Live by the shield, die by the shield, that’s what I say.
Rep. Dave Reichert has fashioned a comfy political career out of flashing his badge and campaigning as the “the Sheriff”… the man who took all the credit for tracking down the Green River Killer. But if he’s going to claim his experience running the King County Sheriff’s Office as his primary qualification for representing Washington’s 8th District in Congress, then he owes it to voters to answer questions about his tenure as the county’s top cop.
The Seattle P-I continues its series today, “Conduct Unbecoming”, exposing a history of mismanagement in the Sheriff’s Office, and once again, Reichert refused to cooperate:
Although two lower commanders recommended Saulet be fired, then-Sheriff Dave Reichert decided to suspend him for eight days.
Reichert, now a U.S. congressman, declined to comment.
Throughout the P-I‘s months-long series of investigative reports, Sheriff Reichert has refused to answer questions from reporters, even though he was the man in charge during much of the time covered. It was Reichert who ultimately failed to properly discipline or fire deputies who had committed serious crimes and conduct violations… and as the latest P-I installment reveals today, his lax attitude towards bad cops has cost taxpayers millions. And yet still, Reichert refuses to talk to reporters.
This is totally unacceptable, and our local media should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to let Reichert get away with his shrewd silence.
I don’t blame the P-I reporters covering this growing scandal; the most they can do is continue to badger him and then report his intransigence… and that they have done. But their colleagues at other local media outlets, and the editorialists on their own Op/Ed pages have fallen down on the job.
This is a major story in which Reichert played a major role, and he can’t be allowed to simply escape comment because it is politically inconvenient.
That reporters, columnists and editorialists continue to puff him up by touting Reichert’s experience as Sheriff — and yet refuse to hold him accountable for the job he did in that office — is a disgrace.
If Reichert has nothing to hide he should talk to the press, for voters have a right to know what kind of job he really did as Sheriff. But if he continues to suspiciously maintain his silence, voters have a right to know that too.
I could’t pass up the opportunity to post a comment on this item from the news today:
The Republicans really are worried about Reichert. He, along with other “suburban” Republicans, are having a dog-and-pony show for the press today where they are unveiling their strategy to ensure control of the suburbs, including:
“Reichert has sponsored the Gang Elimination Act of 2006, which would survey the country and determine the three most dangerous gangs. That information would be passed on to the Justice Department, which would be responsible for eliminating the gangs within four years.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....gop11.html
I nearly coughed up my coffee when I laughed about that one. “Sheriff Dave”‘s solution to the gang problem is to give a list of the gangs to the Justice Dept., and give them four years to solve the problem? And what will this survey tell them, aside from what they could learn by talking to a handfull of street cops during shift change? Isn’t this really an attempt to create fear of racial violence?
Goldie, I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve posted more comments on this issue on another web site I had available, located at
http://www.storesonline.com/si.....age/831764. The only reason I’m posting some of my comments there is that sometimes I spend a lot of time writing a comment, only to see it burried in a flame war between others, and not viewed at all once the thread is over a day old. (I guess now I know how newspaper reporters feel – their carefully written column of yesterday is at the bottom of the bird cage today).
I haven’t had time to set up a proper blog of my own yet, and I need to come up with a different name before I do, but this seemed like an adequate interim step. I’m not really selling anything there (other than a link to a poster site and Google, both of which you are free to ignore). If I get a few clicks maybe it can help pay the hosting fees.
While certainly not as damning as the fact that Darcy got staight As in law school, it does in fact look like Sheriff Davie’s got some splanin’ to do!
I guess he’s counting on the Janet S vote, you know, the people who are actually living in a time 300 years ago who think a woman’s place is in the home, keeping her children from having to go to fight in a war she claims to support!
Come on, Goldy…get real. What’s the problem with a little mismanagement of the County Sheriff’s office?
It’s not like Sheriff was getting blow jobs….
