In a tremendous show of support for a congressman who has risked his personal finances to defend the First Amendment, former President Bill Clinton will join Rep. Jim McDermott on stage, for a town hall style, grassroots discussion, on June 3, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.
Unlikely the ritzy, high-priced events former presidents usually headline, general admission seating is only $50.00, while a limited number of VIP seats will be available for $100.00. All proceeds will benefit Rep. McDermott’s campaign committee, Friends for Jim McDermott Committee.
Why is President Clinton going out of his way to raise money for a popular congressman who would likely win 80 percent of the vote this November without spending a dime? Because Rep. McDermott is in the midst of a multi-year legal battle that will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees if he wins, and well over a $1 million if he loses.
McDermott could have settled with little more than an apology years ago, but that would have meant selling out the Constitution. Unlike some congressman, McDermott has never been one to use his office to enrich himself, and now he stands to lose his own house, even if he ultimately prevails in court.
But however you feel about Seattle’s congressman, this event is a rare opportunity for average folk to interact with a President… especially one who reminds of us of an era when we actually liked our President.
When you liked the president…
Plenty of people like our president now, Goldy. You just have to venture out of moonbatville to see the big picture. Even Hillary likes W.
I hope McDermott spends every last dime he can beg borrow or steal in this hard-headed quest to say he was right, even when he clearly broke the law. The first amendment nas nothing for him, it wasn’t even his free speech, it was Newt’s. Baghdad Jimmy is a fool, but he his your fool. How appropriate.
Well, at least more than 31% of the population did. At all times.
Actually, Jim McDermott wouldn’t lose his own house. The lawsuit debt is a separate obligation, since it was incurred prior to his current marriage. (Even if it had been incurred during marriage, it might not be a community obligation, since it arguably would not have been done to benefit the marital community.)
RCW 26.16.200 provides in relevant part:
“PROVIDED FURTHER, That no separate debt, except a child support or maintenance obligation, may be the basis of a claim against the earnings and accumulations of either a husband or wife unless the same is reduced to judgment within three years of the marriage of the parties.”
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def.....=26.16.200
There is no judgment actually entered against Jim McDermott yet (just the potential for a huge judgment after his appeals are exhausted — I checked the court docket and orders on-line myself). McDermott has been married far longer than three years to his current wife.
So any judgment that may be entered against Jim McDermott is legally uncollectible — at least not against any assets that he has that are subject to Washington law, such as his house.
Golly gee whiz, danno…ya’ mean 31…that’s THIRTY-ONE peercent of Americans support the job the chickenshit in chief is doing!
A whole, entire 31%.
Gee Wurlitzers!
How impressed am I!!!!
“Ya know danno…yer doin’ a heckuva job!”
Wow. 31 per-cent. That damn cowboy’s doin’ GREAT. 31%! Wow.
‘cept the debt hasn’t occured yet. And, it will definately found to done for the benefit of the marital community – he did to further his political goals – which is his job.
Goldy—
Huh?????
WTF are you talking about??
Some other Jim McDimwit????
Hey JAxoff-
Can you not separate in your feeble mind clearly separate issues? Get your hand out of your pants and think. Gee, can I like someone as a personality snd still disapprove of his job performance?
You are blinded by your hatred. Clinton by the way never got more than half of Americans to vote for him, but George did.
Pope,
You must not do civil law. A judgment against Rep. McDermott is enforceable against his separate assets, as well as his share of any community assets. Enforcement of a judgment against a judgment debtor can result in the sale of community assets, such as a family residence, with the debtor’s share of such sale going to the judgment creditor. Washington law provides a very minimal exemption for protection of a family’s residence from a judgment–I believe the present limit of that exemption is $35,000. Only a bankruptcy would protect Rep. McDermott from the judgment. John Boehner, as number two guy in the House, should drop the whole matter for the good of the House. That would require graciousness and maturity, however, characteristics which are foreign to Boehner.
WOW….. this has just got to be the most exciting day of your life goldy. two dim bulbs in one place at one time. do you think you’ll get an interview with either of the law breaking liars…or is that just too much to hope for?
ajax206 5:Wow. 31 per-cent.
The polls are pretty bad for Bush. How does one explain some of the other results in the poll?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/
Last paragraph:
The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush’s opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.
And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush’s more vocal critics.
