Susan Powell’s Parents: $98,500,000 in Children’s Murder

BY DAVE CAWLEY, KSL Podcasts

TACOMA, Wash. — The parents of missing West Valley City woman Susan Powell won a $98.5 million judgement in a courtroom here today, bringing a close to the latest chapter in a decade-long drama rising from Powell’s disappearance in 2009.

“All states will remember this,” Susan Powell’s father, Chuck Cox said. “Not that I expect [Washington state] will pay it. But the fact that the award was made tells them ‘you have to do something different’ … ‘you have to protect the safety of the children.’”

Cox and his wife, Judy Cox, sued Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services in 2013. The lawsuit centered on the circumstances leading up to the Feb. 5, 2012 killings of their grandsons, Charlie and Braden Powell, at the hands of their father, Josh Powell. He was at the time the sole suspect in his wife’s disappearance. However, Josh Powell was never arrested or charged with a crime related to what police believed was Susan Powell’s murder.

Josh Powell lost custody of his sons in September of 2011, on the same day deputies from the Pierce County (Washington) Sheriff’s Office arrested his father, Steve Powell on suspicion of voyeurism and possession of child pornography. Investigators discovered the elder Powell’s trove of home video recordings the month prior, while serving a search warrant at his home on the outskirts of Puyallup, Wash.

Josh Powell and his sons had been living with Steve Powell since January of 2010. That raised concerns for social workers, who believed Steve Powell’s home was an unsafe environment for the children. After a brief stay in a foster home, DSHS placed Charlie and Braden, then six and four years old respectively, with the parents of Susan Powell, their grandparents.

The placement rankled Josh Powell, who held highly antagonistic views toward his in-laws. He undertook legal efforts to regain custody of his sons almost immediately. In the months that followed, a DSHS investigator closed an investigation into Powell after finding no evidence that he had neglected or mistreated his sons. Pierce County Judge Kathryn Nelson subsequently approved moving supervised visits between Powell and the boys from a secure facility into a home Powell rented in the neighboring community of Graham.

In their lawsuit, the Coxes accused the social workers of ignoring their own policies and guidelines regarding domestic violence screening. Attorney Anne Bremner, one member of the Cox’s legal team, contended Josh Powell’s status as a suspect in the presumed murder of his wife made him an obvious risk.

“It should have been clear to these case workers that they needed to look at domestic violence because Josh was a suspect in the disappearance and potential homicide of his wife,” Bremner said.

Justice delayed by appeals and coronavirus

Just reaching the point of presenting that argument to a jury proved difficult.

The Coxes initially filed the suit in Pierce County Superior Court. It was subsequently moved into U.S. District Court, where a judge ruled the state agency and its staff were shielded from the claims by governmental immunity. The Coxes appealed that ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In January of 2019, the appellate court returned a split decision, finding the individual social workers were immune but the agency itself was not.

From there, the case returned to the District Court, which passed it back to Pierce County Superior Court.

In February of 2020, Judge Stanley Rumbaugh opened trial proceedings before a jury of 11 men and one woman. He initially blocked out five weeks for the trial. However, in mid-March, Washington shut down its courts in response to the burgeoning crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Anne Bremner worried the pandemic might derail the case permanently.

“I was very, very worried about that,” Bremner said. “But also that if we reconvened that we might have a second spike and then it might end in a mistrial.”

Courts reopen

By June, Covid-19 case counts were declining and courts across Washington were slowly reopening. Judge Rumbaugh notified the parties he intended to resume the trial. However, attorneys representing DSHS filed an emergency appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a further delay. The high court ultimately declined to hear that request, clearing the way for the trial to resume in mid July.

The jurors, who spent four months away from the courtroom, came back to serve. Chuck Cox said their willingness to return inspired him. 

“To a person on the jury, they all said ‘no, we’ll wait, we want to come back and finish this,’” Cox said.

The decision

Closing arguments in the trial came on July 29, 2020. Then, on the morning of July 30, the jury began its deliberations. By the afternoon of July 31, word circulated they had reached a decision. Judge Rumbaugh called the parties together to announce the decision.

“Was the state of Washington negligent? Answer: yes,” Rumbaugh said, reading from the jury’s form. “Was such negligence a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiffs? Answer: yes.”

Next, Rumbaugh detailed the jury’s findings regarding damages.

Damages set

In opening arguments months earlier, attorney Ted Buck had asked the jury for a substantial financial penalty against the state. He had said that was the only way to force Washington to change course and prioritize the safety of children in protective custody.

The jurors appeared to take that to heart. They set damages for each child at $57.5 million, for a combined total of $115 million. They then deducted from that total the amount of roughly $16.5 million, attributing that share of financial responsibility to Josh Powell. As a result, the parents of Susan Powell stand to receive $98.5 million.

Chuck Cox said the staggering figure isn’t likely to come any time soon. He anticipates the state of Washington will appeal or challenge the jury’s result. But he says he plans to use any money he does receive advocating on behalf of domestic violence prevention.

“There’s not much else you can do with it because you can’t bring them back,” Cox said.

The Washington Attorney General’s Office referred questions about the outcome of the trial to the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families. A spokesperson for that agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds The Right To Sue The Government, Blocks Qualified Immunity

Nick Sibilla, Senior Contributor

I cover criminal justice, entrepreneurship, and offbeat lawsuits.

In a landmark decision late last month, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled that victims of wrongful searches and seizures have the right to sue the responsible government officials. Just as critically, the court firmly rejected qualified immunity as a potential defense against those lawsuits. The court’s twin holdings will better ensure that government officials can actually be held accountable for their misconduct.

“Absent a damages remedy here, no mechanism exists to deter or prevent violations of important individual rights,” Justice Elissa Cadish wrote for the court. And “a right does not, as a practical matter, exist without any remedy for its enforcement.”

What became a pivotal ruling for civil rights started because Sonja Mack just wanted to see her boyfriend. Back in 2017, Mack traveled to High Desert State Prison to visit her partner, who was then behind bars. While waiting, Mack said she was approached by two correctional officers, who then conducted a “demeaning and humiliating” strip search of Mack. Even though officers didn’t find any drugs or contraband, the prison still banned Mack from seeing her boyfriend and revoked her visitation privileges.

Mack sued, arguing that being strip searched violated her rights under the Nevada Constitution. Mirroring language found in the Fourth Amendment, the Nevada Constitution safeguards “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches.”

Yet Nevada’s legislature, like more than 40 other states, never passed a civil rights act that expressly let individuals sue the government employees who infringed their constitutional rights. Only state lawmakers, the Nevada Department of Corrections argued, have the power to make government workers liable for civil rights violations.