@ 2
Interesting analogy. Isn’t it the goal of radical Islamist’s to live in the past like Janet S and the rest of the neocon movement?
Seems the two groups have lots in common, especially hating the principles of the Constitution.
Reichert’s right there with them, since he refuses to up hold the sworn duties of his office and provide oversight on the Executive Branch.
Conservatives, happily making the congeress irrelevant for their leader.
I’m not defending Reichert here (really), but you can’t talk about the lack of real discipline at the Sheriff’s Office without talking about the Police Guild and how they have fought tooth and nail against moves against Guild members.
So for any Sheriff, it’s easier to have the deputy retire (and shift the cost to somebody else and get rid of him) than to get into a huge fight that you may not win. It’s not the right thing to do in these situations, but it is the easiest.
About 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless, according to a Harvard analysis of the hotly debated issue that pits trial attorneys against doctors, with lawmakers in the middle. Many of the lawsuits analyzed contained no evidence that a medical error was committed or that the patient suffered any injury, the researchers reported. [……………………………….Funny, about 40% of medical malpractice cases are filed by Democrat Jewish lawyers named Silverstein, Loeb, Goldberg, or Lowenstein. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]
A Los Angeles psychologist who was denied a tote bag during a Mother’s Day giveaway at an Angel game is suing the baseball team, alleging sex and age discrimination. Michael Goldberg Cohn’s class-action claim in Orange County Superior Court alleges that thousands of males and fans under 18 were “treated unequally” at a “Family Sunday” promotion last May and are entitled to $4,000 each in damages. […………………………….hehe, Goldy, This bitch MUST be related to you. Note her name. And the lawsuit. Gee, what a surprise!!!]
Dave Reichert:
You probably thought he was moderate … until you saw his record.
You probably thought he was competent … until you saw the shape the Sheriff’s department is in.
The major problem here is the police unions and the enormous power that they wield under the collective bargaining agreements. It is almost impossible to discipline a police officer for anything, or to give more than a minor punishment to an officer who should be getting fired.
Of course, Goldy’s problem is that Dave Reichert can do no right in his eyes. Reichert did have two deputies prosecuted for assault and false imprisonment for allegedly beating up an informant. There were two fellow law enforcement officers who witnessed the alleged crime and testified for the prosecution. However, the jury deadlocked on whether to convict or acquit and Norm Maleng decided against a retrial.
As a result of this, the King County Sheriff (now Sue Rahr) had to give these men their jobs back. Actually, they were on full pay suspension (i.e. regular salary with no work required) pending trial — an unfortunate benefit guaranteed to police officers facing criminal charges under most union contracts in this state. And under state law, they had to be reimbursed the full (no doubt grossly inflated — nearly a million dollars) cost of private criminal legal defense, since they were exonerated (or at least not convicted) of crimes allegedly committed while they were on duty.
The timing of the “Conduct Unbecoming” in the Seattle Lost-Intelligencer is extremely suspicious.
We just had an election for King County Sheriff in November 2005. Formal qualifying for that election was in July 2005. If there are problems with our CURRENT sheriff (as the P-I seems to be getting at), we are stuck with her until December 2009.
Why didn’t the Lost-Intelligencer come up with this series at the same time LAST year? This could have attracted REFORM candidates to file for election to run for sheriff. And maybe the public would have voted for someone who wanted to reform the department.
As it is, we only had a choice between the incumbent (Sue Rahr, appointed to fill a vacancy by Ron Sims) and two career police officers. None of Rahr’s challengers would have made any changes in the lax disciplinary system either — in fact, they would have probably made it even laxer.
I can only conclude that the Lost-Intelligencer really isn’t interested in reform of the King County Sheriff’s Office. They are only interested in making Dave Reichert look bad, and sabotaging his chances for re-election.
Unfortunately, most of the Lost-Intelligencer’s declining circulation is concentrated in the City of Seattle. In the 8th district, considerably more people read the King County Journal than the P-I. Probably, the P-I does only slightly better than The Stranger in the 8th district.
