IRONICALLY, Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders has been unfairly targeted for simply stating the fact that a disproportionate representation of African Americans in our prison population is (obviously) the result of a disproportionate rate of criminal convictions.

I say “ironically” because Justice Sanders has done more than any sitting justice to bring fairness to our criminal-justice system, and he has done more to defend the rights of the accused regardless of race than any of his colleagues.

As a practicing lawyer acutely concerned by such matters, I was personally inspired by Sanders’ stirring dissent in a case involving an African-American motorist who was pulled over and arrested by Spokane police for an illegal lane change. By the time the police were done with him, he was sent to the hospital rather than jail because he was so badly beaten. Then he was charged with assaulting an officer.

His defense was that he was entitled to use reasonable force to resist an illegal arrest since an improper lane change is a civil infraction, not an arrestable crime. Nevertheless the trial court refused to instruct the jury as requested. Sanders wrote a wonderful dissent (State v. Valentine) pointing out that this instruction was required by hundreds of years of common law as adopted by this jurisdiction.

Nevertheless the majority overruled all these cases, and left Sanders standing nearly alone for the rights of this African American.

In another case he stood alone for the rights of an African American who was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for stealing $300 from an espresso stand armed with a finger in his pocket. (State v. Rivers) Sanders pointed out that such a sentence was unconstitutionally cruel because it was so disproportional.

And yes, African Americans are disproportionally represented in the ranks of those serving a similar sentence. Sanders took a lot of heat for this dissent. Later he visited the man three times in prison because he felt this was such a grave injustice. The man is still in prison. Sanders says he thinks of him often and hopes for clemency.

Sanders signed a dissent that would have reversed a conviction obtained by a prosecutor who excused the only African American from the jury in a case where the defendant was also African American. He would have put the burden on the prosecution to justify this decision for nonracial reasons. He did what he could, but he didn’t have the votes.

Responding to a rash of malpractice judgments against public defenders for not properly representing their clients, Sanders fought for three years, sometimes alone, to persuade the court to adopt a rule that would require trial court judges to only appoint lawyers for indigent criminal defendants (many of whom are African Americans) who meet minimum qualifications of experience and have adequate financial resources to get the job done. Ultimately he was successful, notwithstanding opposition from many prosecutors.

Justice Sanders is not afraid to tell the truth even when the truth is not popular or may be politically incorrect. He is deeply committed to our justice system and deeply cares about the legal rights of those who come to court.

As far as I’m concerned, he is an asset to the African-American community, and everyone else. Let’s be fair to this man who courageously fights for the rights of the unpopular and powerless.

Lem Howell is a civil-rights and personal-injury attorney in Seattle.

Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%; 2 stars, at least 50%; 1 star is less than 50% but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: RICHARD SANDERS (5 star)

Richard Sanders is the champion of liberty on the high court. In the days when Judicial Forum was reviewing cases and rating them, his percentage of PASS was 93% for 57 cases reviewed. He is libertarian and pro-life.

One of his most popular quotes is, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” [Malyon v. Pierce County] In Island County vs. State, Justice Sanders wrote, “While the majority may justly claim the Legislature speaks for the people,’ it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.” A vote for Richard Sanders is a vote for our State and Federal constitutions and a vote for liberty.

Richard Sanders’ website is http://friendsofjustice.com

Running against Sanders is the notoriously liberal Charlie Wiggins. He is a former appellate court judge. He claims to have “helped to establish the nonpartisan award-winning web site votingforjudges.org.” Voteforjudges.org purports to be a non-partisan, non-biased endeavor and they give no endorsements to candidates, however, the only outside information and analysis they do include are from liberal newspapers and other liberal organizations; of course, favoring liberal candidates. Call it what it is – it is a liberal website disguised as centrist and educational.

He claims to be active in his Presbyterian church and is also proud of his high rating from Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association. In Harland Maylon v Pierce County, he ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains in police and fire departments. Fortunately, he was overturned by the Supreme Court. His legal foundation and his religious foundation are worlds apart.

UPDATE: Mr Wiggins recently emailed me trying to convince me of his Christian credentials. His rationale for distorting the law and the Constitution is based on his conviction to do what Jesus did – feed the poor, heal the sick, etc. However, he could not demonstrate Scriptural support nor reconcile how subverting the law would meet those ends. I reminded him that Christ condemned the Pharisees and lawyers for twisting the law while posturing themselves as helping the poor and needy.