Fortunately for Mack, the Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. “Constitutional rights must remain enforceable in the absence of some action by the legislature,” the court ruled, “or risk that constitutional rights become all but ‘a mere hope.’” When it comes to “self-executing” rights like the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, “the legislature lacks the authority to pass legislation that abridges or impairs those rights.” “Likewise,” Justice Cadish continued, “the availability of remedies that follow from violations of those rights does not depend on the legislature’s benevolence or foresight.”

In addition, the Nevada Supreme Court refused to import the legal doctrine of qualified immunity. Created by the U.S. Supreme Court four decades ago, qualified immunity shields all government workers from liability, unless they violated a “clearly established” right. Since that usually requires finding an almost identical case as precedent—a very high bar to clear—qualified immunity prevents victims from holding the perpetrators accountable.

To visit the prison, Mack caught a ride with an acquittance of hers, Tina Cates, who was also trying to see her boyfriend behind bars. Like Mack, Cates also said she was subjected to a humiliating strip search. And she too filed a civil rights lawsuit.

But unlike Mack, whose legal claims based on state constitutional rights can now move forward, Cates’ case involved federal claims and was ultimately blocked by qualified immunity. Even though the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that strip searching Cates was “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” the court still dismissed her case since “there was no case in this circuit where we had held that a prison visitor has a right to leave the prison rather than undergo a strip search.” Accordingly, Cates’ right to be free from strip searches was not yet “clearly established.”

Though the Nevada Supreme Court ruling is currently limited to searches and seizures, it’s already making an impact. Consider Stephen Lara. A veteran who served in the Marines for 16 years, Stephen had his entire life savings—over $87,000—confiscated by a Nevada state trooper. He was never charged with a crime.

Stephen didn’t back down. Just one day after the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit, the government returned the cash it wrongfully seized. But the rest of his lawsuit was put on hold while the Nevada Supreme Court considered Mack’s case. Now with a resounding win for individual rights, Stephen’s case to hold the officers accountable can finally move forward.

“The wheels of justice for Stephen Lara can finally move forward after being on hold for more than a year,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Ben Field, who participated in oral argument for Mack v. Williams. “As we urged, the Nevada Supreme Court holds that ordinary people like Stephen can sue for damages when government officials go over the line and violate the most basic guarantees in the state constitution.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Terminating Parental Rights: McCormack’s Dissent

A state’s most senior judge takes child welfare to task as she heads toward retirement

BY JOHN KELLY (John Kelly is senior editor for The Imprint.)

Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack

You don’t see a state’s most senior judge weigh in on with force on a standard proceeding in child welfare court every day. But that is exactly what Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack did, in part because she felt the issue at hand in the case had become all too standard: the termination of parental rights.

The mother in this case had her rights terminated by a trial court, a decision that was affirmed by the state Court of Appeals. A majority of McCormack’s colleagues on the Supreme Court saw it the same way and affirmed the termination. She saw a failure to consider the full scope of options to keep family connected, calling the termination “both tragic and frustratingly commonplace.”

From McCormack’s opinion:

A mom expressed a strong interest to remain a part of her daughter’s life. Her daughter expressed a similarly strong interest to see her mom. And yet the best our legal system has to offer them is a complete severing of their legal relationship, with no consideration of creative solutions that would benefit the whole family. I wish this case was an outlier. But in ten years reviewing records in termination cases, I have seen many just like this where our statutory process for protecting children has failed them.

The case, known as In re G.M. Dixson, involves the mother of a child identified as GMD. Her infant half-sister died in 2017 as a result of unsafe sleep practices. At the time GMD was living with her mother’s family friends from her church, an arrangement reached without the involvement of CPS so that mom could find housing, care for the new baby and get her education back on track. 

When the infant died, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services became involved. The family friends became licensed foster parents so they could remain the caregivers for GMD. 

Services like parenting classes and anger management were rendered, ultimately to the approval of caseworkers. People in the mother’s life attested to the fact that she had been regularly taking medication for her mental health challenges, was managing her own life well, and had a good relationship with her daughter. GMD also expressed a desire to see her mother, but wished to remain with the family friends and thought of them as parents. 

Yet on May 2021, the trial court terminated the mother’s rights, citing ongoing mental health struggles and her use of a suspended license to arrive at the actual termination hearing. “… It would not be safe for the child to be returned … to the mother at this time or at a point in time in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

The overturning of terminations of parental rights by higher courts is fairly rare, and this was no exception. But McCormack, whose career as a jurist will soon come to an end, could not abide a finding that prevents the mother and GMD from any contact when there was no need to do that in the pursuit of permanency in this case. There were opportunities to reunify them, she argues, but never a time when termination was necessary for everyone’s safety. 

“At no point during the termination hearings did anyone—the DHHS staff, the respondent-mother’s attorney, the lawyer-guardian ad litem, the judge—consider any other possible arrangement,” McCormack wrote. “Everyone focused solely on two choices: full custody or full termination.”

But McCormack did not limit her dissenting remarks to the injustices she perceived in this case. Over 12 pages, frequently citing the work of abolitionist organizations and writers such as the upEND Movement and Dorothy Roberts, the chief justice delivered a top-down critique of business as usual in the child welfare courts. 

You can click here to read the entire dissenting opinion, but following are a few choice remarks from McCormack.

The idea of foster care removal as harm: 

The harms of removal and sometimes also foster care can produce “worse long-term outcomes than if the child had remained at home.” But Michigan’s removal statutes do not require courts to balance these harms against the harm that might result from staying home.

On the general standard in federal law that reasonable efforts are made to prevent foster care, encourage reunification, and prevent the need for termination of parental rights: 

The respondent-mother did not just have to attend parenting and relationship classes. She had to benefit from them. But what does that mean? Asking a parent to participate in services is a reasonable request. But terminating the parent-child relationship on the sole basis of a failure to benefit from such services—as determined subjectively by a single caseworker—is unreasonable.

Grounds for terminating a parent’s rights:

Some grounds for termination are backward-looking, asking whether the conditions that led to court involvement have been resolved. For instance, a court can order termination where “conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time …” 

Other grounds for termination are more forward-looking, asking whether the parent has shown an ability to “provide proper care and custody” for the child or whether there is a likelihood the child will be “harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent.”  

The problem with this statutory framework is that it forces on courts a binary choice: full custody or full termination. It discourages creativity by courts and advocates in considering alternative arrangements for a family.

The “best interests” standard used frequently by courts to weigh the right thing to do for a child:

… The best-interests standard is capacious, allowing for individual, subjective biases about parenting to drive decision-making. This isn’t a new observation, which makes it all the more frustrating. In 1977, then Justice Brennan noted that the “best interests” standard’s open-ended nature allowed “social workers of middle-class backgrounds, perhaps unconsciously, … to favor continued placement in foster care with a generally higher-status family” because of a “bias that treats the natural parents’ poverty and lifestyle as prejudicial to the best interests of the child.”

