THIS LETTER IS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE RE JUDGE BATES.
PERHAPS NO ONE HAS TOLD MR. POSTMAN THAT KEN STARR IS NO LONGER
HIRING... OR PERHAPS THE TIMES HAS DECIDED TO GO AFTER THE
TABLOID BUSINESS. THE ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A
ELEVENTH HOUR CHARACTER ASSASSINATION TRYING TO AFFECT THE
OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION. I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN VOTERS ARE TIRED
OF THIS TYPE OF SCANDAL POLITICS. WHY CAN'T THE "TIMES" DISCUSS
THE ISSUES IMPORTANT TO THE VOTERS INSTEAD OF DIGGING DEEP FOR
DIRT. HOWEVER SINCE THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN I FEEL COMPELLED TO
RESPOND.

FIRST VOTERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE "TIMES" ENDORSED ME NOT
ONLY AS A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE BUT ALSO, UNTIL LAST SUNDAY, FOR
THE SUPREME COURT. WHILE I AM WILLING TO ADMIT TO CERTAIN
MISTAKES, I DO NOT BELIEVE MY CONDUCT IN ANY WAY HAS AFFECTED MY
ABILITIES OR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT. THE
VOTERS SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE REPORTER HAS BEEN DIGGING N
MY BACKGROUND FOR OVER 60 DAYS. HE HAS HARASSED MY FAMILY WITH
PHONE CALLS AT HOME, AND HAS MADE CONTACT WITH MANY KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AND MOST OF MY PRIOR CLERKS AND BAILIFFS
TRYING TO FIND DIRT. ALL HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO FIND DURING MY 19
YEARS ON THE BENCH IS ONE CLERK AND MY FORMER DOMESTIC PARTNER. I
CAN ONLY BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT ATTACK IS BECAUSE OF MS.
PICCHENA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH MY OPPONENT.

I HAVE TOLD JOKES IN THE PAST. UNFORTUNATELY EVERY JOKE HAS
SOMEONE WHO IS THE BRUNT OF IT AND THE CAPACITY TO BE FOUND
OFFENSIVE BY SOMEONE. I WILL SAY THAT I BELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT
THE PARTIES INVOLVED WERE ALSO PARTICIPATING IN THE HUMOR. I HAVE
LEARNED THAT EVEN IN THAT SITUATION I NEED TO BE A LEADER AND TO
STOP BEFORE SOMEONE IS OFFENDED. AS THE ARTICLE STATES THERE HAS
BEEN ONLY ONE COMPLAINT IN 18 YEARS OF SERVICE, AND THAT
COMPLAINT WAS MADE IN 1991, OVER 7 YEARS AGO.

MY ONLY EXCUSE FOR THE CONDUCT, WHICH DOES NOT EXCUSE IT, IS THAT
I AM HUMAN. AS A JUDGE I DEAL WITH THE WORST SOCIETY CAN PRODUCE.
I SEE THE MOST HORRIFIC PHOTOGRAPHS AND WORK IN AN ADVERSARIAL
ARENA. THE DECISIONS I MAKE DAILY AFFECT THE LIVES OF THE
ACCUSED, THE VICTIMS, THE VICTIMS FAMILIES AND THE PUBLIC. I
KNOW THIS AND IT CAN CREATE STRESS AND TENSION. SOMETIMES TO
RELIEVE THAT TENSION SOMEONE IN CHAMBERS TELLS A JOKE OR MAKES A
CRACK THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE.

IN 1991 I WAS ADVISED BY PRESIDING JUDGE CHARLES JOHNSON, IN AN
INFORMAL MANNER TO "BE CAREFUL WITH JOKES IN THE WORK PLACE." I
WAS NOT ADVISED IN DETAIL OF WHAT WAS OFFENSIVE BUT I TOOK THE
MATTER TO HEART. I APOLOGIZED TO THE CLERK AND BELIEVED THE
MATTER WAS RESOLVED 7 YEARS AGO. NO FORMAL COMPLAINT WAS EVER
LODGED OR FILED.

I QUITE FRANKLY DON'T REMEMBER THE COMMENT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
MADE BY MY FORMER DOMESTIC PARTNER REGARDING AUTOPSY PHOTOS. THE
FACT IS I HAD A COMMITTED LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS
PERSON. WE LIVED TOGETHER FOR FIVE YEARS AND I WOULD NOT HAVE
INTENTIONALLY OFFENDED HER IN ANYWAY. DURING OUR RELATIONSHIP WE
MOVED HER TERMINALLY ILL SISTER INTO MY HOME SO SHE COULD BE
CARED FOR AND LOVED IN HER FINAL DAYS.