Regarding Harland: he claimed he was hemmed in by the Constitution for deciding against volunteer chaplains in police and fire departments. I responded that is what fascinates me about Justice Sanders – he thinks the Constitution has meaning of its own without the assistance of revision by those who would neuter it. Wiggins favors a neutered evolution of the Constitution.

FINALLY: Because we reported he was rated highly by Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association, he took this information down from his website. He also claimed they gave him the lowest rating and that is the only reason he posted it to his website – to show they gave him the lowest rating. He will make quite a judge: he can spin why he wore their endorsement and he can spin how a high rating becomes the lowest rating. Regardless all the public good deeds he does, he demonstrates this: he is not an honest man. That is bad character for a judge.

ADDENDUM: Richard Sanders is pro-life while Charlie Wiggins is endorsed and supported by abortions rights groups.

Charlie Wiggins’ website is http://charliewigginsforjustice.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SHORELINE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DENNIS MCCURDY (3 star)

Dennis McCurdy has been a King County Deputy Prosecutor for seventeen years, now a Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

His website is http://mccurdy4judge.com

Marcine Anderson is running against him to keep her seat. She is a former King County Deputy Prosecutor. She was appointed by Metropolitan King County Council, on 22 February, so she could run as an incumbent. She has affiliations with minority organizations and capitalizes on her Asian descent. She is endorsed by liberal judges and rated highly by Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://marcineanderson.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOHN L O’BRIEN (2 star)

John O’Brien has been an attorney since 1981. He is endorsed by the moderately liberal Citizens for Judicial Excellence.

“O’Brien endorses the philosophy that the District Court upholds the current law and holds individuals accountable for their actions. He has seen the glow of pride in a defendant who has successfully completed a probationary counseling program, but has also sentenced defendants to maximum confinement for failed efforts at personal reform.” – as told to Citizens for Judicial Excellence

John’s business website is http://obrienlawfirm.net/team_jobrien.html

Michael Finkle was appointed to the bench on 22 February so he could run as an incumbent. He, also, has been an attorney since 1981. He has worked on the Seattle-King County Racial Disparity Work Group and is endorsed by liberal judges, officials and Democratic Party organizations. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Finkle’s website is http://retainjudgefinkle.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SW, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: SUSAN MAHONEY (1 star)

Susan Mahoney is an Assistant Des Moines City Attorney, Judge Pro Tem and former prosecutor. She is endorsed by Democrats and liberals.

Her website is http://mahoneyforjudge.com

Judith Eiler is the incumbent and has served on various courts since 1992. Prior to being elected to the bench Judge Eiler practiced law in Federal Way for 12 years. She is known to be “rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment” of attorneys and people representing themselves.

We could not locate a website for this candidate.

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DARRELL E PHILLIPSON (2 star)

Darrell Phillipson has spent twenty-seven years on the bench. He is involved at his Lutheran church and endorsed by Democrats and liberal judges.

Phillipson’s website is http://darrellphillipson.com

His opponent is David Meyer, who has been practicing law for twenty-five years. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and the SEIU. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender).

David Meyer’s website is http://davidmeyerforjudge.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: DAVID TRACY (2 star)

David Tracy has been a Municipal Court Judge for six years and served three years as a District Court Magistrate. He has thirty years legal experience. He is the Dean of Washington State Judicial College. Although he is a member of Diversity Task Force for Kent School District, he is also a volunteer at Second Harvest. David is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

His website is http://electdavidtracyjudge.com

His opponent is Matt Williams, who has twenty-seven years experience as an attorney, prosecutor, defense attorney and arbitrator. He is a program director for National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which means he gets paid while advancing his skills (rather than having to pay for the instruction). He states his reason for running is, “I want to give back to the community in which my wife and I raised our daughters by keeping our neighbors and our community safe.” That said from a man who does little without remuneration. He, also, is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

Matt’s website is http://electmattwilliams.com

KING / SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NE JUSTICE COURT, POS 7 – COMINUS’ PICK: LARRY MITCHELL (1 star)

Larry Mitchell has spent the last sixteen years as the City of Redmond Prosecuting Attorney. He is endorsed by King County Democrats and highly rated by the King County Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

His website is http://electlarrymitchelljudge.com

Donna Tucker is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bar associations and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://donnatuckerforjudge.com