Racial disparities in the child welfare system:

… The legal framework governing child welfare cases is full of open-ended, hard-to-apply standards that invite subjectivity and bias. Minority families may experience “cultural misunderstandings” from courts and advocates who equate parenting practices different from their own as neglectful or wrong.

McCormack concludes with a list of solutions she sees as crucial to making the child welfare system, particularly the court’s involvement in it, more just and effective. Among them: legal representation for parents “from start to finish”; requiring courts to weigh “the harm of removal” in decisions, alongside “best interests”; and integrating limited guardianship arrangements as a means of reducing the use of terminations. 

And the best strategy for reform, she writes, is to “reduce the need” for child welfare in the first place. “The more we move solutions upstream, the less we will need downstream interventions.”

McCormack concludes with a list of solutions she sees as crucial to making the child welfare system, particularly the court’s involvement in it, more just and effective. Among them: legal representation for parents “from start to finish”; requiring courts to weigh “the harm of removal” in decisions, alongside “best interests”; and integrating limited guardianship arrangements as a means of reducing the use of terminations. 

And the best strategy for reform, she writes, is to “reduce the need” for child welfare in the first place. “The more we move solutions upstream, the less we will need downstream interventions.”

Mainstream news outlets don’t cover child welfare and juvenile justice. DONATE today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

23-2-00013-34 Arthur West vs WA State Legislature et al

Arthur S West

Case Information

23-2-00013-34 | ARTHUR WEST vs THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE et al

Case Number
23-2-00013-34

Court
Thurston

Judicial Officer
Murphy, Carol

File Date
01/09/2023

Case Type
INJ Injunction

Case Status
Active

Party

Plaintiff
WEST, ARTHUR

Active Attorneys
Pro Se


Defendant
THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE


Defendant
THE WASHINGTON STATE SENATE


Defendant
THE WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Defendant
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ANDY BILLIG


Defendant
SENATE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BRAUN


Defendant
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER JOE FITZGIBBON


Defendant
HOUSE SPEAKER LAURIE JINKINS


Defendant
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER J T WILCOX

Events and Hearings

  • 1 01/09/2023 Case Information Cover Sheet View Document Case Information Cover Sheet
  • 2 01/09/2023 Complaint View Document Complaint
  • 3 01/09/2023 Memorandum View Document Memorandum
  • 4 01/09/2023 Summons View Document Summons
  • 5 01/09/2023 Notice of Assignment View Document TCCO NTAS DATE Notice of Assignment and Notice of Trial Scheduling Date
  • 6 01/17/2023 Notice of Appearance 
  • View Document Notice of Appearance
  • 05/12/2023 Assignment for Trial Setting Judicial Officer
    Murphy, Carol Hearing Time
    9:00 AM

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Harlan Meier, Respondent v. Sakuntla Devi, Appellant

WA COA I #841793 – Harlan Meier, Respondent v. Sakuntla Devi, Appellant

21 12/13/2022BriefAppellants–841793-Public-Brief-Appellants-12/13/2022–Justin Morgan-Sakuntla Devi-3,974 wd-24 pg-
20 12/7/2022Correspondence ReceivedLetter– – 841793 – Public -Correspondence Received – Letter – 12/7/2022 – Clerk’s Papers – Justin Morgan
19 12/6/2022RecordDesignation of Clerks Papers– 841793 – Public – Record – Designation of Clerks Papers – 12/6/2022 – Supplemental –
18 11/14/2022Motion PartyExtend Time to File—841793-Public-Motion Party-Extend Time to File-11/14/2022– words–Justin Morgan-
17 10/26/2022Initiation NoticeNotice of Appeal– 841793 – Public – Initiation Notice – Notice of Appeal – 10/26/2022 – Amended –
16 10/25/2022NoticeAssociation of Counsel– – 841793 – Public – Notice -Association of Counsel – 10/25/2022 – – – Justin Morgan
15 10/19/2022Affidavit/DeclarationService– 841793 – Public -Affidavit/Declaration – Service -10/19/2022 – Notice -Atty W/D – Matthew Klosowski Link
14 9/26/2022Affidavit/DeclarationService– 841793 – Public – Affidavit/Declaration – Service -9/26/2022 – – Matthew Klosowski Link
13 9/26/2022RecordStatement of Arrangements– 841793 – Public – Record – Statement of Arrangements – 9/26/2022 -Amended –
12 9/16/2022LetterOther– 841793 – Public – Letter – Other – 9/16/2022 – Svc of Intent to W/D
11 9/15/2022NoticeIntent to Withdraw– – 841793 – Public – Notice – Intent to Withdraw – 9/15/2022 – – – Matthew Klosowski Link
10 9/2/2022RecordDesignation of Clerks Papers– 841793 – Public – Record – Designation of Clerks Papers • 9/2/2022 – Supplemental –
9 9/1/2022RecordDesignation of Clerks Papers– 841793 – Public – Record – Designation of Clerks Papers – 9/1/2022 – –
8 9/1/2022RecordStatement of Arrangements– 841793 – Public – Record – Statement of Arrangements – 9/1/2022 – –
7 8/22/2022Motion PartyExtend Time to File—841793-Public-Motion Party-Extend Time to File-8/22/2022– words–David Sanders-
6 8/22/2022RulingMotion– – 841793 – Public – Ruling – Motion – 8/22/2022 – – DES/SOA – Stay Lifted – Kanazawa, Masako
5 8/8/2022RulingExtension of Time– – 841793 – Public – Ruling – Extension of Time – 8/8/2022 – – DES/SOA – Case Stayed – Kanazawa, Masako
4 7/19/2022Motion PartyExtend Time to File—841793-Public-Motion Party-Extend Time to File-7/19/2022– words–David Sanders-
3 7/18/2022LetterOther– 841793 – Public – Letter – Other – 7/18/2022 – Motion to Extend Rejected
2 6/17/2022LetterPerfection– 841793 – Public – Letter – Perfection – 6/17/2022 – Civil
1 6/15/2022Initiation NoticeNotice of Appeal– 841793 – Public – Initiation Notice – Notice of Appeal – 6/15/2022 – –
COA I Docket #841793

Harlan W. Meier v. Sakuntla Devi Prasad (dob:6-21-51)
King Superior Ct case #21-2-16736
-1

