The King County Bar Association has issued its ratings in the State Supreme Court races.
State Sen. Stephen Johnson was rated "Well Qualified". The incumbent Justice he is challenging, Susan Owens, was rated "Qualified".
The other incumbent Justices running for re-election were rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified".
This page describes the ratings process.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 14, 2006 10:39 AM | Email ThisI am aware of Stephen Johnson and believe that he would make a great Supreme Court Justice, but if I wasn't so aware this high rating from the highly liberal King County Bar association would tend to make me vote against him.
And it does make me feel uneasy. Am I being deceived here? Is Steven Johnson not the person I think he is? Will he not be the kind of Justice on the Supreme Court that I thought he would be. I admit I have been deceived in the past thinking that someone would be a great office holder in a particular position only to find out once the person gets elected through the person's actions that the person was conning me and was really quite liberal.
But I think the worst thing about hailing a good recommendation from an organization like this the few times it may appear that they are actually giving a good rating to a conservative candidate is that it increases it's legitimacy so when it goes back to its common practice of using itself to promote liberal candidate it hurts conservatives all the more.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:12 AMSo this just leaves me wondering WHY?
Why would they do something like this?
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:14 AMYou are much more a lefty than people take you for.
I was a strong supporter of Johnson, but perhaps he is more lefty than people take him for as well. I can admit that I could have been possibly deceived about him.
Your support for him makes me want to re-evaluate my position on him.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:35 AMAs it is, Ottinger has turned out to be one of the state's worst district court judges. She has been twice censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct and is currently under suspension by the Washington State Supreme Court.
Judges have to be extremely bad to get censured or suspended (much less removed) for official misconduct. In Ottinger's case, she accepted guilty pleas from criminal defendants while denying their right to counsel, and also sentenced them and had probation revocation hearings without counsel for the defendants. Ottinger generally scheduled these hearings on special calendars when even the prosecutors didn't know they should be showing up!
The most egregious unlawful misconduct by Judge Ottinger (at least from what has been publicized to date) were her actions against Sara Totten.
On June 12, 1999, when Ms. Totten was 17, she was caught drinking by a King County Deputy Sheriff. Not drinking and driving - just drinking (alcohol), which is a criminal offense for persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Totten submitted to a breath alcohol test and blew a 0.071.
Ms. Totten had no prior criminal record of any sort when she was charged with this offense - not even a traffic infraction (which would be merely civil, as opposed to criminal).
However, Washington law allows prosecutors to charge juveniles in adult court, if the prosecutor waits until the juvenile turns 18 before filing charges, and the statute of limitations has not expired at the time of filing. In such event, the person receives adult sentences (and adult convictions) for offenses committed as a juvenile.
The King County Prosecuting Attorney filed charges against Ms. Totten on December 27, 1999 in the Issaquah Division of King District Court, Case No. 99183992A KCP. Ms. Totten first appeared before Judge Ottinger without an attorney for arraignment on these criminal charges on January 18, 2000.
In case anyone didn't know this already, the U.S. and Washington Constitutions guarantee anyone charged with a crime to have the right to an attorney, if conviction of the criminal offense could possibly result in a jail sentence. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court is required to appoint an attorney. Defendants must be advised of these rights in clear and certain terms. If a defendant wishes to waive the right to an attorney, the court must talk with the defendant on the record and make sure the defendant clearly understands the rights and is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving them. In Washington, there are court rules which expressly require judges to perform these constitutional duties in every single case.
In any event, Judge Ottinger never complied with these constitutional and court rule duties with Ms. Totten, despite numerous appearances in court.
On January 18, 2000, Judge Ottinger accepted Ms. Totten's guilty plea at arraignment, in violation of her right to counsel. In numerous other sentencing and probation revocation proceedings, Judge Ottinger proceeded against Ms. Totten, even though she was not represented by counsel, had not been properly advised of her right to counsel, and had not properly waived her right to counsel.
