Donald Railsback of Vancouver, WA has filed a petition to recall Christine Gregoire.
I can't speak to the specifics of Mr. Railsback's allegations and we'll have to wait and see whether the Thurston County judge who reviews the petition will find the recall charges sufficient.
UPDATE: I'll amend my original comments now that I've had a few more moments to contemplate this. Certainly any attempt to recall the unconvincingly-elected and exceptionally unpopular governor is, at the very least, amusing. On the other hand, the legal and political obstacles for recalling any elected official in this state are extremely high. I wouldn't necessarily jump on a recall bandwagon unless the charges were both credible and understandable. It's not yet obvious to me that the charges in this case are either. The risk of running a recall campaign on the basis of confusing allegations is that it's more likely to fail independently of the target's overall popularity. Any politician who survives such a recall attempt wins a larger victory than they really deserve. It would be delicious to have a solid case for a recall. I'm yet to be convinced that this is it.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 22, 2005 03:30 PM | Email ThisThis should be fun. I can't wait for the hate to start flowing on KVI and KTTH.
Since anyone can file a recall petition, maybe I'll file one on each of the GOP senators serving in the Legislature. See what kind of muck I can raise.
Posted by: Lush Flimbaugh on June 22, 2005 03:46 PMWe need to keep feeding them rope, keep the light on their actions, educate people and 2006 will be here soon enough.
Posted by: jimg on June 22, 2005 03:52 PMLet's face it: Democratic corruption in this state is overwhelming.
Posted by: L. H. Smith on June 22, 2005 04:01 PMTo larger point, the manipulation of language to alter public perception is alive and well in the U.S. of A. Look (and listen) all around...."terrorists" are known as "insurgents". "illegal aliens" are "undocumented workers". "Abortion" is "choice". "racial preferences" are "affirmative action". [Insert liberal position here] is "tolerance". There's plenty of other examples...
Posted by: Palouse on June 22, 2005 04:13 PMRailsback might be correct but that is irrelivant. He hasn't got a chance. It is "Don Quixote" all over again. To many people get into fights they have no chance of winning. It is a waste of time and resourses.
And Washington's own Maria Cantwell (and likely Patty Murray, as well) is on record as being opposed to protecting the American flag.
These, and other senators, seem to think that by protecting the flag, free speech is somehow limited. But isn't more accurate to say that, by protecting the symbol of America, which is the bastion of free speech on this planet, that we are - in essence - protecting and supporting free speech itself?
RESUME TOPIC
Recall Gregoire!!! (At least, in the event that it passes and goes to a vote of the people, anyhow.)
Posted by: JRR on June 22, 2005 04:18 PMMy favorites are: No and obstruction is progressive, and: liberated means you have sell your time to someone else to prevent to quick a slide in your standard of living
Posted by: fred on June 22, 2005 04:19 PMIn the meantime- I would really like to see citizens getting better organized to take their government back.
For instance, why don't we run a voter initiative that would allow for recall? We need more checks and balances giving power back to the voters- all of this energy that went into the election contest could have gone toward a recall. Also it would keep the governor on edge about 12% spending increases and breaking all of their campaign promises.
Posted by: Andy on June 22, 2005 04:35 PMOh boy.
RESUME TOPIC
It will be interesting to see how far this recall petition goes.
Posted by: JRR on June 22, 2005 04:52 PMThe Accidental Governor is safe for now.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 22, 2005 05:06 PMGlad to see she is being watched every single day! uh that is when she decides to come back to town!
Posted by: GS on June 22, 2005 05:20 PMDo you really want to associate yourself with him?
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 22, 2005 05:22 PMIf that language seems "esoteric," it's because the congress of the United States drafted the RICO statutes using very broad and esoteric language specifically designed to eradicate just this type of criminal (Gregoire) from our society.
In reading the entire 99 pages, and having an understanding of the federal racketeering statutes, Railsback cites, if the judge understands the relevant law, the judge is going to hit an impenetrable wall to rule "legal" or "factual" insufficiency.
Some may want to believe that Railsback is just another "nutcase" tilting at windmills, or that this is merely a futile exercise. Believe what you will.
