When Judge Lanese took his throne at 9AM, he called the parties in Karen Unger v John Scannell and Kim Wyman. When all the parties were before Judge Lanese, Mr. Scannell indicated that “prosposed intervenor”, Scheidler, was also present … Judge Lanese said that matter would be addressed later without oral argument. The purpose of this preliminary discussion was that Judge Lenese wanted to make ‘full disclosure’ that when he (Lanese) was candidate for judge he was supported by Justice Owens (whom John Scannell is challenging in the Supreme Court election) and knows Karen Unger’s lawyer, Christine Pomeroy — they are all “good friends”. After divulging his “good friendship” with those who are seeking to remove John Scannell from the ballot Judge Lanese asked if any of the parties wanted to file an affidavit of prejudice (basically to disqualify the judge from the case for bias). For some unexplained reason, Mr. Scannell did not register any objection to having a judge preside over his position on the ballot who just divulged he is good friends with the opposing party and the judge who help him get his ‘throne’ and John Scannell is seeking to replace.
During oral argument, Scheidler’s motion to intervene was decided (and denied) within the context of the argument between Scannell and Pomeroy and not “later” as indicated by Judge Lanese, nor was Scheidler given an opportunity to “object” to Judge Lanese presiding on a matter in which the “friendships” Judge Lanese had with the other party and the candidate who John Scannell was challenging. Said another way, Judge Lanese didn’t what Scheidler to be the one to ruin his party and be forced to ‘recuse’ (judges use the word “recuse” because that word “disqualify” is found in RCW 4.12.050 and RCW 2.28.030 and rule 8.9.
Nuff said …. John Scannell was ordered removed from the ballot and Queen Owens retains her throne by default (and I’m sure with tremendous gratitude to her good friend, Judge Christopher Lanese).