged in ‘inappropriate and improper conduct’ and acted in bad faith throughout the litigation process.

…

Auburn Chevrolet requests an award of attorney fees for defending against a frivolous appeal. ‘The appellate court on its own initiative or on motion of a party may order a party … who … files a frivolous appeal … to pay terms or compensatory damages to any other party who has been harmed{.}’ RAP 18.9(a). ‘An appeal is frivolous if, considering the entire record, it has so little merit that there is no reasonable possibility of reversal and reasonable minds could not differ about the issues raised.’ Johnson v. Mermis, 91 Wn.App. 127, 137, 955 P.2d 826 (1998) (footnote omitted).

*5 In this case, the trial court properly permitted Auburn Chevrolet to satisfy an unappealed judgment. In this appeal, Columbia continues its attempt to avoid enforcement of that judgment by arguing that it was not a party to it. This argument is without merit. Indeed, Columbia presented no valid basis to challenge the order confirming the sheriff’s sale of its equipment. Columbia also did not establish prejudice from the trial court’s orders shortening time. Further, there is no indication that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Columbia’s motion for sanctions or by imposing sanctions on Columbia. Because Columbia’s arguments have so little merit that there is no reasonable possibility of reversal, this appeal is frivolous. We therefore award attorney fees to Auburn Chevrolet and refer this matter to a commissioner of this court to determine the proper amount of fees following Auburn Chevrolet’s compliance with RAP 18.1. Affirmed.

Well, with a stellar track record like that, no wonder Richard has recently attracted such high profile clients as the Popular Assembly of Sovereign Kazens. Way to go Richard.

To be honest, I feel a little bad posting Richard’s court records like this. I kinda like Richard. Sorta. Sure, he’s more than a touch nutty and can display a helluva a mean streak, but he’s one of the few righties here who seems willing to mitigate his beliefs with facts, and in his more lucid moments makes welcome contributions to the comment threads.

In fact, I like him so much that I not only endorsed him for Port Commissioner (sorta), I actually hesitated to publish these documents, which were forwarded to me months ago. But he is running for district court, and he is judged by his peers to be “not qualified”… and considering Richard’s own penchant for using his access to court records to dig up dirt on other people (you can be sure you’d have already seen my court record if I had one) I guess it’s only fair to do the same to him.

In his defense, as Richard explains in a 2005 court document, he’s had to deal with some tough personal crises over the past couple years, and I genuinely hope everything works out for him and his family. Reading the sad details it’s no wonder…

“Frankly, counsel thinks that his own mental health situation is terrible, although he hopes most of it is situationally derived, rather than long term.”

Personally, I wish Richard the best. I just wouldn’t want to be arguing a case before him.