Former Gov. Gary Locke today made a desperate appeal to Dino Rossi to give up the election contest case.
The timing is interesting. The trial is set to start in less than two weeks. At this point, Rossi is obviously not going to concede, especially when the call comes from a prominent Democrat. By making such an appeal, Gary Locke makes himself look more than a little bit foolish. If the case for Rossi is as hopeless as the Democrat lawyers (speaking through their official spokesman) want you to believe, why would Gary Locke bother to make a fool of himself with such a lame appeal? Why wouldn't he just wait quietly and bide his time knowing that the Republican case will self-destruct in court anyway? The only reason I can imagine that Locke would speak out now and risk looking like a dope, is if he were convinced that the Democrat case was in serious trouble and he wanted to rally his own party faithful.
How would Gary Locke be in a position to know how the trial was shaping up? Curiously, he was brought on as a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, the firm which is representing the Republicans in the election contest.
I suspect that Gary Locke got a peek at the case his partners' are preparing, had an "oh, shit!" moment, and felt a desperate urge to throw cold water on Dino Rossi.
That's a pretty pathetic thing for Locke to do, especially since he has a fiduciary duty to all of his firm's clients, not just the ones whose politics he shares.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 10, 2005 11:54 PM | Email ThisI think its just mainly politics.
Face it. Each party is rooting for the other.
Slade weighed in and rooted for Rossi. So did Dan Evans. Now Locke is weighing in against Rossi.
Here's what Locke said:
"I simply could not continue to sit back and watch Dino Rossi fight for himself at the expense of the citizens of this great state,"
Followed by a reflective opposite statement by Vance.
Not much different than Goldy explaing how poor the Rossi's chances are and SP arguing how strong they are is it?
Posted by: Erik on May 11, 2005 12:13 AMCourt ruling or not, the voters won't forget. Midterms will not be fun for the donkey party in Wa.
Just watch the gas tax crumble this fall. Those petitions will be filled w/in 2 weeks of them coming out.
Posted by: Andy on May 11, 2005 12:18 AMEnough of the phoney 'concern' from the ex-governor.
Posted by: Michele on May 11, 2005 12:22 AMYeah, not so much different. BTW, does Goldy need any computer work? I know some good people from SP could get-R-done. Same difference, right?
Now, what did I do with that tin-foil hat?
Posted by: Splatter on May 11, 2005 12:25 AMKarl
Posted by: Karl on May 11, 2005 12:38 AMHmm. I don't know about that. You could ask him.
However, he does need a new host for his site as the increased traffic is slowing down the response time.
Since he's in with the Rossi law firm, he must 'know' something about Rossi's chances and felt he should say something.
I think everything's pretty much in the open at this time.
Unlike some, I still think Rossi has a shot at the election contest.
Rossi can still win if:
1) The judge accepts the “proportional deduction” methodology arguement,
2) The court uses precinct voting rates for the felons,
3) The republicans are far more successful than the democrats in proving the felon votes than the democrats; and
4) The judge revists and changes his earlier ruling that each party had to show that the felons voted in the governor's race.
Posted by: Erik on May 11, 2005 12:43 AMI don't see that there would be any ethical violation unless he disclosed a client confidence.
However, I am going to guess he isn't involved in the election contest at all so he probably isn't even in the loop in the matter. Its a big law firm and Locke is likely involved in PR and lobbying.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a condition of him coming on board with the firm. Perhaps that then frees him up to say what he wants.
Posted by: Erik on May 11, 2005 12:46 AMCaution should be the order of the day with regard to Mr. Locke.
I can understand the temptation to overanalysis, but it should be restrained.
Good night folks.
Posted by: Kristan on May 11, 2005 01:06 AM-Gary Locke
Since when has Gary ever been worried about the expense of the citizens! What a joke... Liberals make me laugh.
Micajah has an excellent Blog post entitled Repeat after me: State law requires.....