UPDATE: Although we think Larry Mitchell to be a better candidate for this position, we have demoted him from a 2 star to a 1 star. This is his response when asked “Do hold the view of the constitution as being a living document or do you believe it should be interpreted in light of the original intent of the authors or something in between.” His answer: “As a judicial candidate I am very limited in what I can say about my views with respect to legal matters that I may have to decide if I am elected judge. For that reason I cannot reply to your inquiry other than to say I will give careful and fair consideration to any constitutional issue that might come before me.” Another liberal candidate hiding behind a non-existent code of Judicial Conduct. Sorry, folks, you have a choice between a liberal and a more-liberal. God save our nation.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: KEVIN MCCANN (2 star)

Kevin McCann is a Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor. He has raised almost as much money as Sussman with limited personal funds and loans. He is running because, “Pierce County has suffered too many embarrassments by public officials whose behavior has resulted in admonishments, a loss of the public’s faith and even criminal charges” True – this seems to be a decades old, perennial problem. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and unions.

Kevin’s website is http://electkevinmccann.com

Claire Sussman has raised the most money in this race, but that includes over thirty thousand dollars of her own money. That has to be worrisome when someone is willing to buy the office. Formerly, she spent six years as a prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and seven years as a pro-tempore judge. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations as well as Brian Sonntag and Rob McKenna.

Claire’s website is http://clairesussmanforjudge.org

Karl Williams is the former president and vice president Pierce County Minority Bar Association. He spent the last twenty years practicing law; fourteen years as a pro-tem judge. Aside from working to further minority interests, we know very little about Karl. He appears to have the energy for the position but we think it will be tainted by his minority pursuits as opposed to his interest in law.

Karl’s website is http://karlwilliamsforjudge.com

Finally, Lance Hester has his own private practice, the Hester Law Group. He volunteers with Young Life and Chapel Hill Church. However, he takes no stand on any issue and a perusal of cases seems to indicate that most his clients are cop killers, wife beaters and rapists. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Lance’s website is http://electlancehester.com

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: ED MCKENNA (1 star)

Ed McKenna has spent more than twenty years as an Assistant City Attorney for Seattle; now as a Senior Assistant. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. He is running because, “In the 2010 King County Bar Association survey, [the incumbent, Edsonya] Charles ranked last – 47 of 47 judges rated.  She received lowest ratings in the Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication category, which includes being attentive to court proceedings, treating people with courtesy and respect, acting with patience and self-control and using clear oral communications. It’s time for new leadership on the Municipal Court.”

Ed’s website is http://edmckennaforjudge.com

Edsonya Charles is the incumbent and has been a Seattle Municipal Court Judge since 2004, appointed by the very liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. She was formerly a deputy legal council to Seattle Mayor Nichols and his senior policy advisor on public safety. Before that, she was a federal prosecutor specializing in fraud cases. She states, “My proudest achievements including receiving the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award and twice receiving Al Gore’s Government Reinvention Hammer Award for my work in prosecuting criminals who lied and stole from working people.”

Her website is http://reelectjudgeedsonyacharles.com but it is not active.

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: KAREN DONOHUE (1 star)

Karen Donohue has twenty-five years in private practice. She has been general counsel to an international telecommunications firm, assistant city attorney and judge pro tem for the past 16 years. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. She states the reason she is running is because, “Judge Michael Hurtado, received average ratings of ‘acceptable.’ His legal decision making skills were rated between ‘poor’ and ‘acceptable.’ In addition, Judge Hurtado has been admonished twice by the commission on judicial conduct, most recently for failing to treat attorneys with patience, courtesy and dignity.”

Her website is http://karendonohueforjudge.com

Michael Salvador Hurtado has been twice disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In both cases, the facts were agreed upon by all parties.

CJC No. 3790-F-100 (October 4, 2002) Receiving and acting upon improper ex parte (one side of the case) communications while serving as a judge pro tempore of the Des Moines Municipal Court. Judge Hurtado received ex parte information from one of the parties’ counsel and witness, and acted on it without hearing from the other side, vacating the order entered earlier. This is no small travesty and the Commission only admonished the judge.

CJC No. 5775-F-141 (December 5, 2008) He failed to treat two different attorneys with patience, dignity and courtesy. As soon as the Commission brought this matter to Respondent’s attention, he openly acknowledged the acts occurred and recognized their impropriety. The Commission admonished the judge.