Ooooooooohhhhhhh…..
31%.
Fucking Moron in Chief.
Nice poll
By better than two to one, Democrats were seen as having more new ideas than Republicans.
By 57 percent to 11 percent, respondents said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to find a way to curb gasoline prices…89 percent said this administration did not have a plan to deal with the problem.
55 percent said they now had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 57 percent had an unfavorable view of Republicans, compared with 37 percent who had a favorable view.
Pope rolls a gutter ball, hurts his average.
AlGore @ 11
Those are favorability ratings, not job approval ratings. Don’t conflate them. They are diffreent, which means you cannot compare the president’s 31% job approval ratign to those numbers.
Also, same poll favorability ratings:
Hillary Clinton – 34%
John McCain – 31%
I don’t think voters really LIKE anyone much right now.
1, 2
Plenty of people liked Hitler, too, which calls their judgment into question. The same could be said of Bush — and you two wingbots.
Nice post ghosty (pun intended).
Oh…NOT the liar who lied us into a war in Iraq?
NOT liar who said he was going to support education.
NOT the liar who said he was going to control gummint spending.
NOT the liar who said he was gonna support the troops.
NOT the liar who said he was gonna bring “dignity” back to the White House.
NOT the liar who said he was going to take care of the residents of storm ravaged New Orleans.
NOT the liar who said he was gonna find out who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative during wartime.
NOT the liar who said he was going to create jobs.
NOT the liar who said he fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard.
Not THAT liar.
Just the guy who lied about a blow job, but led the nation to eight years of peace and PROSPERITY.
And the guy who EXPOSED the Republican Speaker of the House trying to CHEAT on the sanctions imposed on him for his UNETHICAL behavior.
Shoot. All these lying Republicans. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Goss, Cunningham, Abramoff, Brown, Chertoff, Guliani, McCain, Reichert, McGavick, Irons…whatever happened to the party of Eisenhower and Dirkson and Brooke and Evans. Seriously. What HAPPENNED to you guys.
6
Which law school did you say you went to?
10
“WOW….. this has just got to be the most exciting day of your life goldy. two dim bulbs in one place at one time.” Commentby christmasghost— 5/10/06@ 3:28 pm
Make it four — you, danno, Kevin Carns, and Richard.
13
Republicans have no ideas. Darcy Burner has already hugged a rabbit. Reichert doesn’t even have a plan to hug a rabbit.
Hey JCH, you were against an MLK holiday, correct?
Commentby Daddy Love— 5/10/06@ 3:43 pm
65…..Correct. I rather see a Jonas Salk/Dr. Sabin Holiday, real American heros, but the Democrat blacks would hate that idea. Evil Jewish doctors trying to kill blacks. How about a MacArthur/Patton Holiday? Won’t happen because today’s Democrats haven’t a clue as to who these people are. Lincoln and Washington share a holiday, but ML King, Jr. has his own. Today’s Democrats could care less about VE or VJ Day, or 7 DEC 1941. Most would rather celebrate commie May Day.
Okay, maybe some of you brilliant LIBERAL PINHEADS can actually read RCW 26.16.200 and tell me what you think.
Please consider these facts:
1. Jim McDermott disclosed the telephone call to the media on 01/08/1997 and 01/09/1997.
2. Jim McDermott married Therese Marie Hansen (his present wife) on November 30, 1997.
3. No judgment has yet been entered against Jim McDermott in the lawsuit that John Boehner filed against him.
RCW 26.16.200
Antenuptial and separate debts, liability for — Child support obligation, liability for.
Neither husband or wife is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other incurred before marriage, nor for the separate debts of each other, nor is the rent or income of the separate property of either liable for the separate debts of the other: PROVIDED, That the earnings and accumulations of the husband shall be available to the legal process of creditors for the satisfaction of debts incurred by him prior to marriage, and the earnings and accumulations of the wife shall be available to the legal process of creditors for the satisfaction of debts incurred by her prior to marriage. For the purpose of this section, neither the husband nor the wife shall be construed to have any interest in the earnings of the other: PROVIDED FURTHER, That no separate debt, except a child support or maintenance obligation, may be the basis of a claim against the earnings and accumulations of either a husband or wife unless the same is reduced to judgment within three years of the marriage of the parties. The obligation of a parent or stepparent to support a child may be collected out of the parent’s or stepparent’s separate property, the parent’s or stepparent’s earnings and accumulations, and the parent’s or stepparent’s share of community personal and real property. Funds in a community bank account which can be identified as the earnings of the nonobligated spouse are exempt from satisfaction of the child support obligation of the debtor spouse.