Unless Republican legal counsel has been corrupted from within or is totally inept (in any case they can get a job in K.C.), dozens of State law REQUIREMENTS were broken, ignored or (cough) misinterpreted and that DID effect the outcome of this election.
My guess is that ex-Gov Lock received a call from Queen G saying "The election is over and the peasants are still revolting.". (insert punchline)
Posted by: Splatter on May 11, 2005 01:13 AMDoesn't say much for Davis Wright Tremaine, IMO.
Posted by: Baynative on May 11, 2005 05:46 AMWe've got every one focused on the left jab, the felon vote, while there are a series of right hooks coming in quick secession. Lay the felon vote out in court convincingly then add all the other stuff on top and tossing Queen G becomes a slam dunk. Remember the Honorable Judge Bridges tossed a mayoral election because the ballot bags were stored with the keys to the locks.
Gary definitely had the dear in the headlight look.
Posted by: JCM on May 11, 2005 06:02 AMWe know you are, headlice but you're still amusing (sort of..)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 11, 2005 07:10 AMI guess you all needed something to cheer up...
No court will throw out this election based on the evidence laid out so far. You are kidding yourselves if you believe so. All this talk about fraud, voterless ballots, invalid provisionals, late military votes and premature certification isnt even argued in court by the republican side. Thats just used in the public relation battle, on talk radio and some blogs.
You will be in for a nasty surprise.
Locke probably has no knowledge about the case. Its a pretty big lawfirm. And the logic is flawed too: He would only make himself a fool asking Rossi to give up, if Rossi wins eventually. If Rossi looses, Locke will look like a visionary. I dont get it. This discussion thread is nuts, even by SP standards.
Posted by: MarcTGFG on May 11, 2005 07:23 AMUmmm, maybe the reason it's isn't argued in court is that the trial hasn't started yet? One would think it's a bit difficult (and slightly odd) to argue one's entire court case during pretrial motions.
Posted by: Mike H on May 11, 2005 07:39 AM"No court will throw out this election based on the evidence laid out so far."
I echo the sentiments of Mike H. Pray tell, Marc, what evidence has been laid out so far? Are you talking about press releases? I don't think that qualifies as evidence in a court of law.
It's like you're watching a pre-game interview showing a pitcher throwing warm-up, and exclaiming 'There's no way the other team can win!' Don't you think it's a little premature?
Logan and Huennekens gave the case so much ammo, Rossi's lawyers are still trying to sort through all the violations they admitted to. If you think this case has no merit - prepare to be amazed!
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 07:47 AM"All this talk about fraud, voterless ballots, invalid provisionals, late military votes and premature certification isnt even argued in court by the republican side."
You must be the visionary, as you can't argue the above in "court" if court doesnt start for another 12 days.
And by Lockes own statements, he doesnt know much about the case, in fact the average "joe" has more knowledge. But Maggie is right, his lips should be sealed.
Posted by: Chris on May 11, 2005 07:50 AMNow CG is running around attaching the GENERAL word to every discussion she has had!.. She is a loser! We will remember in the next elections.
Get thos petitions and get them signed!
Posted by: GS on May 11, 2005 07:59 AMGood grief.
Posted by: Cheryl on May 11, 2005 08:01 AMGary Locke, as a private citizen, is simply looking out for his own interests. This will set the stage for Locke to switch fims after Rossi loses and the fallout damage to Davis Wright begins.
Isn't it obvious?
Posted by: who'dathunk on May 11, 2005 08:17 AMYou all in WA State are a funny bunch. Maybe we should transport Cruz Bustamante to your neck of the woods and he can help the Democrats too.
I look froward from way down here south of San Francisco at your election contest. KSFO Radio has weekly updates in the morning about your election contest.
I notice headless lucy likes to post. I am reminded of the "roman god" Janus, you know the one with two faces, looking backward and forward. I think headless lucy is this person, looking back upon the good old days of King County and fearing the unknown of King County being forced to change. Heck the Democrats down here are still smarting over Ahhhnold.
PacMan
Posted by: PacMan on May 11, 2005 08:33 AM"Gary Locke, as a private citizen, is simply looking out for his own interests."