Here we go, Goldy attacks former sherrif Dave Reichert with the same tactics he used to slander David Irons.
Hopefully some King County Deputy Sheriffs, as well as Seattle Police, that are still loyal to Dave Reichert are keeping up with what Goldy and the PI have to say.
“About 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless, according to a Harvard analysis of the hotly debated issue that pits trial attorneys against doctors, with lawmakers in the middle.”
JCH is turning into another insurance-industry shill, spreading more of these lies which get passed from one to another as truth. I normally wouldn’t respond to JCH, but the issue is one of interest to me. I have no idea what study he is purporting to quote from (he doesn’t identify the source adequately), but I have no doubt that either the study doesn’t exist, the results are mis-quoted, or it is flawed.
The reason I know this is that previous attempts to nail down stories such as this have been fruitless. I no longer waste my time trying to do so. Also, whether or not a lawsuit is “groundless” is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Every lawsuite has AT LEAST two sides of the issue. The only “neutral” person to decide such cases is the judge or jury assigned to them. Also, the absence of evidence in malpractice cases, especially at the “filing” stage, can be attributed to the fact that most of the evidence is under the control of the defendants, and is often protected by the “conspiracy of silence”. Until the case progresses, there may be reasonable suspicians, but no one knows exactly what evidence will be uncovered.
Finally, the insurance companies like to perpetuate the myth that personal injury lawyers who get paid by contingent fees like to file frivolous lawsuits because nothing is at risk. The truth is exactly the opposite. No personal injury attorney can stay in practice for very long if he does that, because he will be putting in considerable time, energy, and out-of-pocket expense on too many cases where he/she recovers nothing in return. Personal Injury lawyers have to screen their contingent-fee cases pretty carefully if they hope to make any money at all. But the insurance companies keep trying to get contingent fees outlawed, because they know that an injured victim who is out of work and has high medical bills will not have the resources to sue, so will be forced to take whatever pittance they deem convenient to dole outl.
These stories get circulated by the insurance industry regularly to try to get “liability reform”. It happens in a cycle every ten years or so. Insurance companies, apparantly in concert, suddenly raise (double or triple) insurance rates for doctors, sometimes concentrating on a specialty. Their purpose is to have a few doctors quit practice, who can then be paraded as “examples” of what a terrible problem the tort/malpractice system is in this country. They tell the doctors that its not their fault, blame the lawyers instead. But they have no intention of lowering rates, they just want to reduce the amount they have to pay out in claims.
So its not really the doctors against the trial lawyers. It is the trial lawyers against the insurance companies, with the doctors in between.
I notice you didn’t mention that our Democrat Governor recently was able to broker a compromise between the trial lawyers in this state and the doctors, something that hasn’t been accomplished before in my memory. Once she was able to exclude the insurance companies from the discussion, both sides were able to agree that patients injured by bad doctors should be reasonable compensated for their injuries. Its a shame the insurance companies couldn’t come to that conclusion also, and also a shame that the Republicans don’t accept this simple principle, rather than trying to make it a political issue.
There used to be 16 comments on this posting. Now there are only 12. What happened to the other 4? Is there a software problem, or censorship?
rhp @ 12
Nice post. I actually read the study JCH references. The study does suggest that 40% of medical malpractice claims that the study group considered were “groundless.” I have trouble believing that figure because, as you noted, attorneys who take on groundless cases on a contingent fee basis go broke fast. In any event, however, the conclusion of the study was that with regard to medical malpractice cases, our legal system functioned more or less as it should–the vast majority of the supposed “groundless” cases were dismissed without any payout whatsoever. So, the study does not support the usual claims of the tort reformers. Certainly, the study does not support any claim that major tinkering with our system of adjudicating malpractice claims, such as capping damages, is warranted. The insurance companies, that have been so adept at poisoning public opinion on this issue, are going to have to be quite creative to spin this study.