The law is the law. There is a maxim of law everyone should be aware of: "No man is above the law and no man is below the law."
The word "man," in the maxim, applies to species, not gender. Gregoire's actions show she actually believes she's above the law. One of the objectives of her criminal enterprise is to enforce that myth.
I don't know what others will do, as for me, I'll support this recall of little Ms. Evita!
Posted by: Robert O. Birdwell on June 22, 2005 05:31 PMSounds a little scared to me
Posted by: rolling eyes on June 22, 2005 05:46 PMWatching you freaks whine is waaay more fun than I could have ever imagined.
Posted by: Lush Flimbaugh on June 22, 2005 06:23 PMIf it gets approval I'll eat crow so fast you won't believe it. He may be the smartest guy in the state, I don't know. I refer clearly only to the chance of getting it authorized then getting the required signatures when I say he is tilting windmills.
That is experience not feelings talking.
RICO doesn't allow this defense. If there is even a possibility that she knew he is right to add her to as a defendent. Considering she was once AG, it is all the more plausible that she did know.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on June 22, 2005 07:13 PMYou reap what you sow.
You guys sowed Chris Vance and reaped Christine Gregoire, a Democratic House and Senate, six Democratic congress-critters (out of nine) and Patty 'the voice of the salmon and Al Qaeda' Murray.
Recall that.
Posted by: Jim on June 22, 2005 07:15 PMI think the initiative to change the recall law would be a better avenue to pursue, but I am in the camp of give them all the rope they want. Given enough, they'll have enough to hang all of them. (to all you libs, when I say "hang" I mean that figuratively)
Posted by: Foothills Freak on June 22, 2005 07:17 PMGregoire: Election contest was distracting, "difficult for the family," "hard on the state"
My response: Do you think it is any picnic having you as Governor?
No, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, is not "generally an anti-conspiracy act." It IS an anti corruption act, that modified the common law definition of conspiracy applicable to specifically enumerated criminal acts (predicate RICO acts) that previously had cumbersome definitions of conspiracy, or had no conspiracy element at all.
The Ninth Circuit jury instructions on "conspiracy" may shed some light on why Mr. Railsback's pleadings are so on the mark.
It doesn't matter that Gregoire is accused of committing crimes while attorney general, to "carry into effect the objectives of a racketeering enterprise," then happened to move over to the office of governor. She doesn't get a pass any more than any other perp who commits a crime in one room and goes out the door to another.
This will become clear in the following:
Office of the Circuit Executive
Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions
8.18 CONSPIRACY-KNOWING OF AND ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER CONSPIRATORS:
A conspiracy may continue for a long period of time and may include the performance of many transactions. It is not necessary that all members of the conspiracy join it at the
same time, and one may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all the details of the unlawful scheme or the names, identities, or locations of all of the
other members.
Even though a defendant did not directly conspire with [the other defendant] [or] [other conspirators] in the overall scheme, the defendant has, in effect, agreed to participate
in the conspiracy if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
(1) the defendant directly conspired with one or more conspirators to carry out at least one of the objects of the conspiracy,
(2) the defendant knew or had reason to know that other conspirators were involved with those with whom the defendant directly conspired, and
(3) the defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits the defendant might get from the conspiracy were probably dependent upon the success of the entire venture.
It is no defense that a person's participation in a conspiracy was minor or for a short period of time. A person may be a member of a conspiracy even though the person does not know all of the purposes of or participants in the conspiracy. United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d
1197, 1200 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856 (1980); United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 971 (1977).
A single conspiracy can be established even though it took place during a long period of time during which new members joined and old members dropped out. United States v. Green,
523 F.2d 229, 233 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1074 (1976). See also United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 132 (9th Cir.1978) (holding that proof that the defendant "knew he was plotting in concert with others to
violate the law was sufficient to raise the necessary inference that he joined in the overall agreement"); United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 528 (9th Cir.) (holding that the law of conspiracy does not require the government "to prove that all of the defendants met together at the same time and ratified the illegal scheme"), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918, 434 U.S. 827 (1977).
There she goes, falling back on the victim posture. It's a bad habit of orthodox feminists.