So he's not looking out for the interests of:
1. His law firm;
2. His law firm's clientele;
3. The citizens of Washington State.
I think you might actually be correct - for the first time ever!
Idiot.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 08:44 AMseattle@dwt.com
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 08:54 AMIf nothing else, I would expect my counsel to be a little offended.
He should be admonished by at least the firm for conflict of interest.
Karl
Posted by: karl on May 11, 2005 09:02 AMIt is typical but particularly interesting that there was no reference in the PI article about the representation of Rossi by Davis, Wright, Tremaine (DWT).
SOMEONE NEEDS TO CHECK HIM OUT. The only link Locke has to anyone that is germane to the election is his link as a partner in the law firm representing Dino Rossi. As a partner for the same law firm that represents Rossi, Locke has an ethical responsibility to stay quiet and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. He may simply say that he is now a citizen who has the right to speak as he pleases, but he should recognize that – if not legally, at least ethically – he is bound by his firm’s representation of Rossi, to keep his liberal piehole shut.
It would be interesting if someone asked DWT:
They might also ask the Washington State Bar Association if they have warned Locke about his improper remarks.
1. If – as a partner -- Locke is speaking for the firm when he makes his remarks about the case?
2. As a partner at DWT what portions of the case prepared for Rossi were reviewed by Locke?
3. Locke will undoubtedly deny review, but how much of the case could Locke have reviewed?
4. If the firm supports Locke’s prerogative to make remarks about an ongoing case involving their client that disturbs and interferes with the effective representation of their client.
5. If any efforts have been made to establish a Chinese Wall that would assure Dino Rossi that the “esteemed liberal/criminal Locke” isn’t leaking information to the Gregoire camp.
6. What portions of the case has Gary Locke revealed to counsel for the Democratic Central Committee?
How do you suppose it would make you feel if you knew that a scumbag like Gary Locke was power broking and mouth-piece finagling for the very law firm that is representing you, and may be privy to work product about your case? Who’s to say that this is not a great way to side track the whole case with ancillary claims about ethical violations by counsel for Rossi?
Never put anything past slimy liberal inside fixers like Gary Locke.
I think at this point anything is possible. Your theory is probably just as plausable as the others here.
Posted by: who'dathunk on May 11, 2005 09:16 AMI understand the thought, but I do not think so because DWT has a much better and well deserved reputation than to have partners in their law firm discrediting one of their clients. By even asking that implies that Rossi's side thinks there isn't a case. If that were true why have someone from your firm discredit the client and firm, and possibly weaken the case increasing the (small) chance that they do lose? The firm has a much better chance of convincing Rossi to quit with facts and private consultation, not public humiliation.
And the biggest reason, the PR from having a partner of the firm go out and publicly say your side has no case has got to be worse than losing the case. Would you hire a law firm that allows its partners to publicly talk AGAINST your case?
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 09:21 AMUnless special provisions have been afforded as set forth in the Bar Association canons of ethics, Gary Locke certainly has access to Dino Rossi's work product including possibly his most guarded legal tactics. The potential is there, and where there is smoke . . .
What would you suggest as a reason why anyone would put anything past Gary Locke -- besides your faith in liberal ethics?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 11, 2005 09:52 AMIf I was part of the DWT team representing Rossi, I would be furious. "Theories" is what Locke is calling his co-workers defense plan. I would think that Locke would have enough sense to respect the law firm he works for, but hey what can we expect from a person who "worked" our state for 2 terms......
I am going to email DWT today, and let them know how I percieved Locke's comments.
Posted by: Chris on May 11, 2005 09:53 AMThis is the same guy who gave us reduced WA tuitions for illegal aliens. A mere venting from the geyser--full of sulphur odor. Go back to your walnut office and fold more paper airplanes.
