October 10, 2006
Dotzauer divorce file hearing

I'm off to today's hearing in Snohomish County Superior Court over the re-unsealing of the Dotzauer divorce file.

It's a huge file and I only got to see it for a few hours. There are whole volumes I didn't even get to look at. Mainstream media is pushing to unseal the file as they haven't been able to see it at all. From the limited parts I did see, there is more evidence of the close personal and business relationship between Senator Cantwell and now lobbyist Dotzauer. There is also the admission of Dotzauer's possible campaign finance violations (now past the statute of limitations). Questions abound about the timing and purpose of Cantwell's loan to Dotzauer and whether it might have been used to help him avoid support obligations.

The file probably should never have been entirely sealed in the first place, certainly not under current court rules. The main reason the seal was granted was to protect the confidentiality of Dotzauer's business financials, which had been disclosed for the purpose of calculating his support obligations. Those specific records could have been sealed without sealing the entire file.

There's enough other information of public interest that the file should be opened, examined and reported on.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 10, 2006 08:11 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Good luck. I hope there is nothing there, but if there is, the two should be gone from the public eye.

The who of the MSM is interesting.

Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2006 08:13 AM
2. Stefan, files are often sealed to protect the privacy of minor children. Especially when there are public figures involved.

I get that you are stuck with McGavick, a worthless candidate, who is worng on about every issue, and can't behave himself while drinking, but this is just silly. Dotzauer, his exwife, and child are private citizens not running for anything. Leave them alone.

Posted by: Giffy on October 10, 2006 08:23 AM
3. Giffy:

Apparently delving into Mike!'s private life is just fine, especially regarding an incident in which there was no victim.

Apparently delving into Maria's private life is taboo, especially regarding innocent victims who are children, tampering with an impending marriage, questionable loans, questionable relationships with a lobbyist, oops, I forgot, on and on....

Love your objectivity. Grow up.

Posted by: Hank on October 10, 2006 08:31 AM
4. Giffy, I don't think so!!! It's about a senator and her unholy, unsanitary relationship to a powerful political figure. Let's hope that is all it is.

Giffy, I wish you would attack the Ds with the same relish you do the Rs. If you were more consistent (I know, I know it is hard for a D), maybe we could have a better government. This hypocrisy of attacking McGavick while giving a free pass to Cantwell is upsetting.

Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2006 08:35 AM
5. either candidate will be influencing our lives in WA--our security and our finances--candidates' backgrounds and integrity matter a LOT to me.

i guess it just matters what the definition of 'is' is. we've been there & done that. the stakes are too high for those who care about whom they entrust power.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 10, 2006 09:31 AM
6. "a worthless candidate, who is worng on about every issue"

Please explain in excrutiating detail how you can possibly come to write such a moronic statement. McGavick, for all his faults, is infinitely preferable to that shrill bitch Cantwell.

Posted by: H Moul on October 10, 2006 09:39 AM
7. McGavick made his DUI a news item. He had a press conference were he tried to use it as a positive. When doing so he misrepresented what happened. The Dems hardly started that one.

Compare that to delving into the personal life of citizens who aren't running for anything.

Posted by: Giffy on October 10, 2006 10:03 AM
8. Dotzauer is hardly a "private" individual - he lobbies congress, passing out money and favors, exerting influence on these politicians. While he is not running for public office, he is intricately and intimately (in both senses of the word) involved in public office. He should be held accountable, and any violation of the law should be exposed, and anyone guilty of assisting should be prosecuted along with him

Take the "D" or the "R" off - follow the law, regardless.

Posted by: Paul on October 10, 2006 10:14 AM
9. Dotzauer is hardly a "private" individual - he lobbies congress, passing out money and favors, exerting influence on these politicians. While he is not running for public office, he is intricately and intimately (in both senses of the word) involved in public office. He should be held accountable, and any violation of the law should be exposed, and anyone guilty of assisting should be prosecuted along with him

Take the "D" or the "R" off - follow the law, regardless.

Posted by: Paul on October 10, 2006 10:14 AM
10. "Compare that to delving into the personal life of citizens who aren't running for anything."

This is not a simple private citizen, but a lobbyist who seeks to influence public policy. Most private citizens don't get their senator friends to get them $9.6 millon from the public trough

One wonders if you would be as incurious had Dotzauer been a lobbyist associated with Republicans.

Posted by: pbj on October 10, 2006 10:15 AM
11. Considering that his DUI would have been brought to light at some point during the campaign, his being pre-emptive about it just being smart. His recollections of how it happened will, or course, most likely be not be the same as others. Or do you repeat the police report verbatim when you explain any traffic offenses you've been nailed for?

The "personal life of citizens who aren't running" is disingenuous tactic that is easily seen through. We are looking into the character of a candidate, and her possibly illegal and certainly immoral behavior shouldn't be so easily covered up.

Do you really think we are that stupid? Or are you judging others by using yourself as a yardstick?

Posted by: H Moul on October 10, 2006 10:16 AM
12. Correction. He didn't get $9.6 million, he got a total of $11.6 million ...that we know of.

Posted by: pbj on October 10, 2006 10:18 AM
13. "His recollections of how it happened will, or course, most likely be not be the same as others. Or do you repeat the police report verbatim when you explain any traffic offenses you've been nailed for?"

Um... getting arrested, handcuffed to a desk, and charged with a DUI is something I would remember pretty well. Although he was pretty drunk at the time.

Posted by: Giffy on October 10, 2006 10:23 AM
14. I have mixed feelings about this.