[1983 1st ex.s. c 41 § 2; 1969 ex.s. c 121 § 1; Code 1881 § 2405; 1873 p 452 § 10; RRS § 6905.]
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def.....=26.16.200
WOW….. this has just got to be the most exciting day of your life goldy. two dim bulbs in one place at one time. do you think you’ll get an interview with either of the law breaking liars…or is that just too much to hope for?
Commentby christmasghost— 5/10/06@ 3:28 pm
Unfortunately for Goldy, neither Bush or Cheney will be there to get that interview with the two law breaking liars. Truth from the Bush administration, that is too much to hope for, ChristmasGhost.
Richard Pope @ 22:
I’m dabbling in a subject I’m certainly no expert in, but, I thought RCW stood for “Revised Codes of Washington” meaning these laws only apply to the state’s court system?
Isn’t the “Boner” vs. McDermott case being handeled in Federal Appeals courts?
And, if that’s the case do the RCW apply?
From the other side of the fence [Read on, Dumbass commie lib Democrats!! …..
Received the following [ ******* ]who was a Director with SW BELL in Mexico City.
You remember I spent five years working in Mexico.
I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working Illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval
During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara’s was the same except hers did not permit her to work.
To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals
(not copies) of my:
1. Birth certificate for Barbara and I.
2. Marriage certificate.
3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indication I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was “a citizen in good standing.”
7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican Citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our “I am the greatest person on Earth” letter. It was fun to write.
All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.
Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican Attorney touring Mexican Government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location and we remember at least four locations we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the Governments actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.
We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.
We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the Licensing agency to come to our Headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.
We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.
The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.
Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.
It was a real adventure and If any of our Senators or Congressman went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.
The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White house or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.
Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.
“I’m dabbling in a subject I’m certainly no expert in”
Commentby GBS— 5/10/06@ 4:32 pm [………………………………………………………………………Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Finally, what JCH?
24 – you got it right.
“the Ninth Circuit held that a federal judgment from a common law state could be executed upon the community property of both spouses, even though the non-debtor spouse was never named in the underlying action.”
Word is police and secret service will be patroling around the event on the look out for Richard Pope since he’s been spotted making threats against Democratic politicians here on HA!
JCH:
Do you believe in the Bible?
Do you believe the Bible is the true word of God?
Do you believe that God’s Law supersedes man’s law?
If so, what part of ‘Thou SHALT lie’ don’t you understand?
GBS @ 24
Yes, it is a federal court judgment. However, federal courts have to follow the state law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located in enforcing their judgments. So any property that McDermott has in Washington (such as his nice house) is subject to Washington law in its enforcement.
Husky93 @ 28
Citations would be nice. Quotations without them are of little value. I found your quoted words in the following article:
http://www.sackstierney.com/ar.....operty.htm
This discusses a July 22, 2004 9th Circuit decision in Gagan v. Sharar. The decision was made by interpreting Arizona law. The judgment in question was obtained in Indiana for liabilities incurred by the husband during the marriage that would have been considered a community debt under Arizona law. And Arizona law allowed community debts to be collected from community property.
The Boehner v. McDermott debt is clearly a separate debt of McDermott, since it was incurred before he married Hansen. Since no judgment was obtained within three years after the marriage, this judgment simply cannot be collected in Washington.
“So any judgment that may be entered against Jim McDermott is legally uncollectible – at least not against any assets that he has that are subject to Washington law, such as his house.”
Commentby Richard Pope— 5/10/06@ 3:08 pm
Your assertion here, which is the point of your post, is simply wrong. I would guess that given Rep. McDermott’s age, and the relatively short duration of his second marriage, most of his assets are separate and subject to a judgment’s reach. Moreover, you might take a look at the definition of “debt” as used in RCW 26.16.200. That definition extends to contractual obligations but does not include unliquidated amounts, which is what I believe we’re talking about here. See Caplan v. Sullivan, 37 Wn. App. 289 (1984). Finally, do you honestly believe that Boehner is pushing this matter if any judgment he obtains is uncollectible?