Please move aside--we are working.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 11, 2005 09:59 AM
Let us not forget, however, that this firm is a business when all is said and done. It can simply be nothing more than a sage business decision to grasp whatever economic capital potential that Locke has, while he still has legs. But it can also be a Machiavellian “art of war” sort of decision keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. At a different law firm, Locke might actually be in a position to hurt the case, but at this one, he would (in terms of ethics and practicality) be assigned to areas where his “expertise” and connections can pay dividends…international law, import/export, and so on.
One presumes that something along this line would be true, but the recent past proves the wisdom of not counting upon it. If it isn't, then indeed disbarment and the potential for seeing how Locke looks in stripes...hmmm...well it could happen.
Locke must know quite a bit about how the dems operate. You would think that he should be helping his law firm (considering how much money he is pulling out of it). The pleasant thought - Is this just some guilt pangs coming out for telling the Rossi team about all the dirty laundry (OK, not enough time for that - just some of it), and where best to look for evidence?
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 10:22 AM
Dear Sirs,
I was shocked to see published in the Seattle PI, comments made by Gary Locke urging Mr. Rossi to concede.
I am aware that your firm represents Mr. Rossi in the court challenge that is currently ongoing. Mr. Locke's comments appear to me, an average citizen, a "Conflict of Interest".
I have always held DWT high in regard to integrity and trust, and hope that Mr. Locke will be reprimanded for his ethical breach of trust.
Sincerely,
Chris Nichols
That was similar to the one I sent. In addition, I can completing a complaint form for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. When the firm represents a client, no representative of that firm should be making public statements damaging to their client's case. I urge all of you to do the same and file a complaint. They can ignore one person, but when a crowd complains, they will have to take it seriously.
The form can be found at:
http://www.wsba.org/public/complaints/default1.htm
Look on the right hand side. It is a PDF and will nee to be written out and signed.
For someone who knows nothing about government, and has only a passing clue about politics,
Locke seems unusually frantic. Shark probably has it right.
Why has DWT and Jeffery Even not alleged election fraud when, to even an average citizen, the facts sream out 'FRAUD'? The truth is that if fraud was alleged, other corruption would be discovered that would implicate lots of Democrats. Not alleging the obvious fraud gives the FBI and US Attorney cover for not investigation the criminal conduct by democrats in King County.
Posted by: Don on May 11, 2005 11:11 AMHe has the same fear as the rest of his ilk. That Rossi just may pull this off. Rossi is not asking to be declared Governor. He just wants the chance to have an election that isn't rigged. And if Fraudoire actually won such an election, I'd shut my mouth and consider her to be as legitimate as Locke was.
Of course, people like Locke know that Rossi would clean Fraudoire's clock in a fair fight. And that is what this is all about. Avoid a revote at any cost.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on May 11, 2005 11:14 AMAs who'dathunk stated: "Gary Locke, as a private citizen, is simply looking out for his own interests." The problem for Gary is that he's not only a private citizen, he's an employee of DWT. I expect that if I speak out to the press against the company I work for and/or our clients/customers, that I will be severely reprimanded and possibly teminated. Which one of use doesn't expect that?
Of one thing we can be certain - Gary Locke has not been in the private sector for a long time, and has forgotten that he is not a protected and sheltered incumbent. There are repurcussions for actions adverse to your employer and customers when working for a private company in a free market. Gary Locke thinks he is still working for the government. Hopefully DWT will remind him that this is not the case.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 11:16 AMSomeone already has. I just finished filling it out. I will be mailing it this afternoon.
Anyone else interested in filing an ethics complaint against DWT and Gary Locke can do so by completing the complaint form. The form can be found at:
http://www.wsba.org/public/complaints/default1.htm
Posted by: pbj on May 11, 2005 12:17 PMRossi has done a great job keeping his name alive in the press even as his candidacy fails.
The republicans are pheonomenal at working the PR game (getting coverage from the MSM while simultaneoulsy criticizing its every article is a beautiful guilt-ridden strategy that works!).
Rossi is getting tons of free coverage for his 2008 run (or his 2006 senate run when he miraculously bends to the "will of the people" and does a 180 on his previous statements -- he can take plenty of lessons from Nethercutt on this one).