I don't doubt Maria is a sleeze ball in her personal life and I wouldn't be surprised if similar surfaced on McMike.

When it comes to how this impacts -ME and MY FAMILY- I'm going to look at the voting record and performance.

Here is where Maria is failure. Democrat or not, she's done next to nothing for the state. If she were a democrat worth her salt, she would have brought in a couple truck loads of money to buy development rights---instead we have to pass 933 to protect our land rights. If she'd been worth her salt, she would have brought in freeway money- instead we have a higher gas tax.

If she had a back bone, she would have gotten us the sales tax deduction- instead she was a partisan lackey.

Your term is up Maria- and not a minute too soon.

In terms of rummaging through divorce court records- be careful where that takes you; no one can fling poop around without smelling bad themselves.

Posted by: Andy on October 10, 2006 10:26 AM
15. Giffy--i'd agree only narrowly on your point of leaving a child or ex-spouse alone in the fray unless they directly did something bad for the candidate. however...

a senator's character matters. no one is perfect, true. but--anything "out there" is fair game and should be given its due weight, depending on source & content & how obtained. to ignore information on candidates to high offices is gross negligence by a citizen.

we are not investigating the Average Joe on the street for a grocery bagging job--this is our Senate and they stepped forward on their own accord to run--we didn't force them. so they should take the heat.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 10, 2006 10:29 AM
16. "Um... getting arrested, handcuffed to a desk, and charged with a DUI is something I would remember pretty well. Although he was pretty drunk at the time."

Highly doubtful since liberals such as yourself seem to quickly forget about a liberal supreme court justice who gets cited for drunken driving and hit and run after running her car into a parked vehicle

Posted by: pbj on October 10, 2006 10:36 AM
17. The debate the Democrats used to trash McGavick on the DUI stinks to high heaven. If I get a citation, in my mind, that means I was arrested. To nitpick his choice of words is hypocrisy at its apex. He admitted to the DUI; why did the Democrats have to go after the actual records here, but it is not allowable in the Cantwell case. Hypocrisy is what it is.

Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2006 11:02 AM
18. How is the hearing going? I bet Judge Wynne has his hands full this morning!

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 10, 2006 11:05 AM
19. Swatter, McGavick's arrest concerned a crime that he committed. Dotzauer's divorce was a civil action, not a crime. And Cantwell didn't even get divorced. So comparing her actions with his is absurd.

Digging into Cantwell's sex life will continue to hurt McGavick (which is why he has publicly asked Stefan to stop). It won't make any difference in the Senate race, since McGavick is already a lost cause. But it will help drag the Republicans further down in the races that remain close.

Posted by: Bruce on October 10, 2006 11:15 AM
20. Dems are fine with lots of deep digging if it benefits their cause. It's only when it does not benefit that Dems cry foul. Note, very few Republicans were calling for Dems like Goldy to stop his further investigation into McGavick. Repubs knew it was all fair game. But now that there's something worthy exploring on the Cantwell side, shrieks of outrage and relativism, and complaints that this is personal between Cantwell and Dotzauer. Aren't these the same people who just the other day loudly excoriated all regarding Foley's sex with a 21 year old former page?

Why the double standard? Democrat Modus Operandi.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 10, 2006 11:21 AM
21. Bruce, or is it Giffy? You missed my whole point. What is the big deal between the wording in the report and the words he used? There wasn't any. He got nailed and he admitted to it.

Grrr!!! I think these trolls do this on purpose to get my blood pressure up.

Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2006 11:52 AM
22. Dosn't the statute of limtations begin when the crime is uncovered.th a seal? I think it could be argued that Dotzaer hid a crime through imporperly sealed record.

Posted by: Dave on October 10, 2006 05:48 PM
23. Dave-- I'm not sure what question is more obvious: Where do you get your notions of the law, or What crime?

Posted by: Bruce on October 10, 2006 07:53 PM
24. Never forget....there is in all likelihood a much, much bigger picture here than a smutty divorce or some sort of pay-off situation.

The BIGGEST ISSUE in my humble opinion is this is a TAX SHAM. The proper agency to involve is the IRS!!
From everything reported and documents released, the IRS Tax Sham goes like this.
1) Political contributions are not deductible.
2) However, big money Lefty's pay so-called "consulting fees" to Dotzauer. The big money LEFTY's likely DEDUCT those consulting fees.
3) Dotzauer reports them as INCOME....however then deducts the contributions as ORDINARY EXPENSES as a Lobbyist.
NET Result===Political Contributions are deducted....No net income to Dotzauer.

Many problems with this sham. Likely the IRS will be able to go back beyond the Statute of Limitiations.

How this impacts Cantwell??? Remains to be seen. Depends upon who gave these "consulting fees" to Ron and who Ron "laundered them too.

One other HUGE PROBLEM for Ron.
Political Contributions are NOT DEDUCTIBLE...even for Lobbyists. It's pure BULLSH*T folks.
Ron's bigger problem?
He likely under-reported income for Child Support purposes. FRAUD! Child support would require including the income "consulting fees"...but would not allow him credit for purposes of calculating child support.

Once this all comes into the light....it's likely that Ronnie will have BOTH the IRS and a really P*ssed Off ex-wife on his A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will anybody be sharing this theory with the IRS and his ex-wife??? Undoubtedly!!! Remember...10% SNITCH FEE from IRS>
Stake your claim today...my gift to any of you with IRS contacts.
Congratulations.....

Posted by: dude on October 10, 2006 08:05 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?