Pope @ 31:
Thank you very much for the clarification. Now I understand why the RCW is relevant.
Learn something new everyday.
Later.
JCH:
Do you believe in the Bible?
Commentby GBS— 5/10/06@ 5:08 pm [As much as any other Kennedy!! So, shut the fuck up and do as I say, Democrat sheep!] JCH Kennedy
Gee, golly willikers. . .some republifuck breaks the law, trashes the Constitution. . .and gets rewarded with a fat job as a lobbyist and continues to ripoff the American public and trash the Constitution some more, and that’s ‘just OK’ and ‘business as usual’. You wingnuts are priceless. It has to really grate on you that Clinton can fill a Stadium at the drop of a hat, and vacuum up money from ordinary folks.
Your assertion here, which is the point of your post, is simply wrong. I would guess that given Rep. McDermott’s age, and the relatively short duration of his second marriage, most of his assets are separate and subject to a judgment’s reach. Moreover, you might take a look at the definition of “debt” as used in RCW 26.16.200. That definition extends to contractual obligations but does not include unliquidated amounts, which is what I believe we’re talking about here. See Caplan v. Sullivan, 37 Wn. App. 289 (1984). Finally, do you honestly believe that Boehner is pushing this matter if any judgment he obtains is uncollectible?
Commentby proud leftist— 5/10/06@ 5:12 pm
Thanks for your clarification. You may very well be correct.
RCW 26.16.200 talks about “debts and liabilities” in one section, and just “debts” in the section that excludes judgments not entered within three years of marriage. Looks like the judgment that John Boehner will obtain is merely a “liability” and does not qualify as a “debt”, since it is a tort claim.
I was afraid that McDermott would escape justice. If your reading of RCW 26.16.200 is correct, Boehner will at least be able to seize McDermott’s portion of the community property.
June 3rd, manny of us will be in Yakima. Where’re Bill and Jim going to be?
Gibney @ 37 — Bill and Jim (and Maria and more) will be in Seattle. Some of them (but not Bill) will also appear in Yakima. And some of us (including Manny?) will high-tail it back from Yakima in time to see Clinton in Seattle. Stay tuned.
McDermott will need the legal services of Silverstein, Loeb, Cohen, Lowenstein, and Goodmanberg to hide assets and steal funds. Yes, he will be in good Democrat hands!!!!!
the party of Eisenhower
Let’s not forget that Ike is responsible for the fucked up state of Iran.
the party of Eisenhower
Let’s not forget that Ike is responsible for the fucked up state of Iran.
Commentby TheDeadlyShoe— 5/10/06@ 7:26 pm [Er, Dumbass Showe, I was off the coast of Iran [79/80] when Idiot Carter was President and 350 Americans were held hostage. Idiot Carter was worthless, while the day RR took office the hostages were freed. Remember “Desert One”, with Carter in the White House calling all the shots? Another Democrat fuckup.
@38, well ok, I still don’t have a room booked. And neither does Manny :) If any of y’all are thinking of canceling, I’d like a chance to call the hotel rightaway after.
I shook the soon to be president’s hand in Spokane in ’92, and as much as I like Rep. McDermott I don’t feel up to adding another 6-7 hundred miles to my trip from Pullman.
the party of Eisenhower
Let’s not forget that Ike is responsible for the fucked up state of Iran.
Actually Iran was over run by fanatical Muslims during the Carter administration. You donks just let it happen. It figures though, we all know that dems love terrorists.
June 3rd, manny of us will be in Yakima. Where’re Bill and Jim going to be? -Commentby Dave Gibney— 5/10/06@ 5:55 pm
In HELL, I hope.
The wingnut trolls on this site are truly hilarious. I know for a fact the McDermott’s are not going to have to sell their house. Better luck next time, troll-fuckers.
Denial, wow.
McDermott is a nasty dude, and you all know it. You just are in love w/ his politics, and forget that indeed he broke the law. And he did it solely to embarass his POLITICAL opponent
stop the lying.
Can’t wait for BJ to preach to us about McDermott…oh man… lock up the fat women…
The trolls can say what they will. Gingrich is a joke now because of McDermott and, guess what, McD’s still in office!
How many “town hall” meeting require money in order to participate?