Posted by: Tom Franklin on May 11, 2005 12:41 PMAnd then you have Chris "I Live in Fantasyland" Vance who responds:
"We are more confident than ever that we will win this case."
Vance is spinning so hard that he has lost all connection with the reality of his situation. On can only hope that Rossi has not and can face the music with grace, rather than continue on with his failed power grab.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 11, 2005 01:04 PMYou are right, he is not just any prominent Democrat, he is one that is in the private sector with an employer that has a stake in the case. He is going against the people from whom he is getting his pay check. That, though, is nothing new. His integrity is the same in the private world as it was in the public world - he went against the people that paid him when he was governor as well.
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 01:17 PMWhy is a partner in your firm (Gary Locke) publicly commenting against an ongoing case (Rossi election contest) that your firm is representing? I find this not only a huge conflict of interest detrimental to the prosecution of this case but also inappropriate, unethical, a breach of fiduciary duty and worthy of a bar investigation for violating client confidentiality.
I'm afraid it is that simple. If you are going to take money from an employer you have zero integrity if you publicly work against them. If he had an ounce of integrity he would quit DWT then he is free to say anything he wants to about it. He CANNOT do both!
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 01:45 PMIt goes way beyond having integrity - we know he doesn't. He is a member of a law firm and they have a code of conduct they have to follow in order to be members of the BAR. If a member violates those cannons, they can be disbarred. Locke clearly violated those ethical standards.
I know the bar will be receiving at least one complaint on this.
If anyone else is interested, the form can be found at:
http://www.wsba.org/public/complaints/default1.htm
It costs nothing to file a complaint. You aren't suing or anything, just making the Office of Disciplinary Counsel aware of the ethics violation.
You're right, I was trying to make the point on as basic a fact as possible. I was trying to use integrity as values are a dem issue, at least so we heard last election.
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 01:58 PM"Gary Locke...has the moral authority..."
Well, I'm not sure that the words all belong in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence. SAomething seems grammatically wrong with it. Further, if he ever had it, he sure lost it with this bozo maneuver.
Likely the firm will have either fewer clients, or one fewer partner, when the dust settles after the next management meeting.
Posted by: MikeF on May 11, 2005 02:01 PMhttp://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=751454
Posted by: pbj on May 11, 2005 02:35 PM RULE 3.6
TRIAL PUBLICITY
A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
(5) The credibility or anticipated testimony of a prospective witness;
and
(6) Information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to
be inadmissible as evidence in a trial.
I'm wondering about your use of the word 'follow':
"he is the man both Gregoire and Rossi looked to follow as Governor"
I think Rossi wanted to SUCCEED Locke, and Gregoire seeks to EMULATE Locke. There's a huge difference.
However, just because they both want to be Governor after Locke does not mean Locke has any moral authority. Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter. Yet Jimmy Carter's opinion of Reagan's stance on the cold war meant diddly-squat. The opinion of the person who is out of office is exactly that - the opinion of a private individual.
You can refer to my comments above about Locke being out of the private sector for far too long. He obviously has forgotten the concept about being loyal to his employer because they pay his bills. He's been in government work too long and still thinks there are no repurcussions for idiotic public statements that are contrary to his firm's best interests.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 02:45 PMThank you! I'll be filing my complaint today.
I'm a reasonable person, and I think his comments were an attempt to influence and prejudice the case in a public forum - and that he knew, or should have known, the results of his statements.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 02:50 PMIf you observed a dog drinking from a toilet, does that mean that you should as well?
Go on -- continue to ignore the point and all of the obvious facts like a good liberal.
All that kissing Locke's a$$ must make you feel so special to yourself.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 11, 2005 03:35 PM"Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter. Yet Jimmy Carter's opinion of Reagan's stance on the cold war meant diddly-squat."
Well said and to the point!
Posted by: 4pawz on May 11, 2005 03:50 PMGuess your concept of the elements of a Democracy, or of a Constitutional Republic, differ from mine. It ain't the winning or the losing, it's how the game was played, sorta.
