Prosecutor Ed Holm's home page has long carried this message:
We do not see justice as a fixed formula that is easily applied, but as a sacred principle that is always contextual and excruciatingly difficult to attain. It must do justice to the person but, in order to do that, we must see and understand the social circumstances and conditions surrounding that person. Without this broad lens, we will not dispense justice, we will only placate suffering and cover over deep social wounds.Holm has put county taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 million, but his office will appeal.
Our greatest hope for justice is to stop injustice from being re-born in every generation and to insure that future generations do not fall into the same patterns of the past. ... Our greatest chance at catching this dream is to transform our institutions and ourselves.
Maybe Holm can get appointed to a nice judgeship position by Christine Gregoire. With a record like his, the King County Bar Association would find him "Exceptionally Well Qualified". He would probably have to move to King County, of course, since the voters in Thurston County will probably reject him in the future.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 22, 2006 03:38 PMFrom reading the local paper's accounts of the trial, it seems to me that the principally culpable actor in the Prosecuting attorney's office was one of the chief criminal prosecutors, who acknowledged he had an anger management problem. But then, I did not sit through the trial.
I have also heard that the Judge, who was from Grays Harbor, made some questionable legal rulings that may well cause the verdict to be tossed on appeal. The answer to that question is probably 15 months away.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on November 22, 2006 04:18 PMHow could a screaming liberal like this POS Holm ever sexually harass a woman?
Well, guess what, Einstein?
Rules NEVER apply personally to a screaming liberal. Only to the ignorant,unwashed masses. And conservatives.
You, Sir, make me want to reguritate. All over you.
Posted by: Hank on November 22, 2006 05:12 PM500 fancy-azz unrelated words for about 2-3 salient points. eyewash. hot air. even if innocent, anyone jacking around with as many words does not get my vote. thats why im ALWAYS ejected on most juries.
say it simply. F***k the fancy words. You are not a world-renouned author. You are an employee or public servant. Speak accordingly. Stop wasting my taxpayer time, employee.
if you are guilty, step up and take the cane on your back. diversity--hey--it's done in Singapore. let's be diverse.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 22, 2006 05:29 PM"During the trial, the women said Holm would make sexist remarks against women.
"We'd be talking about something and he would say 'that woman's really built' or 'she has a set of knockers on her...or she was a tall glass of water,'" said former assistant prosecutor Audrey Broyles.
Holm fired two of the plaintiffs and forced one to quit; the women told jurors that was retaliation for complaints they made about their hostile work environment."
I wonder if the Washington State Bar Association will be taking any disciplinary action against Holm?
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 22, 2006 05:35 PMFirst, I did not say that "Ed Holm's rights have been violated." I merely made the comment, based on my personal acquaintance with him, that he does not strike me personally as a sexual harrasser.
Second, what is the basis for your claim that Ed Holm "is a screaming, piece of shit, liberal?" He is basically a not particularly partisan guy who ran for prosecutor as a democrat because Olympia is (regrettably) a leftist town in which democrats cruise to election.
I cannot think of any specific incident in which he has been accused of acting for partisan reasons. The fact that he was not opposed in this election--even with this lawsuit hanging over him--supports my thesis.
Finally, I did not suggest that "the rules should not apply" to him. As far as I am concerned, if he in fact harassed these women, he should pay the piper.
But as I explicitly noted, I did not sit through the trial. And as an attorney, I well know that a jury's verdict can result from many causes other than "just the facts."
Its kneejerk idiots like you who give conservatives a bad reputation.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on November 22, 2006 05:51 PMLook at the plaintiffs' comments carefully. Note that not even she claimed that Holm ever made sexist comments about any of THEM. She only claimed he made a few, one-line comments about other women. Does that really justify a 1.5 million dollar verdict?
Moreover, note that the only persons claiming that Holm even made those general comments are the plaintiffs themselves--not unbiased third parties.
As I understand it, the claims that were substantial were based on the conduct of a senior criminal prosecutor who basically acknowledged he had a problem, not on Holm's personal conduct. If so, if Holm is at fault, it is for being to lenient with that prosecutor.
Again, anyone who didn't sit through the trial, or who hasn't at least read the transcript, can't really evaluate whether the jury reached an appropriate verdict or not.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on November 22, 2006 06:02 PMUnless you have really followed the idiocies of this trial- and read more than one little summary story- you haven't a clue.
And anyone who thinks Holm is a liberal REALLY doesn't have a clue.
Holm didn't put the Thurston County taxpayers on the hook, and there should be little doubt that most of this will be reversed on appeal.
Posted by: Captain Wierd on November 22, 2006 07:58 PMWhy do you say it is going to get worse for him next month? You know something?
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on November 22, 2006 10:48 PMGiven Holm's previous track record, I bet he will fire two or three deputy prosecutors in his office who were offended by Halstead's actions. That is probably what he is going to do to make it worse next month.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 23, 2006 12:50 AMThey felt they were entitled to promotions and created quite a hostile environment. Holm may or may not be responsible for the verdict, but there is no doubt he is responsible for creating and enabling an environment where these snakes could exploit the system like this.
To be honest this seems to be part of a growing trend of work place bullying by a small group of women and minorities. I'd love to get a camera into one state agency where I KNOW this happens daily---let's just say white males don't last long there.
So far as putting a new prosecutor in place- this might have been the one race we could have won. The anti-bush sentiment rode hard here in local races.
Posted by: Andy on November 23, 2006 05:42 AM"By seniority, California Rep. Jane Harman should lead the Intelligence Committee, but House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has told Harman she won't be reappointed to the committee.
Alcee Hastings, a black Florida congressman, is the next senior Democrat. He would be a controversial choice, however. A former federal judge, he was charged in an FBI bribery sting and was acquitted by a federal jury. He was later impeached by the House and removed from the bench in 1989 by the Senate.
In a letter to House colleagues released Wednesday, Hastings maintains he did nothing wrong and asked fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives to review what he denounced as the unfounded case against him. "I will make you proud if I am selected to chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence," he wrote, adding that it's a position he's "completely competent" to hold."
I ain't goin' down easy I tells ya.
OJ Simpson was innocent
AND SO IS I!!!
I know lots of stuff, including Holms' violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1962(d) - RICO.
Posted by: Don on November 23, 2006 09:18 AMDid Holm make the comments he was alleged to make? Don't know. Wasn't there. Do the female plaintiffs have an ax to grind? Absolutely. And that should be kept in mind when people throw out their knee-jerk responses simply because the defendant has a certain letter behind his name. I'm curious, Hank. Do you know the politics of the accusers? Would you change your tune if you found out they were feminist liberals who thought Holm was too conservative?
And, yep. Don knows 'lots of stuff' but is considered such a crackpot in legal circles, if, if any of his 'stuff' was legitimate, it'd be dismissed simply because of his past actions, threats and public performances.
Posted by: jimg on November 23, 2006 12:31 PMDoes anyone know what happened to Bernardean Broadous? (Her name sure is hard to spell!) She is listed as INACTIVE with the Washington State Bar Association under # 21229, with an address in Altadena, California.
http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Current_Tab=Public&Usr_ID=765158
She is not listed (as least not under that name) with the California State Bar in any capacity.
How did Thurston County manage to elect someone as prosecuting attorney in 1994 with apparently just three years experience practicing law?
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 23, 2006 04:40 PMhttp://www.csun.edu/~pasafdep/faculty_staff.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 23, 2006 04:57 PMBy the way, pal, just check out the credentials of his accuser: another "social justice" advocate. POS is as POS does. All 3 of you.
Posted by: Hank on November 23, 2006 08:46 PM