ULTIMATELY THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDED AND I THEREAFTER MET AND
MARRIED MY CURRENT WIFE. WE HAVE 2 CHILDREN AND HAVE BEEN MARRIED
FOR 6 1/2 YEARS.

I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A SHE SAID - I SAID DEBATE. LET ME SAY
THIS - IF I SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS OFFENSIVE I APOLOGIZED IN 1991
AND I WILL APOLOGIZE AGAIN TODAY. I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE
MISTAKES AND I AM THE ONE WHO MUST TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I HOPE THE VOTERS OF WASHINGTON STATE REALIZE
THAT THESE INCIDENTS ARE OVER 7 YEARS OLD. I HAVE WORKED 18
YEARS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE TO BUILD A REPUTATION AS A
HARD-WORKING, FAIR AND EQUITABLE JUDGE. I DO NOT HAVE THESE TYPE
OF ACCUSATIONS FROM ANY OTHER PERSONNEL AND NO OFFICIAL COMPLAINT HAS EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST ME. I AM PROUD OF MY RECORD
AS A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE. I AM PROUD OF MY HIGH RATING BY THE BAR
ASSOCIATION.

I WANT TO CONCLUDE WITH A STATEMENT TO THE VOTERS ABOUT WHAT IS
IMPORTANT TO THIS ELECTION AND WHAT ARE MY ISSUES.

FIRST THE EFFICIENCY OF THE COURT IS IMPORTANT TO ME. THE SAME
"TIMES" REPORTER CLAIMS I COULD NOT BACK UP MY STATEMENTS THAT
WASHINGTON HAS THE SLOWEST SUPREME COURT IN MAKING DECISIONS. IT
IS AN ADMITTED FACT AND I REFER ANYONE WILLING TO TAKE THE TIME
TO READ "TIME ON APPEAL" BY ROGER HANSON OF THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR STATE COURTS. THE FACT IS, EVEN MY OPPONENT ACKNOWLEDGES SHE
SITS ON A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE COURT BUT THEN
DENIES THAT ANY STATISTICS EXIST ABOUT EFFICIENCY. MY QUESTION
THEN IS WHAT DOES SHE STUDY IF THEY HAVE NO STATISTICS? ALSO
THIS REPORTER CLAIMS I HAD NO BASIS FOR MY CLAIM THAT BARBARA
MADSEN IS THE SLOWEST JUSTICE. I REITERATE TO THE VOTERS WHAT I
TOLD HIM: "I WAS ADVISED OF THIS STATISTIC BY A JUSTICE OF THE
COURT AND IT CAN BE CONFIRMED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION WHICH IS
READILY AVAILABLE FROM THE CIRCULATION CLERK."

I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THREE YEARS TO COMPLETE AN APPEAL BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT IS TOO LONG. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE
DENIED.

SECONDLY, I BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO TAKE CONTROL OF
THE ISSUE OF TRIAL COURT RULES. PRESENTLY THE VOLUME OF "LOCAL
RULES" AT EACH COURT EXCEEDS THE CIVIL RULES PROMULGATED BY THE
SUPREME COURT. LOCAL RULES SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF A
CASE. ATTORNEYS SHOULD NOT NEEDLESSLY BE BILLING CLIENTS TO
STUDY AND COMPLY WITH BUREAUCRATIC LOCAL RULES.. THE RULES SHOULD
BE FAIR AND SIMPLE - MAKING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FAIR FOR ALL
CITIZENS OF THIS STATE.

FINALLY I WOULD COMMENT ON MY OPPONENT'S DECISION MAKING ABILITY.
SHE WAS THE SOLE DISSENTER IN THE CASE OF GARDNER v. LOOMIS. IN
THAT CASE SHE BELIEVED THAT A WORK PLACE RULE OF GUARDING THE
MONEY OVERRODE THE VALUE OF PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE. NOT
SURPRISINGLY SHE WAS THE SOLE DISSENTER.

IN CONCLUSION, I AM LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE. I HAVE MADE
MISTAKES IN MY PAST. HOWEVER THE ELECTION SHOULD NOT BE
DETERMINED BY ELEVENTH HOUR TABLOID SCANDAL, BUT RATHER ON THE
ISSUES OF THE CAMPAIGN AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CANDIDATE.
 

October 27, 1998

/s/

JUDGE JIM BATES