Posted by: MikeF on May 11, 2005 07:00 PMOur democracy entails that the candidate with the most legal votes wins the election. A very close election with thousands of fraudulent votes, thousands more ballots cast than voters, and tens of thousands of ballots enhanced in order to divine voter intent is no longer much of a democracy, now is it?
You need to get over the fact that Rossi actually has a case. Since you're at MIT (according to your halfway-bogus email address), maybe you should contribute money to John Kerry in the hopes that he'll give another quarter million dollars to Christine Gregoire rather than spending it on parking tickets and box seats to the Red Sox.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 07:10 PMI am wondering about that Law firm he was picked up by after he left office...Isn't that the same law firm that the former Health Secretary - Tommy Thompson (the RINO)went to also? Isn't this a global/international firm with a HQ in France?
Now...THAT disturbs me! Why would our Republicans use that firm?
Posted by: Deborah on May 11, 2005 07:58 PMcheck out this link to the PI for your answer.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223760_election11.html?dpfrom=thead
Posted by: 4pawz on May 11, 2005 08:10 PMNo, that is not how our democracy-- or as MikeF pointed out (just how many Mikes post here, anyway?), a constitutional republic-- is run. When you have an election that was this sloppy, can you really call Gregoire the elected governer? According to the laws of this state, enacted by previous democraticly elected legislaters and signed by a previously elected governer, he has every right to do what he is doing... how is that not in accordance with our democracy?
Remember this quote of another person who was "elected" multiple times-- “Those who vote decide nothing, those who COUNT the votes decide everything.”
I would hope this isn't how you want our democracy run, given the sloppy way those who counted the votes have run this election.
Posted by: Mike H on May 11, 2005 09:35 PM2 Locke being fired from such a law firm or being disbarred is a PR coup for the Republicans. Go ahead Locke, make more stupid remarks.
alphabet soup
Accussing a MIT student of getting a C- is the ultimate slam. Ouch.
However, like Brother Billy of Billy Beer, they sometimes open their mouths at inopportune times. Like the "too honest drunk guy" at the wedding receiving line. Hopefully, the private sector (i.e. real world) will humble him a bit. Asset to firm or liability? Time will tell.
If Slade Gorton worked for a Law Firm that defended Gregoire puked out with statements the likes of what Locke said the other day does anyone imagine for a moment that the media and all of the so-called officials including someone from DWT would simply fall silent? By today it would be National news.
abdul rahim,
It's a good thing for you they have special programs heh? That's how our Universities work.
Lets hope for our sakes this moron isn't studying military tactics, or defense policy.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 12, 2005 09:04 AMI think the beauty of what is happening is that Gregoire and the rat legislature is setting themselves up for a huge fall. If they had actually elected Gregoire to office, this would not be the case. Watching these people in action is eye opening for anyone but the cool aid drinkers.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 12, 2005 03:31 PMDear Law Partners of DWT,
Re. Gary Locke's Unethical Conflict of Interest or Criminal Tampering with an Ongoing Legal Case.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223760_election11.html?dpfrom=thead
I was shocked and outraged to see comments by Gary Locke published in the Seattle PI, who has joined your firm as a law partner, urging Mr. Rossi to concede and judging the merits of the case to be "frivolous" and a compilation of "one theory after another..."
"With former Gov. Gary Locke chiming in forcefully for the first time, Democrats yesterday called on Republican Dino Rossi to drop the legal challenge to his defeat in the 2004 governor's election -- a "frivolous" lawsuit that the Democrats say Rossi will lose even under his proposal for recalculating the result.
"I simply could not continue to sit back and watch Dino Rossi fight for himself at the expense of the citizens of this great state," said Locke, a two-term Democratic governor who did not run for re-election last year.
"He has made up one theory after another, trying to get himself into the governor's mansion," Locke said."