Sub NumberDate FiledDocument NameAdditional Information
  112/22/2021CMPQTI – Quiet Title Complaint
  312/22/2021CICS – Case Information Cover Sheet
  212/22/2021ORSCS-CV – Order Setting Case Schedule – Civil
  412/22/2021SM – Summons
  512/22/2021NTWSUB – Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution Of Counsel
  602/03/2022AFSRS – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate Of Service – Served
  702/03/2022AN – Answer
  802/03/2022DCLR – DeclarationSETH GOODSTEIN
  902/03/2022NTHG – Notice of Hearing
  1002/03/2022MTSMJG – Motion for Summary Judgment
  1102/03/2022DCLR – DeclarationMATTHEW LINK
  1202/03/2022DCLR – Declaration
  1302/25/2022DCLRM – Declaration of Mailing
  1402/25/2022AFSRS – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate Of Service – Served
  1503/15/2022NTHG – Notice of HearingSUMMARY JUDGMENT /AMENDED
  1603/15/2022NTHG – Notice of HearingSUMMARY JUDGMENT /AMENDED
  1703/15/2022DCLRM – Declaration of Mailing
  1803/29/2022NTAPR – Notice of Appearance
  1904/07/2022MT – MotionTO STRIKE
  2004/08/2022MINS – Minutes Motion hearing
  2104/08/2022ORCNT – Order of Continuance
  2204/15/2022RSP – Response
  2304/15/2022RSP – Response
  2404/20/2022RPY – Reply
  2504/20/2022DCLR – DeclarationOF MATTHEW LINK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  2604/20/2022DCLR – Declaration
  2704/20/2022RPY – Reply
  2804/20/2022AFSRS – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate Of Service – Served
  3005/05/2022FAULTY – Faulty Document Notice
  3105/13/2022NTAB – Notice of Absence / Unavailability
  3205/13/2022AFSRS – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate Of Service – Served
  3305/13/2022MINS – Minutes Motion hearing
  3405/16/2022JDDQT – Judgment and Decree Quieting Title
  3505/23/2022MTRC – Motion for Reconsideration
  3605/23/2022NTHG – Notice of Hearing
  3705/23/2022DCLR – DeclarationSAKUNTLA DEVI
  3806/13/2022NACA – Notice of Appeal to Court Of Appeals
  3906/27/2022RSP – ResponseTO MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION
  4007/05/2022RPY – ReplyRE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
  4108/18/2022ORDYMT – Order Denying Motion / PetitionFOR RECONSIDERATION
  4208/30/2022NTHG – Notice of Hearing
  4308/30/2022MT – MotionFOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
  4408/30/2022DCLR – DeclarationMATTHEW LINK
  4508/30/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  4609/01/2022STAR – Statement of Arrangements
  4709/01/2022DSGCKP – Designation of Clerk’s Papers84179-3
  4809/02/2022DSGCKP – Designation of Clerk’s Papers84179-3
  4909/02/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  5009/07/2022CLKPPRS – Clerk’s Papers Set
  5109/07/2022CPINX – Clerk’s Papers Index
  5209/07/2022RSP – ResponseTO SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
  5309/07/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  5409/13/2022CLKPPRS – Clerk’s Papers Set
  5509/13/2022CPINX – Clerk’s Papers Index
  5609/13/2022RPY – ReplyIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
  5709/13/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  5809/15/2022NTIWD – Notice of Intent to Withdraw
  5909/15/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  6009/21/2022ORGMT – Order Granting Motion / PetitionFOR ATTORNEY FEES
  6109/21/2022AFSRES – Affidavit / Declaration / Certificate of eService
  6210/24/2022NTAPR – Notice of Appearance
  6310/24/2022DSGCKP – Designation of Clerk’s Papers84179-3
  6410/24/2022NACA – Notice of Appeal to Court Of AppealsAMENDED
  6511/02/2022CLKPPRS – Clerk’s Papers Set
  6611/02/2022CPINX – Clerk’s Papers Index
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FTW: How to be Dangerous

Men in Womanface Prove the Patriarchy Still Exists in Port Townsend, WA in 2022

Women are once again second class citizens to men in this tourist destination

by Candace Mercer

In a brave and stunning show of defiance, a mob of 250-300 trans rights activists in Port Townsend attempted to silence a group of 35, mostly older/disabled women and their male allies. When push came to literal shove, these men proved the patriarchy is alive in 2022.

The women held the line and were not intimidated. The women won because the attack drew international condemnation due to the violence against them. Shaming women for wanting to have boundaries around who has access to their bodies is the epitome of rape culture.

Image by Candace Mercer: Their rage stemmed from Women’s right to say NO.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Mafia (aka Reserve)

Federal Mafia
Federal Mafia

Republican senators propose overhaul of Federal Reserve amid concerns about politics

BY MICHAEL S. DERBY

Seven Republican U.S. senators on Wednesday announced a new bill aimed at reshaping the Federal Reserve’s 12 regional banks, amid concerns that those institutions have become too political.

In a news release from outgoing Senator Pat Toomey, the legislators said they are calling for regional Fed bank presidents to be presidentially nominated and confirmed by the Senate, matching the requirements to become a member of the central bank’s Board of Governors.

Among its provisions, the bill would also shrink the 12 regional Fed banks to five. “This will enable more effective congressional oversight and ensure that all presidents of Fed regional banks have permanent seats on the Federal Open Market Committee,” the news release said.

Regional Fed leaders contribute to monetary policy debates, gather local economic intelligence and vote on interest rate decisions on a rotating basis.

The bill would make the Fed’s Inspector General a position subject to Senate confirmation, ending the current system where the in-house watchdog chief is selected by the Fed leader, which has long raised questions about the IG’s independence.

The news release from Toomey’s office said the legislation is aimed at clipping the wings of a Fed that he and his colleagues see as straying from its legally determined mission. The U.S. central bank, created just over a century ago, is charged by Congress with achieving price stability, promoting maximum employment and ensuring the safety of the financial system.

In recent years, largely at the regional bank level, the Fed has increasingly turned its research interests to explore how things like climate change and social and racial inequalities affect its mission. Fed officials have defended this work as vital to fully understanding how the economy functions, but critics, mainly on the conservative side, see the work as a distraction.

The structure of regional Fed banks has long made reformers, both on the left and right, uncomfortable. They are quasi-private institutions technically owned by private banks in their respective districts, and are overseen by local boards of directors drawn from the private sector. Leaders of these regional Fed boards are chosen by their private boards, although they must be approved by the board in Washington before taking office.

Meanwhile, the New York Fed implements monetary policy and gathers information from the financial system. In contrast, the Fed in Washington, which oversees the regional Fed banks, is explicitly part of the government.

The number and distribution of the regional banks has also been a matter of concern, given that the San Francisco Fed oversees essentially the entire U.S. West, while Missouri has two Fed banks.