JCH,
Responding to you makes about as much sense as wearing shades on a moonless night, but I’m going to do so anyway. The number of Washington doctors increases annually, and we have no shortage. In a couple of specialties, malpractice premiums are a problem, but the insurance industry (in tandem with its bitch, the Republican Party) proposes nothing that would actually address the problem. Addressing insurance industry profits and collusion (the insurance industry, like major league baseball, is exempt from federal antitrust laws) would be a far more effective strategy than would tampering with one of our basic civil liberties–that of trial by jury. Of course, Republicans hate civil liberties, so the right of trial by jury means nothing to them.
Nice Richard @12. Way to blame the vast majority of police officers in the state for the screw-ups of a few bad apples and the failure of thier superiors to act. You say Reichert did have two deputies prosecuted. What, does he deserve a medal for finally doing his job? Should we applaud him for prosecuting deps. in cases where he has other deps. coming to him to testify? Wrong!
Reichert is the kind of politician who believes the rules don’t apply to him and his friends, which is why his voting record so closely matches Tom Delay’s (90%).
Yeah Pope-A-Dope, how dare the PI not wait 30 years to talk about problems when Sheriff Davie was in office. I bet those bank robbers that got caught thought it was very suspicious of the police to be waiting for them when they walked out if the bank. Who would have thought that someone uncovering mismanagement, abuse, fraud, etc in the department would actually mention it when they found out about it.
Do you actually believe the shit that comes out of your mouth? Just curious.
One morning, I was having coffee in a restuarant while reading one of the P.I. articles about one of the “bad boys” of the Sheriff’s department. I was reading the article pretty critically, remembering that its pretty easy to find enemies who are more than willing to crucify you in the media if they are given the chance. This is especially true in occupations where conflict is inherent in the job (police, politicians, reporters, lawyers, etc.).
As the waitress was re-filling my coffee cup, she saw the article I was reading shook her head, and said “I’m surprised they ever did anything to that jerk”. This got my attention. She explained that she used to see this particular officer in her restaurant regularly, overheard his conversations, and knew that he liked to throw his weight around. She also had heard, however, that “bad things” happened to people who reported him. She was quite surprised that anyone at the P.I was willing to investigate and print a report on him.
I assume that his guy was a “bad apple”, and certainly not representative of most of the fine and dedicated officers in the King County Police/Sheriff Department. But it seems to me that an investigation of the department’s handling of internal affairs complaints was long overdue. The current chief is taking all the heat for what appears to be a problem stretching back at least a decade. The timing of the investigation is irrelevant.
Goldy your site is hosed or you need a more robust server or bandwidth or both.
RHP & Proud Leftist:
Of course JCH is lying. It’s the only thing he does well, like most republicans.
Naturally, he believes anything and everything the RNC tells him to believe, like most republicans.
As you can see, he repeats them without thought, like most republicans.
It’s a pattern.
I see Rubberstamp Reichert voted for idiotic Tax (Deferment) Bill today.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll135.xml
Pope — Re timing, if you’ll look here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
You’ll see an extensive collection of earlier work, including the Dan Ring expose (August, 2005) here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/ring/
6
“About 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless” Commentby Patches [JCH]Kennedy— 5/11/06@ 10:45 am
Assuming, arguendo, this statement is true (and anything JCH says is suspect), this means 60 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are meritorious — and the GOP’s “tort reform” would leave those injured patients with no remedy if the “capped” damages don’t cover their loss.
Makes you wonder why Republicans hate the 60% of the people who file valid malpractice suits, doesn’t it?
20
Whatsamatter, didja lose a post after spending 15 minutes typing it? Don’t you know how to highlight and right-click “copy?” Of course Goldy needs a bigger server — his site is getting more popular every day (while stefan sinks into oblivion). If you want to help, try clicking on the “Make a Donation” button.
The trolls aren’t piling into this one (yet) … I kinda expected them to criticize Goldy for criticizing Reichert for not firing people. You know … the trolls who criticized Gregoire for firing the lawyer who missed the appeal deadline because the lawyer sued and got a settlement.