I understand that your firm represents Mr. Rossi and the Washington Republican Party in the court challenge that has been raised to contest Christine Gregoire's tainted election as governor of the state of Washington. Mr. Locke's comments are a gross violation of ethics and practices, not only as a member of your law firm but also as a member of the legal profession in Washington state. There appears to be a significant "Conflict of Interest" at stake here.
Even more importantly are major concerns as to whether Gary Locke obtained insider information as to how the legal case for Dino Rossi is progressing and whether he has illegally shared this information in a partisan manner with the officials of the Democrat Party of Washington. I am very concerned that Gary Locke would have a partisan bias to illegally influence and undermine the case to disallow the tainted election of Christine Gregoire.
I have always held DWT in high regard as to integrity and trust, yet given the sensitivity of the case and the possible illegal sharing of information by Gary Locke with the Democrat Party of Washington, I believe that Gary Locke not only needs to be publicly reprimanded by the firm but in addition he should be fired from the firm immediately.
Furthermore I will investigate the process for filing a complaint with the
Washington State Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel at http://www.wsba.org/public/complaints/default1.htm and call for an investigation as to ethics violations, possible criminal tampering or obstruction of an ongoing legal case, and a conflict or breach of interest violation.
Sincerely,
Ralph Reneson
The main problem is not with the courts, democrats, lawyers or even Christine Gregoire.
The biggest problem is pusillanimous liberal shithacks masquerading as Republicans who routinely excercise the proxies of the more conservative ignorant grass-roots to instigate collective posterior molestings courtesy of the more masculine shithacks (like Gregoire) on the other side.
Get a clue, man.
This baby is over with. It was over as soon as the idiots making the decisions didn't strenuously challenge the way the recount was done in Federal Court. It was over as soon as they relied on RINO Slade Gorton protege Sam Reed to do the right thing. It was over as soon as they ever allowed that lifetime civil servant stooge onto the ballot in the first place.
Face it people, you got out-smarted by Weird Al Yankovic who'll eventually ride off into the sunset with a nice big golden parachute funded by your new new gas tax that won't be used to build any new roads.
Possession is 9/10ths folks. All of this effort would have been better spent wresting the party away from the grand ole goobers who orchestrated this catastrophe with their incompetence--where else would Patty Murray have waltzed to such easy re-election after hailing Bin Laden and being the 'voice of the salmon'?
Yeah, a State Supreme Court full of lawyers and spouses of lawyers with no vested interest in the tort reforms Republicans like Dino Rossi want to implement are going to put their own self-interests aside to enfranchise you naive plebs.
The Republican Party in Washington State should be euthanized and put out of it's misery.
Posted by: Exile on May 14, 2005 09:00 PMGuess what, the Republicans are winning.
The Democrat party in Washington state is effectively euthanizing itself.
Suppose the rest of us will be relegated to observing the Peter Principle personified in Chris Vance et al, wait for you folks to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next time around.
Name me a single Republican worth their salt who has gotten elected statewide in the last 30 years?
And don't say Dan Evans or Slade Gorton. The former turned Walla Walla over to the inmates and the latter did Boeing's bidding while they very quietly set the stage for a massive job exodus.
What Evans did at Walla Walla state pen has similarily occurred within the Republican Party in Washington State.
Posted by: exile on May 15, 2005 09:27 AMLet's talk about a Democrat worth it's salt in the past 20 years in this state....There have been more of them in control than Rebublicans, and look at the mess we are in.
Maybe the R's need help with "getting elected" , but at least they didnt resort to the Dem's tactics to get there.
PS....I live in SW washington, so does that make me a wart on a big toe of a native pleb?
Posted by: Chris on May 15, 2005 10:38 AMThat Vance wouldn't stand with the people and condemn the turncoat actions of the pubbies that voted in favor of sticking the states hands up our butts speaks to that lack of leadership. Rationalize it all you will Chris V, when it is as pivotal as this is, and you fail to listen to us, it's you that will be marginalized in the long run.
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 15, 2005 12:39 PMYou guys have indoor plumbing down there or do you still do pail brigades from the Columbia?