The bill’s prospects are unclear given that Democrats will retain control of the Senate in the next Congress which begins on Jan. 3. Toomey, even as he heads for the exit, has managed to find common ground with some Democrats over other Fed changes, having announced legislation recently with Senator Elizabeth Warren that would improve transparency at the regional banks.

(Reporting by Michael S. Derby in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Schizoid Photo-Junkie Blueprint

Vedder/Whelan
Shawna/Shawnie

Case Information

07-3-00180-3 | SCOTT PAUL TURCHIN AND SHAWNIE ANN VEDDER
Case Number
07-3-00180-3

Court
Kitsap

File Date
02/07/2007

Case Type
MSC3 Miscellaneous – Domestic

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Respondent
VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN


Petitioner
TURCHIN, SCOTT PAUL


Minor (Participant)
VEDDER, MILDRED ANN


Involved Party (Participant)
STATE OF WASHINGTON

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyANDREWS, JENNIFER DURCAN

Retained



Conversion (Participant)
VEDDER, SHAWNIE

Active Attorneys
Pro Se


Events and Hearings

  • 02/07/2007 Case Resolution Uncontested Resolution
  • 1 02/07/2007 Copy View Document Copy Comment
    1: COPY DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM; 97 5 00460 1;
  • 02/07/2007 Filing Fee Not Paid Comment
    FILING FEE NOT PAID; COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER NOTIFIED; 02/08/2007;
  • 2 02/07/2007 Summons and Petition for Modification View Document Summons and Petition for Modification Comment
    2: SUMMONS & PETITION FOR MODIFICATION;
  • 3 02/07/2007 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment
    3: MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION; FOR ADEQUATE CAUSE;
  • 4 02/07/2007 Notice of Hearing View Document NOTICE OF HEARING Comment
    4: NOTICE OF HEARING; 02-16-2007; NOTED FOR WRONG CALENDAR/COUNSEL; NOTIFIED 02/08/2007 WILL RENOTE;
  • 02/12/2007 Filing Fee Received Comment
    FILING FEE RECEIVED;
  • 5 02/12/2007 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of HearingComment
    5: NOTICE OF HEARING AMENDED; 02-26-2007PC; ADEQUATE CAUSE;
  • 6 02/12/2007 Declaration of Mailing View Document DECLARATION OF MAILINGComment
    6: DECLARATION OF MAILING;
  • 7 02/15/2007 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of ServiceComment
    7: AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE;
  • 02/16/2007 Cancelled/Rescheduled Hearing/Trial/Motion (conversion) Hearing Time
    08:00 AM Comment
    4: NOTICE OF HEARING; 02-16-2007; NOTED FOR WRONG CALENDAR/COUNSEL; NOTIFIED 02/08/2007 WILL RENOTE;
  • 02/26/2007 Paternity Misc Matters 9:00 AM Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    ADEQUATE CAUSE
  • 8 02/26/2007 Request for Continuance View Document REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Comment
    8: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE; 03-19-2007PC; ADEQUATE CAUSE;
  • 9 02/26/2007 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARING Comment
    9: MOTION HEARING; MATTER CONTINUED BY AGREEMENT; COMMISSIONER RICHARD ADAMSON; COURT REPORTER NICKIE DRURY;
  • 10 03/13/2007 Appearance Pro Se View Document APPEARANCE PRO SEComment
    10: APPEARANCE PRO SE; RESPONDENT: VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN;
  • 11 03/13/2007 Response View Document ResponseComment
    11: RESPONSE TO MODIFICATION PETITION;
  • 12 03/13/2007 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment
    12: DECLARATION OF SHAWNIE VEDDER;
  • 13 03/13/2007 Certificate of Mailing View Document CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGComment
    13: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING;
  • 03/19/2007 Paternity Misc Matters 9:00 AM Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    ADEQUATE CAUSE
  • 14 03/19/2007 Settlement Conference Setting View Document SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SETTING Comment
    14: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SETTING; 05 14 2007 1:30PM;
  • 15 03/19/2007 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARINGComment
    15: MOTION HEARING; ORDER SIGNED AS PRESENTED; COMMISSIONER RICHARD ADAMSON; COURT REPORTER JAMI JACOBSEN;
  • 16 03/19/2007 Order Re Adequate Cause Granted View Document Order Re Adequate Cause GrantedComment
    16: ORDER RE ADEQUATE CAUSE – GRANTED; COMMISSIONER RICHARD ADAMSON;
  • 04/12/2007 Non Fee Comment
    NON FEE;
  • 04/12/2007 ADM05 Comment
    STATE CASE – MODIFICATION;
  • 17 04/12/2007 Summons and Petition for Modification View Document Summons and Petition for ModificationComment
    17: SUMMONS & PETITION FOR MODIFICATION;
  • 18 04/12/2007 Notice Re Dependent of a Person in Military Service View Document Notice Re Dependent of a Person in Military Service Comment
    18: NT RE: DEPENDENT OF MILITARY PERSON;
  • 19 04/12/2007 Sealed Financial Source Documents View Document Sealed Financial Source Documents Comment
    19: SEALED FINANCIAL DOCUMENT(S); RESPONDENT: VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN;
  • 20 04/12/2007 Sealed Financial Source Documents View Document Sealed Financial Source Documents Comment
    20: SEALED FINANCIAL DOCUMENT(S); PETITIONER: TURCHIN, SCOTT PAUL;
  • 21 04/12/2007 Child Support Worksheet View Document Child Support Worksheet Comment
    21: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET PROPOSED; BY SHAWNIE ANN VEDDER;
  • 22 04/12/2007 Financial Declaration View Document Financial Declaration Comment
    22: FINANCIAL DECLARATION SHAWNIE ANN; VEDDER;
  • 23 04/17/2007 Return of Service View Document RETURN OF SERVICE Comment
    23: RETURN OF SERVICE;
  • 24 04/18/2007 Return of Service View Document RETURN OF SERVICE Comment
    24: RETURN OF SERVICE;
  • 25 04/26/2007 Sealed Financial Source Documents View Document Sealed Financial Source Documents Comment
    25: SEALED FINANCIAL DOCUMENT(S);
  • 26 04/26/2007 Child Support Worksheet View Document Child Support Worksheet Comment
    26: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET SUBMITTED; BY SHAWNIE ANN VEDDER;
  • 27 04/26/2007 Acceptance of Service View Document ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE Comment
    27: ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE;
  • 04/26/2007 Appearance Pro Se Comment
    APPEARANCE PRO SE; RESPONDENT: VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN;
  • 28 04/26/2007 Financial Declaration View Document FINANCIAL DECLARATION Comment
    28: FINANCIAL DECLARATION;
  • 29 05/15/2007 Settlement Conference Setting View Document SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SETTING Comment
    29: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SETTING; 07 24 2007 @ 1:30PM; JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN, DEPT 8;
  • 30 06/04/2007 Letter View Document Letter Comment
    30: LETTER DATED 05/23/07 SUBMITTED BY; SCOTT PAUL TURCHIN;
  • 31 06/04/2007 Child Support Worksheet View Document Child Support WorksheetComment
    31: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET REVISED; STATES PROPOSED;
  • 32 06/04/2007 Note for Motion Docket View Document NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET Comment
    32: NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET; 07-02-2007PC; HEARING RE SUPPORT MODIFICATION;
  • 33 06/04/2007 Acceptance of Service View Document ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE Comment
    33: ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE;
  • 06/04/2007 Appearance Pro Se Comment
    APPEARANCE PRO SE; RESPONDENT: VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN;
  • 34 06/14/2007 Child Support Worksheet View Document Child Support Worksheet Comment
    34: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET REVISED; STATES PROPOSED;
  • 35 06/21/2007 Notice of Absence Unavailability View Document Notice of Absence Unavailability Comment
    35: NOTICE OF ABSENCE/UNAVAILABILITY; GOODELL, DANIEL LEE;
  • 36 06/21/2007 Letter View Document Letter Comment
    36: LETTER FROM SHAWNIE ANN VEDDER;
  • 37 06/21/2007 Sealed Financial Source Documents View Document Sealed Financial Source Documents Comment
    37: SEALED FINANCIAL DOCUMENT(S);
  • 07/02/2007 Paternity Misc Matters 9:00 AM Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    HEARING RE SUPPORT MODIFICATION
  • 38 07/02/2007 Modification Hearing View Document MODIFICATION HEARING Comment
    38: MODIFICATION HEARING; ORDER SIGNED AS PRESENTED; COMMISSIONER RICHARD ADAMSON; COURT REPORTER ANDREA EVANS;
  • 39 07/02/2007 Order for Support View Document ORDER FOR SUPPORT Comment
    39: ORDER FOR SUPPORT;
  • 07/02/2007 Child Support Worksheet Comment
    CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET;
  • 40 07/02/2007 Order on Modification View Document ORDER ON MODIFICATION Comment
    40: ORDER ON MODIFICATION; COMMISSIONER RICHARD ADAMSON;
  • 07/19/2007 Registry Referral Letter Comment
    REGISTRY REFERRAL LETTER;
  • 41 09/06/2007 Note for Motion Docket View Document NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET Comment
    41: NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET; 09-28-2007JR; PRESENTATION OF FINAL ORDERS;
  • 09/28/2007 JR Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    PRESENTATION OF FINAL ORDERS
  • 42 09/28/2007 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARING Comment
    42: MOTION HEARING; ENTRY OF ORDER; JUDGE JAY B ROOF, DEPT 5; COURT REPORTER ANDREA EVANS;
  • 43 09/28/2007 Residential Time Summary Report View Document RESIDENTIAL TIME SUMMARY REPORT Comment
    43: RESIDENTIAL TIME SUMMARY REPORT;
  • 44 09/28/2007 Order on Modification View Document ORDER ON MODIFICATION Comment
    44: ORDER ON MODIFICATION;
  • 45 09/28/2007 Parenting Plan Final Order View Document Parenting Plan Final Order Comment
    45: PARENTING PLAN (FINAL ORDER); JUDGE JAY B ROOF, DEPT 5;
  • 46 09/28/2007 Declaration of Mailing View Document DECLARATION OF MAILING Comment
    46: DECLARATION OF MAILING;
  • 10/04/2007 Registry Referral Letter Comment
    REGISTRY REFERRAL LETTER;
  • 47 08/07/2008 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW Comment
    47: NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW;
  • 48 03/07/2013 Satisfaction of Judgment View Document SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT Comment
    48: SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT;