As of September 7, 2001, Ms. Totten had already served 25 days in jail as a result of being sentenced by Judge Ottinger in violation of her right to counsel.
On September 7, 2001, with Ms. Totten still unrepresented, and again in violation of her right to counsel, Judge Ottinger sentenced her to another 350 days in jail. (This also made a total of 375 days of jail sentence, even though the maximum sentence for Minor In Possession, RCW 66.44.270.2A, is only 365 days in jail.)
In addition, no one from the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office had ever appeared at ANY of Ms. Totten's hearings. Prosecutors didn't normally appear for arraignments back then, and the prosecutors evidently weren't aware of the sentencing and probation revocation hearings.
Ms. Totten finally learned - from talking to other inmates in King County Jail - that her right to counsel had been violated. Ms. Totten was able to contact the King County Office of Public Defense, which assigned counsel to her and investigated the matter.
On November 7, 2001, Ms. Totten, through SCRAP (a public defender agency), filed a habeas corpus lawsuit against Judge Ottinger in King County Superior Court No. 01-2-31442-4SEA, to challenge her jail sentence and obtain her release.
Normally, when habeas corpus lawsuits are filed against judges, the King County Prosecuting Attorney comes to court and defends the actions of the judge. But in this case, the KCPA agreed with Ms. Totten's position after investigating the case, and agreed that Judge Ottinger had acted illegally.
Ms. Totten was released from jail by a King County Superior Court judge in mid-November 2001, after having served approximately two months of the additional sentence imposed on September 7, 2001.
On December 12, 2001, King County Superior Court Judge Glenna Hall entered the final decision on Ms. Totten's habeas corpus lawsuit against Judge Ottinger. Among other findings against Judge Ottinger, Judge Hall specifically found the following:
"Conclusion of Law No. 9. Petitioner's [Ms. Totten's] right to due process and her right to counsel were violated at the September 7, 2001 review hearing. The court finds that these violations were egregious."
Judge Hall remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On December 19, 2001, the King County Prosecuting Attorney moved to dismiss the criminal charges against Ms. Totten, and a dismissal order was entered the following day.
As a result of Judge Ottinger's illegal actions and egregious misconduct, Ms. Totten spent approximately 90 days in jail for a crime that was allegedly committed when she was 17 - and for which she is now considered to be legally innocent of and wrongfully imprisoned for.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 14, 2006 11:35 AMFine, whatever.
But I would have appreciated it more if you would have explained why an organization strongly committed to the leftist agenda would do somthing like this.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:38 AMRichard on the otherhand had FACTS to back up what he wrote.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:40 AMThese are Ottinger's public answers to the KCBA questionnaire, which consist of only the first 5 pages of the questionnaire under KCBA policy:
http://www.kcba.org/scriptcontent/KCBA/judicial/pdf/ottinger.pdf
The full 10 page blank KCBA questionnaire, which requires signing under penalty of perjury that all the information is "true, accurate and complete" at the bottom of Page 9, can be found at:
http://www.kcba.org/ScriptContent/KCBA/judicial/pdf/judicial_screening_questionnaire.pdf
In answering Question 21, Ottinger states under penalty of perjury that she has never been convicted of a criminal offense since her admission to the Bar (which was on 10/18/1973).
Question 21 specifically asks:
"21. Since the date you were first admitted to the Washington State Bar, by plea of guilty (or its equivalent) or by trial, have you ever been convicted of a crime (regardless of whether the plea or its equivalent was later withdrawn or the conviction later vacated or voided in some other way)? If so, give the particulars, including the outcome."
Ottinger specifically answered: "No"
Ottinger's answer to this question is EXTREMELY FALSE. Ottinger has been charged and convicted twice for the misdemeanor traffic offense of "No Valid Drivers License" under Seattle Municipal Code 11.20.010.