To his credit, he has received numerous community service awards.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: TIMOTHY NOTE (3 star)

Timothy Note is a criminal defense attorney with seven years experience. [Update 16 July] “I own my own law office and am running on a work ethic platform.  District Court Judges make $141,700 plus benefits, they owe it to the people they serve to show up as required for work and put in a full day when they get there. Beyond that they need to treat all parties with dignity and fairness without prejudging individuals or cases.  I will do that. Unlike the the current bench, I vow to make my attendance record a matter of public record, that way the the public will know they are getting what they are paying for.  I am widely endorsed by the people who actually practice law in Spokane County as well by David Stevens and Frank Malone, candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor.  I think this shows that I have support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that District Court should be where Rising Stars in the legal community go to hone their judicial chops in preparation for greater service, rather than operating as a pasture where mediocre attorneys wait out their retirement at public expense.”

His website is http://noteforjudge.com

Debra Hayes is the incumbent and a former deputy prosecutor. However, she lacks focus on the law. On her Facebook fan page she posted several Spokane Review news stories of various crimes – cases in her court, giving the impression she had determined the guilt or innocence based upon the story. She demonstrates lack of discretion by posting the articles of interest; these are not her adventures, she is responsible to judge these cases on their merits, not the drama. Furthermore, two years ago, her son was arrested on drug charges. Maybe her fault, maybe not; we will give her the benefit of the doubt as kids from good homes sometimes go bad.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: GLEN WARREN (5 star)

You gotta love this guy, Glen Warren. He describes himself as a “lifelong taxpaying resident of Yakima county.” He has over thirty-two years of experience in criminal, traffic, civil, and other cases. He is a member of Grandview Christian Church and an “advocate of 2nd Amendment rights” He is endorsed by scores of businessmen and police. “Glen’s decades of experience, local Christian values, and upbringing will contribute to his responsible running of this office funded with taxpayer money.”

Glen’s website is http://warrenforjudge.com

Brian Sanderson is running for this position also. He has been a Selah Municipal Court Judge since 2004 and was a former Washington State Assistant Attorney General. He has all the establishment endorsements.

Brian’s website is http://sandersonforjudge.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 3 – COMINUS’ PICK: DONALD ENGEL (3 star)

Donald Engel is the incumbent and appears to be an acceptable judge.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Steve Keller is opposing him and has twenty-eight years experience as a deputy prosecuting attorney.

Steve’s website is http://stevenrkeller.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 4 – COMINUS’ PICK: MICHAEL L. EVERETT (3 star)

Michael L Everett was our second choice in the primary and has moved up to our number one spot for the general election. He has been practicing law since 1974 including six years judge at Wapato District Court. He is an unhappy looking fellow but very patriotic. Regarding his previous stint on the bench, he states, “During my time on the bench I never lost sight of the fact that each individual who came before me was a person worthy of respect who deserves to be heard and that the community deserved everyone be held accountable for their actions”

Michael’s website is http://everettforjudge.com

Doug Federspiel is the hands-on establishment favorite. But that is disturbing, because he appears to be the most liberal in a conservative area. He has been practicing law since 1989. He has done some mountain climbing and at age thirty-five took a month long trip in the Himalayas. In liberal fashion, he has a feel-good vision, “Make sure everybody feels like they’ve had their day in court, that they know the judge listened to their arguments and worked hard. That’s what people expect from somebody on the bench.” When I go to court, I want to know justice was administered according to the law – not feel like I had my day in court. If we are going to “make sure everybody feels like they had their day in court,” what do we do with the losers?

His website is http://dougfederspiel.com

This is the end of the report. I hope you find it helpful and useful. Feel free to pass this on with credit back to the source.

- cominus

Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. So, this year, we have begun a star rating system. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%, 2 stars, at least 50%, 1 star is less than 50%, but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.

Please feel free to leave comments if you believe I am in error or you may have additional information. All comments are moderated. The moderation is to prevent wacko-attacks and vulgar postings. However, if you leave out all the cuss words and unwarranted defamation attacks on candidates, I will authorize your comment, whether you agree with me or not.