Cupcake Sued for DVPO

Case Information

13-2-00281-1 | Scott Turchin on behalf of Mildred Vedder vs Shawnie Vedder
Case Number
13-2-00281-1

Court
Mason

File Date
05/08/2013

Case Type
DVP Domestic Violence

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Respondent (WIP)
VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN

DOB
XX/XX/1967

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyBardwil, Mark Edward

Retained


Petitioner (WIP)
TURCHIN, SCOTT PAUL

DOB
XX/XX/1965


Minor (WIP)
VEDDER, MILDRED ANN

DOB
XX/XX/1996

Events and Hearings

  • 05/08/2013 Confidential Information Form Comment
    -: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FORM;
  • 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit Comment
    -: DECLARATION RE FAX SIGNATURE;
  • 1 05/08/2013 Petition for Order for Protection View Document PET ORD FOR PROTECTION Comment
    1: PET ORD FOR PROTECTION;
  • 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit Comment
    -: DECLARATION RE FAX SIGNATURE;
  • 2 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit View Document DECLARATION OF SCOTT TURCHIN Comment
    2: DECLARATION OF SCOTT TURCHIN;
  • 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit Comment
    -: DECLARATION RE FAX SIGNATURE;
  • 3 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit View Document DECLARATION OF DAVID VEDDER Comment
    3: DECLARATION OF DAVID VEDDER;
  • 05/08/2013 Declaration Affidavit Comment
    -: DECLARATION RE FAX SIGNATURE;
  • 4 05/08/2013 Sealed Confidential Reports Cover Sheet View Document SEALED CONFIDENTIAL RPTS CVR SHEET Comment
    4: SEALED CONFIDENTIAL RPTS CVR SHEET; -CPS SUMMARY REPORT;
  • 5 05/08/2013 Temporary Order for Protection View Document TEMP ORD FOR PROTECTION Comment
    5: TEMP ORD FOR PROTECTION; 05-22-2013MC; PROTECTION ORDER @ 1:30 PM;
  • 05/08/2013 Ex Parte Action With Order Comment
    -: EX-PARTE ACTION WITH ORDER; JUDGE AMBER L. FINLAY;
  • 6 05/10/2013 Return of Service View Document RETURN OF SERVICE Comment
    6: RETURN OF SERVICE;
  • 05/22/2013 MC Domestic/Probate – Motion Calendar Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    PROTECTION ORDER @ 1:30 PM
  • 7 05/22/2013 Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order View Document ORD REISSUING TEMP PROTECTION ORDER Comment
    7: ORD REISSUING TEMP PROTECTION ORDER; 06-05-2013MC; PROTECTION ORDER @ 1:30;
  • 8 05/22/2013 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARING Comment
    8: MOTION HEARING;
  • 9 05/22/2013 Notice of Appearance View Document NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Comment
    9: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE;
  • 06/05/2013 MC Domestic/Probate – Motion Calendar Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    PROTECTION ORDER @ 1:30
  • 06/05/2013 Case Resolution Closed by Court Order After a Hearing
  • 10 06/05/2013 Order Modifying Terminating Terms of Protective Order View Document ORD MOD_TRM TERMS OF PROT ORD Comment
    10: ORD MOD/TRM TERMS OF PROT ORD;
  • 11 06/05/2013 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARING Comment
    11: MOTION HEARING;

