
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
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).
Speaking of our corrupt judicial system… Of note, 7 of the 10 appellate judges for Division I of the Court of Appeals are UW law school graduates. That’s pretty significant when you notice that most King County Superior Court judges went to Seattle University. Divisions II and III each have just 2 UW law school graduates. Washington State Supreme Court has none.
Division I is where the vast majority of lawsuits against the university and hospital end up. Is it fair or ethical to have 7 of those 10 positions filled by their alumni? What if you don’t tell litigants that you’re a member of their alumni association? Do your research on all judges before you file.
Wow. Sorry for another comment.
You should probably email me. Your barely skimming the top.