Seattle Municipal Court No. 3961376: Violation Date: 02/24/1988, Filing Date 02/25/1988, Guilty Plea Date: 04/28/1988. She may have been arrested and booked on this, since the charge was filed the very next day, and the docket has the notation: "KCSS Bailed-By: Give to Ruby", which is not present on the other docket.
Seattle Municipal Court No. 4003013: Violation Date: 03/03/1988, Filing Date 03/17/1988, Guilty Plea Date: 04/28/1988.
At the time of these criminal offenses, Ottinger was 39 years of age and had been practicing law for more than 14 years. She was fortunate to get an extremely light sentence from her plea bargain deal -- only a $25 fine on each charge, when up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail would have been possible on each offense. (I wonder how many criminal defendants convicted of the same offense got off so lightly before Ottinger, during the time she was serving as a district court judge? How many of them went to JAIL without the right to a LAWYER for this same offense?)
While being convicted in the first place is bad enough, more alarming is the fact that Ottinger has recently given a false answer under penalty of perjury about her criminal conviction history. And all this in light of her recent disciplinary history of being censured twice and suspended without pay.
Ottinger was appointed by the King County Council on 03/09/1992 to fill a vacancy in the King County District Court from Issaquah. Under Chapter 2.70 King County Code, these vacancies are filled through a merit selection process. The King County "Bar Association" makes the principal recommendation in this process, and uses the same questionnaire process.
Presumably, Ottinger answered the KCBA questionnaire exactly the same way back in 1992. However, the KCBA only keeps copies of this questionnaire for 10 years, and they said the files from back in 1992 had already been destroyed. The questionnaires aren't usually forwarded to the King County Council. Current Clerk of Council Anne Noris says she has never seen a KCBA questionnaire forwarded during her tenure when district court vacancies are filled. The public record file maintained in King County Council archives didn't have any questionnaires or biographical information on the recommended candidates.
Why does the KCBA take people at their word on the criminal history answer? A very simple background search, using JIS-LINK would have revealed the Seattle Municipal Court criminal case number, and a trip to the Seattle Municipal Court would have obtained the docket and other information. (This is exactly the process that I employed to find out about Ottinger's criminal history and conviction record.)
If Ottinger had truthfully answered the criminal conviction question back in 1992, she probably would not have been recommended by the KCBA as the top candidate for the vacant position. Had Ottinger given a false answer in 1992 and been caught, she almost definitely would not have been recommended for this vacant position at all by the KCBA. (Of course, even these assumptions may be giving too much credibility of the KCBA ratings scheme.)
Off the subject: at the national level, the Republicans would do well to NOT run thier guy in CT. That is, the election should only be between Joe Lieberman and Ed Lamont. That way, the Republicans and moderate Democrats of CT would only have Joe Lieberman to vote for. I'm sure the Republicans and moderate Dems of CT would rather have Joe Lieberman versus Ed Lamont.
Posted by: Libertarian on August 14, 2006 11:46 AMIsn't that something that really is the job of elected politicians for they are the ones that we can have the ability to hold accountable for their actions regarding who they let in and who they keep out?
Just another subtle way the Spirit of our Democratic Republic has been violated.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:48 AMA Lamont victory could only serve Republicans by futher kookifying the Democratic pary by even futher moving them to the Left.
Lamont would be the best choice for people who want Republicans to win.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:51 AMUnlike others in this race, Steve has a solid history after 12 years as a state Senator in Olympia. Pick your favorite topic and see where he has voted on it (with 12 years in the Senate, he's had the chanceto vote on most issues of interest to conservatives (or liberals).
As the individual representing several gun organizations in the state, I can attest to his philosophical purity on that issue. Earlier this year, in a committee vote on SB 5343 (gun show loophole) the rare step wa staken of calling for a roll call vote. Johnson and Luke Esser voted against the bill (along with one Democrat), killing the bill. The sole purpose of that recorded vote was to give the Seattle liberal caucus "ammunition" to use against Johnson and Esser.