Case Information

13-3-00176-1 | SCOTT TURCHIN VS SHAWNIE VEDDER

Case Number
13-3-00176-1

Court
Mason

File Date
06/05/2013

Case Type
MOD3 Domestic Modification

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Respondent (WIP)
VEDDER, SHAWNIE ANN

DOB
XX/XX/1967

Petitioner (WIP)
TURCHIN, SCOTT PAUL

DOB
XX/XX/1965

Minor (WIP)
VEDDER, MILDRED ANN

DOB
XX/XX/1996

Events and Hearings

  • 06/05/2013 Filing Fee Received Comment
    -: FILING FEE RECEIVED; GOODELL, DANIEL LEE;
  • 06/05/2013 Case Information Cover Sheet Comment
    -: CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET;
  • 06/05/2013 Confidential Information Form Comment
    -: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FORM;
  • 1 06/05/2013 Summons View Document SUMMONS Comment
    1: SUMMONS;
  • 2 06/05/2013 Petition Motion to Modify View Document PETITION_MOTION TO MODIFY Comment
    2: PETITION/MOTION TO MODIFY;
  • 3 06/05/2013 Notice of Appearance View Document NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Comment
    3: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; GOODELL, DANIEL LEE;
  • 4 06/05/2013 Acceptance of Service View Document ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE Comment
    4: ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE;
  • 5 06/05/2013 Parenting Plan Temporary View Document PARENTING PLAN – TEMPORARY Comment
    5: PARENTING PLAN – TEMPORARY;
  • 06/05/2013 Ex Parte Action With Order Comment
    -: EX-PARTE ACTION WITH ORDER; COMM. ROBERT D. SAUERLENDER;
  • 6 06/05/2013 Child Support Worksheet View Document CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET Comment
    6: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET;
  • 06/05/2013 Ex Parte Action With Order Comment
    -: EX-PARTE ACTION WITH ORDER; COMM. ROBERT D. SAUERLENDER;
  • 7 06/05/2013 Temporary Order of Child Support View Document TEMP ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT Comment
    7: TEMP ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT;
  • 06/05/2013 Ex Parte Action With Order Comment
    -: EX-PARTE ACTION WITH ORDER; COMM. ROBERT D. SAUERLENDER;
  • 8 06/05/2013 Temporary Order View Document TEMPORARY ORDER Comment
    8: TEMPORARY ORDER; 08-28-2013MC; REVIEW HEARING @ 9; CONFIRMED/GOODELL/8-26 GB;
  • 06/05/2013 Ex Parte Action With Order Comment
    -: EX-PARTE ACTION WITH ORDER; COMM. ROBERT D. SAUERLENDER;
  • 9 07/15/2013 Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel View Document NOTICE WITHDRAW & SUBSTITUT COUNSEL Comment
    9: NOTICE WITHDRAW & SUBSTITUT COUNSEL; GOODELL, DANIEL LEE;
  • 08/28/2013 MC Domestic/Probate – Motion Calendar Hearing Time
    8:00 AM Comment
    REVIEW HEARING @ 9 CONFIRMED/GOODELL/8-26 GB
  • 08/28/2013 Case Resolution Uncontested Resolution
  • 10 08/28/2013 Order on Modification View Document ORDER ON MODIFICATION Comment
    10: ORDER ON MODIFICATION;
  • 11 08/28/2013 Order for Support View Document ORDER FOR SUPPORT Comment
    11: ORDER FOR SUPPORT;
  • 12 08/28/2013 Parenting Plan Final Order View Document PARENTING PLAN (FINAL ORDER) Comment
    12: PARENTING PLAN (FINAL ORDER);
  • 13 08/28/2013 Child Support Worksheet View Document CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET Comment
    13: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET;
  • 14 08/28/2013 Order View Document ORDER RE_ DATA BASE SEARCH Comment
    14: ORDER RE: DATA BASE SEARCH;
  • 15 08/28/2013 Residential Time Summary Report View Document RESIDENTIAL TIME SUMMARY REPORT Comment
    15: RESIDENTIAL TIME SUMMARY REPORT;
  • 16 08/28/2013 Motion Hearing View Document MOTION HEARING Comment
    16: MOTION HEARING;
  • 17 10/28/2013 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW Comment
    17: NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW;
  • 18 11/19/2013 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW Comment
    18: NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW;
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WA Supreme Ct Admits Sex Offender to the Bar

High Court rules convicted sex offender can become WA State lawyer

Nov. 4, 2022 at 9:00 am Updated Nov. 7, 2022 at 4:00 pm

By GENE JOHNSONThe Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) — A divided Washington Supreme Court on Thursday approved a registered sex offender’s application to become an attorney in the state — though the man says he’s not sure he’ll wind up practicing law after all.

Zachary Leroy Stevens, 35, has been living in Arizona, where he attended law school and worked for a lawyer who represents American Indian tribes. He grew up in Utah, where he was convicted of voyeurism after sending child pornography to an undercover detective in 2006 at age 19 and where several years later he was arrested for drunken driving while on probation.

In a 5-4 decision, the court noted his relative youth at the time of his offenses, that he wasn’t much older than the people whose images he shared, and said he had since demonstrated the “good moral character” necessary to be allowed to practice law. Stevens was previously refused admission to the Arizona bar but said he would move to Washington state, where his wife had connections, if his application there was approved.

“Like all of us, Stevens is more than the sum of the worst moments of his life,” Justice Mary Yu wrote for the majority. “As an adult, he has abstained from engaging in any unlawful conduct since 2013. In that time, he has graduated from college and law school, he has been steadily employed, and he has developed a supportive network of friends and family.”

The dissenting justices, led by Justice Barbara Madsen, said they were concerned that Stevens had not completed his legal obligations — he must continue to register as a sex offender until 2024 at least; that he had not provided a current mental health evaluation; and that the Arizona bar had rejected his application, a factor that Washington should respect, they said.

“The fact that Stevens must register as a sex offender until he is eligible to petition for remission is particularly concerning, especially because one of this court’s key responsibilities is to guard the public and its confidence in the judicial system,” Madsen wrote.

That said, she suggested her analysis might be different once Stevens submitted a current evaluation and was no longer required to register as a sex offender. Under Utah law, sex offenders can petition to have their registration requirements canceled after 10 years.