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: JIM JOHNSON (5 star)

In his campaign material, Jim Johnson states, “I promised to uphold our state constitution as written and to never legislate from the bench.” In 2002, Judicial Forum endorsed him for his hard work on Initiative 601, car tabs and such and the fact he had done much to reduce the size of civil government and uphold the rights of the citizen. Two years later, he was elected to the Supreme Court. He has not failed his mission and we continue to endorse him.

Jim Johnson’s campaign website is http://jimjohnsonforjustice.com

Running against Jim Johnson is Stan Rumbaugh. Stan is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a board member of the globalist World Affairs Council, which is indoctrinating our school children and “dedicated to providing everyone opportunities to practice global citizenship.” He is proud of endorsements from environmentalists and claims to have fought cases for “legitimate” [not all] property rights and equal benefits for domestic partners. He is a champion of social justice and all other feel-goodisms. “He found his passion in applying the law as he believes it was intended — to help every day people and build a more fair and just society.”

Stan Rumbaugh’s website is http://rumbaughforjustice.com

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: RICHARD SANDERS (5 star)

Richard Sanders is the champion of liberty on the high court. In the days when Judicial Forum was reviewing cases and rating them, his percentage of PASS was 93% for 57 cases reviewed. He is libertarian and pro-life.

One of his most popular quotes is, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” [Malyon v. Pierce County] In Island County vs. State, Justice Sanders wrote, “While the majority may justly claim the Legislature speaks for the people,’ it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.” A vote for Richard Sanders is a vote for our State and Federal constitutions and a vote for liberty.

Richard Sanders’ website is http://friendsofjustice.com

Running against Sanders is Bryan Chushcoff who claims to be “a guardian of the law, the rights of the people and of the Constitution.” Yet upon deeper examination of his words, you will discover subjective matter will always trump objective observation – it is more important to uphold feelings rather than the law. He states on his website, “Legal scholarship is important to correctly apply the law. But with experience one learns that more than legal scholarship is required. Good judgment and an understanding and empathy for the human condition are essential. Also required is thoughtful consideration of the practical implications of how the rule of law will impact people and trial courts.  It’s important that judges remember that the decisions of any court are made for flesh and blood people for whom the outcome will often have a profound and lasting effect.” He is not the worst liberal to come down the pike, but he does lack any grasp of what is the rule of law and somehow thinks it has something to do with people’s feelings.

Chushcoff’s website is http://chushcoff4justice.com

Also running against Sanders is the more experienced than Chushcoff, more liberal than Chushcoff and more dangerous than Chushcoff, Charlie Wiggins. He is a former appellate court judge. He claims to have “helped to establish the nonpartisan award-winning web site votingforjudges.org.” Voteforjudges.org purports to be a non-partisan, non-biased endeavor and they give no endorsements to candidates, however, the only outside information and analysis they do include are from liberal newspapers and other liberal organizations; of course, favoring liberal candidates. Call it what it is – it is a liberal website disguised as centrist and educational.

He claims to be active in his Presbyterian church and is also proud of his high rating from Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association. In Harland Maylon v Pierce County, he ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains in police and fire departments. Fortunately, he was overturned by the Supreme Court. His legal foundation and his religious foundation are worlds apart.

Charlie Wiggins’ website is http://charliewigginsforjustice.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 2, DIST 3, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOSEPH DAGGY (3 star)

Joe Daggy is an attorney with thirty years experience. He is running against Jill Johanson, who has been in the legal profession for twenty-four years, eight years as a judge.

In an interview with the Daily News, he was asked, “As a court of appeals judge, would you be willing to overturn a case where it was clear the trial court had erred significantly, but you knew a dangerous defendant would be freed into the community?”

Joe Daggy answered, “I’d have to. It’s not a matter of if I would be willing to. That’s the job of the appellate court.”

Jill Johanson answered, “If it was a significant error, then yes, absolutely. Those are probably some of the most difficult questions. That’s where personally you might feel that morally or personally you don’t want him in the community, but the law requires it. And as a judge, we’ve taken an oath to uphold the law.”

Joe Daggy understands the rule of law. Jill Johanson prefers the law of men and how they feel – or the law of women. She demonstrates she would have to wrestle with hard questions and depending upon which side the political pressure came from, feeling could trump the law.

Another question by the Daily News: “Should judicial candidates discuss specific issues such as gun control and abortion?”