Posted by: Joe W on August 14, 2006 11:51 AMOne body comes to mind is Sound Transit. Yes, the members are at least there elected officials but they are not elected to their positions on Sound Transit by the general public.
But even worst is the King County Bar deciding who can and can not fulfill a judicial position.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 11:56 AMI don't belong to the King County Bar Association. I think I joined for a year or so right after being admitted to the Bar. The dues started out real low for newly admitted members, but then steeply increased. I didn't see any reason to fork out a lot of money to join a VOLUNTARY association.
Presently, the KCBA charges $190 per year for membership. I remember reading a few years ago that only about half of the attorneys in King County belonged to the KCBA.
While KCBA does not publicize their membership figures, they must be considerably lower than half now.
The KCBA's IRS 990 Form for the fiscal year ending 05/31/2005 (which is public information for non-profit organizations) shows membership dues collected during the year of $852,506:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/910/721/2005-910721603-01e50492-9.pdf (Page 8 of PDF)
(you will have to get a free membership to GuideStar to view this)
Divide this by $190 per year, and you have 4,487 attorneys who are members of the KCBA.
Since there are over 15,000 attorneys admitted to practice with King County business addresses, this means that more than two-thirds of the lawyers in King County REJECT the KCBA.
If more than two-thirds of King County lawyers don't have confidence in the KCBA, then why should the general public?
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 14, 2006 11:59 AMDid you consider that maybe he would have got a higher rating if he were not considered R.
As far as Lieberman, it is better for the country than Ned. That is why. I want what is best for the country, the letter behind the person's name does not matter. Neither do political points, especially at the expense of the country and, most importantly, the lives of the military.
Posted by: Fred on August 14, 2006 11:59 AMBut this thing with the King County Bar is puzzling.
Their goal has always been to ensure that their Leftist agenda wins in Washington State. So why would they help someone who on the face one would assume make that effort harder.
I am not ready to drop Johnson yet but yeah, I am extremely puzzled and bothered about this.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 12:02 PMThese conscientious objectors include Stephen Johnson, John Groen, and Jeanette Burrage, who are viewed as conservative. But they also include Richard Smith and Norman Ericson, who are viewed as liberal.
I am not sure whether Michael Johnson is participating in this. If not, that makes 6 out of 9. If he is, it would be interesting to read his criminal history answer.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 14, 2006 12:05 PMAnything that contributes to that effort is ultimately good for our country.
I am a patriot first formost and always. I am not a Repulbicbot or a Bushbot or anything like that, but I do realize the need for Democrats (and liberal Republicans) to be driven out of political influence before any of our problems including the war on terror can really be solved.
Republicans supporting Lieberman are really being shortsighted and can't put things into a broader perspective.
Kookify the Democrats. Make them more insane than they already are. That is why a Lamont victory is in the long term best for America.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 12:10 PMBut I do have a good idea for a funny item people could sell. Packets of Kool-Aid with Lamont's picture on it.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 12:13 PMAfter all, if it is a great thing that Johnson got a high rating from them, what does it say about the next conservative who gets a low one?
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 12:21 PMI would expect that he would vote with the Democrats on the issue of leadership.
Remember, he was rejected by the grassroots, not by the Democratic party elite.
So regardless of whether Lamont wins or Lieberman wins, if Connecticut is the deciding factor on whether Republicans retain control of the Senate, then they have lost the Senate.
In case you are confused, Lieberman is running as an Independent, not as a Republican. I am sure on all but issues of national security he will be an Independent in name only and will vote with the Democrats.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 01:01 PMSo Libertarian, and that is different from this blog how?
Perhaps Eric has taken his jihad against Republicans over there.
This place has really devolved of late with name calling being permitted, applauded and indulged in by Stefan and Eric. The fact that they employ more vitriol in attacking Republicans than in attacking the left probably says it all about where they're coming from.