The hilarious thing is that she wants to pull the entire state into her strange victim obsession. Seemed to me that the state moved along just fine during the election contest.
Well, it was moving along just fine until the loonieslature and GreGore passed all those new taxes and crazy laws, like taxing marriage.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 22, 2005 07:30 PMShe knew, and I made sure she knew. Have a letter admitting she knew and pleadings in which she admits she knew "but declined to investigate". That's deliberate indifference, and that is a violation criminal civil rights statutes as well as the civil counterpart Title 42 US Code 1986. It is also obstruction of justice.
Foothills Freak,
Less than 25% of RICO prosecutions are of stereo-typical criminal organizations. The authors of the legislation specifically said an intent was to eliminate RICO organizations that control legislatures, police agencies, other government agencies and COURTS. This is exactly why RICO is appropriate in this case.
Posted by: Don Railsback on June 22, 2005 07:30 PMActually there are some very real and reasonable charges that can be brought against Gregoire.
1. She did not enforce state laws concerning the election process, especially when it involved King County. After all, she was still the State Attorney General at the time. And these were repeats of the same election law violations found in 2000.
2. Not to mention the "conflict of interest" involved by having the State's Top Attorney as one of the effected parties in the same litigation. At no time did she exclude herself from pursuing this issue for the state.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Mike P on June 22, 2005 07:44 PM‘Even though a defendant did not directly conspire with [the other defendant] [or] [other conspirators] in the overall scheme, the defendant has, in effect, agreed to participate
in the conspiracy if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
(3) the defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits the defendant might get from the conspiracy were probably dependent upon the success of the entire venture.’
While you are correct (I am not an attorney), I was only trying to simplify things to make a point. I believe we are in agreement though as to the basis for his allegations. My analogy, again simplified, I believe is still on point. Thanks for your input for a greater understanding.
It sounds like he got caught up in some good ol' boy network in the court system. You would think he was talking about the deep south in the 50's!
If he can prove any of his allegations....heads will roll.....Maybe not Gregoire's - but some of his named defendants...
I wouldn't sign onto this one - but it will be fun to watch!
Posted by: Deborah on June 22, 2005 08:17 PMI am convinced that the majority of GOP’s and most honest Democrats actually want to see all LEGITIMATE votes counted and let the chips fall where they may. I will continue to support Sound Politics quest to find the truth, flush out fraud and clean up King County Government. This is a very real and necessary problem that we need to address.
I would not support this recall as it distracts attention to the real problem we face in the Puget Sound. Those who would tie their wagon to a tin foil type recall effort do not do the real cause any good. Let’s keep the pressure on King County, and Western Washington Government to be accountable to the citizens.
The simple truth is, we want an honest election in this State. We have not had one and that should be our focus. I hope honest people of all parties will join us in the quest for the truth.
In all reality though I think the efforts of us all should be on election reform so as that when 2006 comes we can actually have a true election and get true representation.
If you're referring to flushie, no. It isn't nuts. It just that it's a little brain damaged from holding the plastic bag over its head while auto-asphyxiating itself....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2005 09:21 PMThe Democrat Ohio Voting Report is full of it. It only propagates unenforcable standards...The following are excerpts:
8. The Democratic Party should monitor the purging and updating of registered voter lists by local officials, and the Party should challenge, and ask state Attorneys General to challenge, unlawful purges and other improper list maintenance practices.
9. States should not adopt requirements that voters show identification at the polls, beyond those already required by federal law (requiring that identification be shown only by first time voters who did not show identification when registering.)
10. State Attorneys General and local authorities should vigorously enforce, to the full extent permitted by state law, a voter’s right to vote without showing identification.
17. States should adopt “no excuse required” standards for absentee voting.
How pathetic.
Posted by: Erik on June 22, 2005 09:57 PMThat's Bridgewater, jackass. Learn to read
Posted by: Don on June 22, 2005 10:04 PMI have tried to place where I have may have known Lush Flimbaugh from and it finally hit me. A long, long time ago when I was a teenager one of the friends had a four-year-old little brother that followed us everywhere. We never quit babbling and wanted to be a big boy so bad. Go figure, its lush, and he still trying to be one of the big guys.
Is this recall what you were talking about?
Posted by: cc on June 22, 2005 10:19 PMGood memory.
That was me. Rossi not as well represented as he should have been. The fraud should have been the centerpiece of the claims and US constitutional violations argued; at least in my opinion. Rossi should have appealed. He would have won by at least a 6-3 vote. His advisors were wrong, or they misled him.
Jeffrey Even knows Gregoire was involved in racketeering and because he knew it, he is open to being charged with misprison of a felony. As for the law firm who represented Rossi and the GOP, DWT; didn't Gary Locke go to work for them? If so, do you really think they wanted Rossi to win? Also DWT represented Bank of America in my federal RICO action.
Posted by: don on June 22, 2005 10:33 PMWell, this could explain why Dick Durbin continues to state that republican's are Nazi's. I mean, Lush must be writing Durbin hate mail on the hour, every hour.
Posted by: Mike P on June 22, 2005 10:34 PMNo doubt the public would be willing to sign an initiative for the recall of the sitting Gov. - the 3rd least popular in the USA, but there has to be legal grounds for that to occur.
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2005 10:47 PM(I haven't actually read the petition, but I'm assuming that the crimes were committed before she was sworn in)
Posted by: Mike H on June 22, 2005 10:51 PMI certainly admire your intent. And I'd certainly like to see her go. It's interesting that you actually have a letter where she admits that "she knew."
However, I'd bet that she wriggles out of this one somehow. She's a slick and slimy type. She's got all kinds of connections from her AG days. And the WSSC is pretty much on her side and with a partisan bias to the left.
Not to mention that there are all kinds of unions and other government worker organizations that want the status quo to remain and are already on high alert after the whole Election Contest.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be first in line for tickets to the party if she goes. But I think it's incredibly optimistic to to think that she won't find a way to wriggle out of this one, if the superior court even considers the case.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 22, 2005 11:00 PMI certainly admire your intent. And I'd certainly like to see her go. It's interesting that you actually have a letter where she admits that "she knew."
However, I'd bet that she wriggles out of this one somehow. She's a slick and slimy type. She's got all kinds of connections from her AG days. And the WSSC is pretty much on her side and with a partisan bias to the left.
Not to mention that there are all kinds of unions and other government worker organizations that want the status quo to remain and are already on high alert after the whole Election Contest.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be first in line for tickets to the party if she goes. But I think it's incredibly optimistic to to think that she won't find a way to wriggle out of this one, if the superior court even considers the case.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 22, 2005 11:00 PMDWT was his firm way back before his running for governor and King Co. executive.
One of best things that may come of this is that the railroad tracks leading from the King Co. exec office to the governors office will get torn up.
How do ya all feel knowing that Sims was in line to be gov'nor.
Posted by: Bill on June 23, 2005 02:07 AMBut this takes attention away from what I think should be a central issue: protecting voters from having their votes canceled by illegal votes.
Securing the vote matters more, long term, than any particular governor or her actions.
I wouldn't go anywhere near this guy's case, even if he is right.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 23, 2005 10:04 AMThe greatest thing in the world in a RICO case would be for former AG Gregoire to lean on exactly what you are talking about, because she would commiting a violation of the law THE SECOND SHE KNEW ABOUT IT. She would be entering into a conspiracy, and ipso facto commiting violations of the RICO statute. The only way she could get out of a RICO case, in which the Federal Government has subpoena power and all that other goodness, would be to hope and pray. The second she "called in any favors" or used "undue influence" it would be good-bye, Chrissy. Actually, if I was the feds, I would be tapping phone lines RIGHT NOW waiting for the phone call. Given the leanings of our state, I'm sure you could use some of the clauses in the PATRIOT act.
Posted by: Aaron on June 23, 2005 10:11 AMDistract & deflect blame. Don't solve the underlying problems. It's like that in nature, too--the "eyes" on a moth's wings--the same "poison" colors mimicked on a harmless animal--all to fool the predator; (or the conservative, WA voter as the case may be...)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 23, 2005 10:15 AMYes, MC, there are many. One of which is as follows:
News Release: RICO Indictments
News Release
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of Rhode Island
Contact: Thomas Connell, 401-528-5224, thomas.connell@usdoj.gov
April 2, 2001
Cianci, Frank Corrente, Richard Autiello, Edward Voccola, and Joseph Pannone are accused of conducting city government and the mayor's campaign organization as a criminal enterprise; aide Artin Coloian is charged in bribery conspiracy.
A federal grand jury has indicted Providence Mayor Vincent A. Cianci, Jr. and four others on racketeering charges. The indictment alleges that they operated city government and the Mayor's campaign organization as a criminal enterprise designed to enrich Cianci and his campaign fund. A sixth defendant is charged with engaging in one of the bribery schemes alleged in the indictment.
NOTE: Following the indictment and trial, Vincent A. Cianci Jr., Mayor of Providence R.I., was convicted in 2002 of racketeering conspiracy; Operating the office of Mayor as a racketeering enterprise.
Posted by: Robert O. Birdwell on June 23, 2005 03:50 PMI tried to post a long comment to you and others earlier but lost my connection before it posted. In short, you do not prosecute/sue the enterprise, you prosecute/sue those who operate-manage-control them through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Enterprises are inanimate objects, and a thing cannot commit a crime. As you may know there has been some litigation by some groups wanting to hold gun manhfacturers liable will their products are used in the commission of a crime. The courts, and now congress, have consistently rejected that notion.
A more obvious example that anyone can picture, is a drunk driver killing the driver of another car. Have you ever heard of a car being prosecuted and sentenced to prison? Of course not.
That said, there have been plenty of prosecutions of public officials and judges under RICO. In fact one of the primary purposes when RICO was enacted in 1970 was to go after corrupt judges, legislators/cops/other public officials. Congress was so concerned with the problem of public corruption, they made a provision for private citizens to go after them in the event a public attorney chose to ignore the crimes.
As further incentive for private citizens to stand in the place of state and federal prosecutors, congress provided for treble (triple) damages for the successful plaintiff.
Back to work.
Don
Do you have a website documenting your plight (transcripts, videos, mailings, etc)?
RECALL Gregoire.
I'll sign for it.
Everyone that I have any respect for will sign for it.
What are we waiting for?
Posted by: TADD on June 23, 2005 11:59 PMThanks for the informative replies.
This alters what was my view of the situation Don. If you can get RICO enforcement that'll be heard around the world.
Best fortunes to you.
Posted by: MC on June 24, 2005 12:04 AMThe judge has not made his final decision. I expect there might be an order entered, around the end of the week. The AG's office has to serve me with a prosposed order five days before the hearing, which I will waive if I get at least two days notice.
A fair represrentation of the hearing was that he made an oral ruling dismissing charges 2-5 based on issue preclusion. It was a BS excuse.
He dismissed charge one related to her to do anything about the unconstitutional and illegal practice of the state supreme court in order to coverup criminal conduct by judges and other public official. His reasoning was "supreme court commissioners is unconstitutional, but the scupreme court has the inherent power to create them."
There is more to say about the hearing after the judge enters an written decision. All in all, it went about how I expected. Next step in the state supreme court.
Do not be discouraged; I'm not.
I will win in the state supreme court. If not they, the USSC will have not choice but to hear an appeal.
I think I will get on KVI again Monday morning.
Don
How about this for a cause of action:
"Willfully failed to enforce the Constitution.
"Namely, the Constitution states that the candidate for whom the most lawful ballots shall be deemed elected. And, that the enforcement of this provision is delegated to the legislature."
Rossi decided to make the contest a legal contest, even though Washington does not have a meaningful contest provision. That gave political cover the legislators to vote to seat Gregroire.
Posted by: Bob on June 25, 2005 03:16 PMDonald Railsback is a very smart gentleman. He reportedly has an IQ of 160. Donnie boy can be found on a well known conservative website under the screen name connectthedots.
He brings the same keen intellect to Free Republic that he brings into the court room. For a classic example of his razor sharp logic, just go to Free Republic and look for the thread titled "The Usefulness of Creeds" (Ignore the fact that he is currently on an involuntary hiatus.) Sorry I couldn't post the link, it was kicked back.
Posted by: O. Henry on July 19, 2005 09:11 AM