RonK
Thanks for the link. Looks like the earliest articles are about Dan Ring (starting 08/01/2005) — the one who married a prostitute and did all sorts of wrong stuff. This included an article about how Norm Maleng refused to prosecute Ring for various alleged felonies:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ring03.asp
And then they started writing about Ferenc Zana (09/10/2005 and later), the notorious gay deputy who chose a succession of vulnerable (and non-law abiding) young men for live-in lovers. His last lover while serving as a deputy sheriff allegedly raped a man in Zana’s apartment while Zana was present and shortly thereafter took Zana’s gun and killed a convenience store clerk.
As I said before, the Seattle P-I didn’t start its series in time to affect the King County Sheriff race in 2005, since filing for office was already finished. It was simply a choice between tweedledee and twedledum — between bad and worse.
Rabbit @ 26
The lawyer Gregoire fired had nothing to do with missing the appeal deadline. Janet Capps was not part of the appeal team that Gregoire had assembled to appeal the Beckman case. She was simply made into a scapegoat. That is why Gregoire had to settle the lawsuit.
Ironically, the state had to pay this settlement because Gregoire simply could not keep her mouth shut. Capps was an at-will employee, as were all attorney employees of the Attorney General’s Office. (I think Rob McKenna has put some of his top brass on term contracts, but that is a different issue.) Gregoire could have simply fired Capps and been done with it, without any liability whatsoever. But she chose to publicly denounce Capps for political reasons. This gave Capps the right to sue Gregoire for defamation, and meant that the federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward, since it had a legal basis. So Washington taxpayers had to pay a lot of money for Gregoire’s mouthiness.
Rabbit,
What do you think about Norm Maleng not filing felony charges against Dan Ring? Are you still willing to vote for Maleng over a Democrat?
Norm Maleng STILL hasn’t filed any criminal charges against King County Sheriff Deputy M. Amaad DeAllah for the alleged rape, beating and imprisonment of his wife on April 29, 2006, or the subsequent alleged assault later that same day against Harborview security guards and state troopers (the latter act a Class C felony if committed against known law enforcement officers in the course of duty) who were trying to protect DeAllah’s wife during her examination and treatment at the emergency room. DeAllah was automatically released from his bail obligation and a no-contact order that was supposed to keep him away from his wife and the family home, when Maleng failed to file charges against DeAllah by the 4 p.m. Wed 05/03/2006 deadline set by a King County District Judge.
If the Seattle Lost-Intelligencer wanted to do its job and perform a public service, they should be talking about how NORM MALENG isn’t doing his job with all of these law enforcement officers that they are writing about.
There is actually an election for King County Prosecuting Attorney on the November 2006 ballot. Norm Maleng has been in office for 28 years, and intends to run for an eighth term. Maleng has never had a Republican primary opponent in any of his elections, and was opposed by Democrats in only two of his previous seven elections (1978 by Jim Bates — who later became a King County Superior Court judge, and 1998 by Fred Canavor, a former prosecuting attorney from San Juan County). Maleng was re-elected without any opposition whatsoever in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 and 2002.
Right wing playbook 101
When you’re busted…start pointing the finger somewhere else and hope to Hell that you can distract people from the truth.
Well Pope-A-Dope, guess which finger I’m pointing at you.
Sheriff Davie’s going down. And as soon as the media exposes his (Irons) problem, he’s going to quit just like that coward (and right wing hero) Tommy DeLay did today.
Go ahead make my day. . .take down Rahr, AND Reichert.
Richard may be playing a game of red herring here, but perhaps some of us ought to think about Mr. Maleng a little before we find ourselves staring at his lonely name on another ballot. He seems to have enjoyed tenure of sorts for a long time, and I’m not sure I understand why.
President Bush’s approval is now at record levels and has crossed a new threshold:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/2.....-1835r.htm
highlight. right click. copy……
what next?