Of course the latest tactic is one borrowed from the left, just brand all posts that oppose you as coming from the same IP, easy to do since only they have access to their own IP reports.
1) they know they are losing credibility.
2) They seem to think that Stephen Johnson is going to get elected! If all Republican candidates avoid KCBA from here on out, they're screwed! A primary reason for their existence is recommendations. Now that they've been found out to be the ideological frauds they are, they are trying to correct their veering off the roadway.
3) They are all about membership, as Richard Pope points out above. They even have a MARKETING MANAGER (check their website) in an attempt to sign up more members. If less than half belong to KCBA, what are the odds that their membership will increase in the next four years? Zero.
This is not in any way a bad thing, considering that it is supposed to be a non-partisan race.
Posted by: Larry on August 14, 2006 05:16 PMHaving become familiar with the WSBA and its history, can you pease explain to me why there is a statute creating the WSBA as a state agency, and yet it claimed to be a private organization for many years?
Can anyone tell me where the state agency called the Washington State Bar Association is located and that state agency's phone number?
Can you point out the constitutional or statutory provision that permits a private organization to determine who can and cannot practice law in the state of Washington?
When the state auditor tried to audit the WSBA, the state SC defeated that audit by proclaiming the WSBA to be an administrative arm of the WA SC. There is no authority for the WA SC to have made that determination.
The courts of Washington and the WSBA are operated as raketeering enterprises by those who control them.
Posted by: Don on August 14, 2006 07:01 PMIt would be accurate to call the WSBA a government agency and part of the judicial branch of government. It also has some characteristics of a private association, because the Washington Supreme Court allows it to have these characteristics.
The Washington Supreme Court has determined that the Washington Supreme Court has inherent authority to regulate the judiciary under Article IV of the State Constitution. The WSBA's authority derives from a delegation of the Washington Supreme Court's authority.
To whatever extent the Washington Supreme Court likes the statutes (such as Chapter 2.48 RCW) regulating the practice of law, those statutes are considered valid by the Washington Supreme Court.
If the Washington Supreme Court doesn't like these sorts of statutes (or statutes dealing with court procedure and the like), it simply adopts a contrary court rule setting forth its position on the matter and holds that the court rule overrides the statute.
You probably don't like this. I am not trying to say that the system is right or wrong. I am simply summarizing the reasoning that the Washington Supreme Court has used in these matters.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 14, 2006 07:41 PMI was not trying to bet into an argument. I was merely pointing out that there is no constitutional or statutory basis for what is currently the WSBA.
I understand the reasoning used by the WA SC to justify the WSBA. I simply used the example of the WSBA to illustrate that the SC has no respect for the law or the constitution when it suite their purpose.
Posted by: Don on August 14, 2006 08:02 PMI just wanted to pop in to do a drive-by proclaiming 'Steve' a jackass.
Much better.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on August 14, 2006 11:58 PMI don't have any problem standing up for principles (after all, I voted for *you* in the 2004 election); but there's no moral requirement that I have to do it specifically in a place where comments are memorialized by Google in perpetuity...I would prefer to quietly be a conservative trojan horse, without sacrificing any principle on the way to getting into that position. Particularly for a judicial appointment.
If I am outed even from quietly maintaining this posture (which is likely), so be it, but I don't have to advertise.
You do set a great example for conservative law students in your research. Please keep up the good work.
Posted by: Law Student on August 15, 2006 07:01 AMYou are such a transparent liberal troll, give it up, you are trying to sound conservative but since you don't understand what conservatism is really about, you aren't succeeding at pulling it off. Your overzealousness about your 'clever plan' to attempt to destroy the credibility of Sound Politics is given away by the number of times you're posting. People like us are not fanatics like your kind. We know who you are.
Posted by: Law Student on August 15, 2006 08:08 AMwas wondering if that could be confirmed or how it could be disproved
Posted by: Steve on September 6, 2006 12:22 PM