Stevens applied to become a lawyer in Washington in 2019, after Arizona rejected his application. A Washington State Bar Association committee reviewed his petition and rejected it 6-5. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a phone interview Thursday night, he said he cried when he read the decision.

“I’ve been trying to get admitted to the practice of law for longer than I attended law school,” he said.

Stevens said he is now working for the multinational conglomerate Honeywell, where he works on subcontracting for government projects. His plans to move to Washington state have been disrupted because he and his wife have split up, he said.

As for legal work, he noted that he could stay in Phoenix and represent tribes as an attorney on gaming and water rights issues, because he wouldn’t need to be a member of the Arizona bar to do so. Or he could move to Washington state anyway, since his brother recently moved to Portland, Oregon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

19-2-30942-34 Jennifer L. Como vs James Warren Fowler, Jr

(Yet another example of why Thurston Family Court sux)

Case Information

19-2-30942-34 | JENNIFER LORRAINE COMO vs JAMES WARREN FOWLER, Jr
Case Number
19-2-30942-34

Court
Thurston

File Date
12/18/2019

Case Type
DVP Domestic Violence

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Respondent (WIP)
FOWLER, JAMES WARREN, Jr

DOB
XX/XX/1970

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyWAGNER, FORREST LEE

Retained



Petitioner (WIP)
COMO, JENNIFER LORRAINE

DOB
XX/XX/1976

Active Attorneys
Pro Se



Minor (WIP)
FOWLER-COMO, JORDAN RAIN

DOB
XX/XX/2012

Events and Hearings

  • 12/18/2019 Confidential Information Form
  • 1 12/18/2019 Petition for Order for Protection View Document Petition for Order for Protection
  • 2 12/18/2019 Appearance Pro Se View Document Appearance Pro Se
  • 3 12/18/2019 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 4 12/18/2019 Temporary Order for Protection View Document Temporary Order for ProtectionComment
    Protection Order
  • 5 12/23/2019 Response View Document ResponseComment
    James Fowler JR
  • 6 12/24/2019 Sheriffs Return on Service View Document Sheriffs Return on Service
  • 12/31/2019 Protection Order Judicial Officer
    Zinn, Rebekah Hearing Time
    9:00 AM Comment
    PROTECTION ORDER
  • 7 12/31/2019 Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order View Document Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order Comment
    Protection Order-1
  • 8 12/31/2019 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 9 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Jay Hawn
  • 10 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Rachel Dreon
  • 11 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Timothy Miller
  • 12 /21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Kenneth Lamb
  • 13 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Michelle Thomas
  • 14 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Eve Kirk-Monti
  • 15 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Lance Denison
  • 16 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Kami Denison
  • 17 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Brian Osche
  • 18 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Jennifer Trahan
  • 19 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Ryan Estreito
  • 20 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Jeff Grant
  • 21 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Ronald Holmes
  • 22 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Suzanne Younker
  • 23 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Shajan Kanajaril
  • 24 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Brandy Burbidge
  • 25 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Matthew Phillips
  • 26 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    James Peterson
  • 27 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Autum Peterson
  • 28 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Dennis Neal
  • 29 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    William Mummey
  • 30 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    Robert Alexander
  • 31 01/21/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    James Fowler
  • 32 03/25/2020 Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order View Document Order Reissuing Temporary Protection Order Comment
    Protection Order-1/Motion to Modify
  • 03/25/2020 Ex Parte Action With Order
  • 33 03/25/2020 Petition Motion to Modify View Document Petition Motion to Modify
  • 34 03/25/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 35 03/25/2020 Order of Continuance View Document Order of ContinuanceComment
    Hearing Noted-Sub #33
  • 03/27/2020 Protection Order Judicial Officer
    Zinn, Rebekah Hearing Time
    11:00 AM Cancel Reason
    Continuance Comment
    PROTECTION ORDER-1
  • 36 04/03/2020 Sheriffs Return on Service View Document Sheriffs Return on Service
  • 37 05/18/2020 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
    Hearing Noted Sub #33
  • 05/22/2020 Protection Order Judicial Officer
    Zinn, Rebekah Hearing Time
    11:00 AM Comment
    PROTECTION ORDER-1/Motion to Modify
  • 38 05/22/2020 Order for Protection View Document Order for Protection
  • 05/22/2020 Case Resolution Closed by Court Order After a Hearing
  • 39 05/22/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 40 11/23/2020 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
  • 41 11/23/2020 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order FindingsComment
    Show Cause
  • 42 11/23/2020 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
  • 43 11/23/2020 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
    of Robert Alexander
  • 44 11/23/2020 Transcript of Proceedings View Document Transcript of Proceedings Comment
    of March 25, 2020
  • 45 11/23/2020 Transcript of Proceedings View Document Transcript of Proceedings Comment
    of December 31, 2019
  • 46 11/23/2020 Transcript of Proceedings View Document Transcript of Proceedings Comment
    of May 22, 2020
  • 47 11/23/2020 Report View Document Report Comment
    of School Attendance and Discipline Records
  • 11/23/2020 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
  • 48 11/23/2020 Letter View Document Letter Comment
    from Dispute Resolution Center
  • 49 11/23/2020 Notice View Document Notice Comment
    of IEP Meeting from School
  • 50 11/23/2020 Report View Document Report Comment
    of School Records
  • 51 11/23/2020 Certificate View Document Certificate
    of Completion for Respondent
  • 52 11/23/2020 Report View Document Report Comment
    of Police
  • 53 11/23/2020 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
    Motion to Show Cause RE Vacation
  • 11/24/2020 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
    Kortokrax, Nathan L. Hearing Time
    4:00 PM Comment
    Motion to Show Cause RE Vacation
  • 54 11/24/2020 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Comment
    Motion to Vacate
  • 55 11/24/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 56 12/07/2020 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
  • 12/14/2020 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
    Zinn, Rebekah Hearing Time
    2:00 PM Comment
    MOTION TO VACATE
  • 57 12/14/2020 Order for Hearing View Document Order for Hearing Comment
    Motion to Vacate
  • 58 12/14/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 01/04/2021 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
    Zinn, Rebekah Hearing Time
    2:00 PM Comment
    MOTION TO VACATE
  • 59 01/04/2021 Order Granting Rsps Motion to Modify Term Order over 2 yrs View Document Order Granting Rsps Motion to Modify Term Order over 2 yrs
  • 60 01/04/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
  • 61 04/05/2022 Order Setting View Document Order Setting
  • 04/19/2022 Default Judicial Officer
    Rawnsley, Patrick W Hearing Time
    10:30 AM
  • 62 04/19/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment