C. J. Merritt, Supreme Court Clerk
Temple of Justice
P.O. Box 40929
Olympia, WA 98504-0929

Re:   Commission on Judicial Conduct No. 98-2911-F-80
        Discipline of the Honorable James W. Bates Jr.,
        Judge of the King County Superior Court

Dear Mr. Merritt:

            Enclosed for filing with the Supreme Court as part of the record in the above-referenced matter are the following records, all of which are material to the Court's consideration of the proper disposition of this matter:

1.    Letter of February 9, 2000, from D. Akana, Executive Director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct ("CJC") to D. Schafer.

2.    E-mail of February 7, 2000, at 2:32 a.m. from D. Schafer to D. Akana and G. Dallaire, Chair of the CJC.

3.    E-mail of February 7, 2000, at 8:16 a.m. from D. Ramerman forwarding to D. Akana an e-mail of February 6, 2000 at 7:38 p.m. from D. Schafer to the Editors of The Seattle Times, The Seattle P-I, The News Tribune, and to others.

4.    Statement by Judge Bates released on Friday, February 4, 2000, as reprinted in the Seattle Times on February 5, 2000, and readily available to the public on the Internet at http://www.seattletimes.com (as are all of the Seattle Times' articles mentioned below).

5.    Statement prepared and signed by Judge Bates that he released on October 27, 1998, to journalists (hereafter "Judge Bates' 10/27/98 Statement") in response to an article published in the Seattle Times on that day. Because multiple fax transmissions have degraded the quality of this copy of Judge Bates' 10/27/98 Statement, I append a conformed copy that has been accurately re-typed to the best of my belief, having carefully compared the two.

6.    News article concerning Judge Bates' then alleged misconduct published by the Seattle Times on October 27, 1998.

7.    News article concerning Judge Bates' alleged and partly admitted misconduct published by the Seattle Times on October 28, 1998.

8.    Editorial published by The News Tribune (Tacoma) on February 8, 2000, entitled "Voters are the final judges."

9.    News articles published October 29, 1998, and October 28, 1998, by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reprinted from a database available to journalists and possibly available to students and the general public.

10.    News article published October 5 [sic, February 5], 2000, by Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and readily available to the public on the Internet at http://www.seattlep-i.com.

11.    E-mail of February 10, 2000, at 1350 hrs. from D. Schafer to CJC PUBLIC FILE c/o D. Akana forwarding an e-mail of February 9, 2000, from D. Schafer to numerous parties.

            When the CJC filed on June 11, 1998, its record for Supreme Court review of CJC No. 96-2179-F-64 (Discipline of the Honorable Grant L. Anderson, Judge of the Pierce County Superior Court), that record included many documents that were submitted by concerned members of the public to the CJC subsequent to its Decision of April 3, 1998, and its Denial of Reconsideration on May 4, 1998. The Index sheet showing such items on its pages 3 and 5 is enclosed.

            For unstated reasons that only heighten public concern and suspicion about the judicial disciplinary system, the CJC here has submitted its "record" on the very first business day following its Stipulation and Order of Censure and Recommendation of Suspension. That "record" includes the CJC's Press Release asserting that "The Supreme Court reviews the record de novo." But, no record of the CJC's factual investigation was submitted for the Supreme Court to review, except for the slightly more that two page narrative (Stipulation pages 2 and 3) that essentially describes the opposing testimony that would be presented if a hearing were to occur. There appear to be no stipulated material facts in this "record."

            The CJC staff has acknowledged to me that its files included prior to its submission to the Supreme Court the e-mails from me identified as items #2 and #3, above, as well as a copy of Judge Bates' 10/27/98 Statement identified as item #5, above. Today, I requested that Mr. Akana supplement the CJC's submission with some of the materials from me identified above. He urged me instead to submit them directly to the Supreme Court, as I am doing by this letter.

            If the Supreme Court or its staff intends to decline to include the above listed and enclosed documents within the record that it reviews in this proceeding, then I respectfully request an opportunity to file a brief arguing why the Court ought to consider these documents consistent with its goal of promoting public confidence in the integrity and honor of the judiciary. Thank you.

 
Very respectfully yours,
 

Douglas A. Schafer
WSBA No. 8652

Enclosures

cc:    Herman Wacker, Attorney [for CJC]
        Thomas Fain, Attorney [for J. Bates]
        David Akana, Exec. Director, CJC
        Media Representatives
 

[Return to Shielding Judges Page]

---

Subject: Unlawful CJC Procedures Illustrated by the Closed Judge Bates Case
Date:     Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:35:02 -0800
From:    Doug Schafer <d_schafer@bigfoot.com>

To:       Justice Alexander <j_g.alexander@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Bridge <j_b.bridge@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Guy <j_r.guy@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Ireland <j_f.ireland@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Johnson <j_c.johnson@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Madsen <j_b.madsen@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Sanders <j_r.sanders@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Smith <j_c.smith@courts.wa.gov>,
            Justice Talmadge <j_p.talmadge@courts.wa.gov>,
            Merritt, Jerry (WA Suprm Ct. Clerk) <Jerry.Merritt@courts.wa.gov>

Dear Members of the Washington State Supreme Court:

As a lawyer and citizen concerned about the integrity of our state's
judicial disciplinary system, I ask you -- as the only body other than
the state's electorate with authority over the Commission on Judicial
Conduct (CJC) -- to examine the lawfulness of its procedures as
reflected in the now closed disciplinary case of the late King County
Judge James W. Bates, Jr. Last Friday, 2/18/00, Grace Mottman in the
Clerk's office informed me that your Court had entered an Order
dismissing that case as moot due to Judge Bates' untimely death on
2/13/00. Thus, I do not regard this plea to each of you as "ex parte"
communication regarding a pending proceeding.

Reprinted below is an e-mail that I sent to CJC leaders pre-dawn on
Monday, 2/7/00, objecting to its actions involving the Bates case
disciplinary stipulation that it had announced on Friday, 2/4/00.
Ignoring my protests, the CJC filed at about 2:30 p.m. that afternoon,
on Monday, 2/7/00, its so-called "record" with the Clerk of your Court.
The CJC's filing was not merely of a preliminary notice, but constituted
all of the documents that the CJC intended to file with your Court in
the Bates case (as confirmed to me by David Akana, Executive
Director of the CJC on Thursday, 2/10/00).

On Thursday, 2/10/00, I submitted for filing as part of the record in
the Judge Bates case 11 documents that I regarded as very important to
your consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed 30-day
suspension that had been negotiated between he and the CJC. Grace
Mottman told me on Friday, 2/18/00 that though my submission had been
received at the Clerk's office on 2/11/00, it had since then been
sitting on the desk of Clerk Merritt pending his decision on whether or
not to include it in the case record.

Among the documents that I submitted were the e-mail reprinted below,
several 1998 newspaper reports readily available by Internet to the
general public graphically reporting on Judge Bates' misconduct, and a
written and signed statement by Judge Bates on 10/27/98 responding to
his unflattering press coverage on the prior day. I felt that the Court
in deciding Judge Bates's case should consider the "record" that the
general public had considered and would consider again if Judge Bates
sought re-election. I further noted that the record that the CJC had
submitted in the case of former Judge Grant L. Anderson had included
several submissions that had post-dated the CJC's final decision in his
case, including newspaper clippings and citizen correspondence.

With Judge Bates' case now having been dismissed as moot, it remains an
appropriate vehicle by which the Court, if it chooses, could communicate
with the CJC concerning judicial disciplinary procedures. Perhaps in the
context of a re-worded Order of Dismissal, the Court could offer
guidance to the CJC as to what investigative record it should make
"public" and should file with the Court when it negotiates a
disciplinary suspension with a judge allegedly before even finding
probable cause that the judge had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct,
a sequence that defies common sense.

If there is any other more appropriate and effective way for me to raise
my concerns with you about problems in our judicial disciplinary system,
please advise me of it. If my only avenue is to effect an amendment of
Const. Art. 4, Section 31, by another statewide vote initiated by the
legislature or the initiative process, please advise me of that.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Douglas A. Schafer, Attorney representing solely the public interest.
WSBA #8652

[Included here for the Justices was my e-mail message to the CJC of 2/7/00.]
 

[Return to Shielding Judges Page]