Joe Daggy replied, “The judicial code of conduct discusses the ‘need to protect the voters from people campaigning by selling ideas.’ It’s ‘entirely inappropriate’ for a candidate to promise to make specific changes to the law if elected. But the rules don’t prohibit a candidate from talking about their beliefs. . .  That would interfere with the only method voters have of getting to know the candidate.”

Jill Johanson replied, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be discussing our personal opinions. Personal opinion is not relevant, because we can’t use our personal opinion when we’re on the bench. It could give the appearance of impropriety, that I might lean one way or the other if I were to express my personal opinion.”

Joe understands all judges have opinions and they don’t need to hide them. Voters have a right to know the foundational beliefs of whom they elect, regardless how that translates into decisions. Jill believes a judge should pretend he does not have any opinions, that way nobody can accuse him of bias. Jill is a deceived liberal who is bound by feelings and cannot see the law.

Joe Daggy’s website is http://joedaggy.org – not working at the time of this writing.

Jill Johanson’s website is judgejohanson.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 3, DIST 1, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: HARVEY DUNHAM (5 star)

Harvey is a solid, pro-life conservative. He has practiced law for over thirty years; been a district court judge for two years and a judge pro-tem for seven.

Harvey says, “I believe in old-fashioned justice. I believe that a judge should not make new law. I believe that the legislative branch should make new law. I believe a judge should follow the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington and not ignore them. I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that no person should be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. I believe that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. I believe that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Harvey Dunham’s website is http://votedunham.com

Running against Harvey is the very liberal, Laurel Siddoway. She was appointed in May by Governor Gregoire so she could run as an incumbent. She is endorsed by all the liberal judges.

She withheld critical information and correspondence to the City before recommending the Spokane City Council settle with the developers in the Riverside Park Square parking garage dispute. She duped the council into making a very expensive settlement – a huge cost to the taxpayers – against the advice of other attorneys on the case by not allowing their voices to be heard and representing herself as consensus – as the liberals always do.

She led the fight against the badly needed Lincoln Street Bridge because of a potential to block a view of the Spokane Falls from a certain direction. Feelings (of a few liberals) are more important than the needs of people, transportation and commerce.

Laurel’s website is http://retainjudgesiddoway.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SHORELINE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DENNIS MCCURDY (3 star)

Dennis McCurdy has been a King County Deputy Prosecutor for seventeen years, now a Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

His website is http://mccurdy4judge.com

Marcine Anderson is running against him to keep her seat. She is a former King County Deputy Prosecutor. She was appointed by Metropolitan King County Council, on 22 February, so she could run as an incumbent. She has affiliations with minority organizations and capitalizes on her Asian descent. She is endorsed by liberal judges and rated highly by Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://marcineanderson.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOHN L O’BRIEN (2 star)

John O’Brien has been an attorney since 1981. He is endorsed by the moderately liberal Citizens for Judicial Excellence.

“O’Brien endorses the philosophy that the District Court upholds the current law and holds individuals accountable for their actions. He has seen the glow of pride in a defendant who has successfully completed a probationary counseling program, but has also sentenced defendants to maximum confinement for failed efforts at personal reform.” – as told to Citizens for Judicial Excellence

John’s business website is http://obrienlawfirm.net/team_jobrien.html

Michael Finkle was appointed to the bench on 22 February so he could run as an incumbent. He, also, has been an attorney since 1981. He has worked on the Seattle-King County Racial Disparity Work Group and is endorsed by liberal judges, officials and Democratic Party organizations. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Finkle’s website is http://retainjudgefinkle.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SW, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: SUSAN MAHONEY (1 star)

Susan Mahoney is an Assistant Des Moines City Attorney, Judge Pro Tem and former prosecutor. She is endorsed by Democrats and liberals.

Her website is http://mahoneyforjudge.com

Judith Eiler is the incumbent and has served on various courts since 1992. Prior to being elected to the bench Judge Eiler practiced law in Federal Way for 12 years. She is known to be “rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment” of attorneys and people representing themselves.

We could not locate a website for this candidate.

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DARRELL E PHILLIPSON (2 star)

Darrell Phillipson has spent twenty-seven years on the bench. He is involved at his Lutheran church and endorsed by Democrats and liberal judges.

Phillipson’s website is http://darrellphillipson.com

His opponent is David Meyer, who has been practicing law for twenty-five years. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and the SEIU. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender).

David Meyer’s website is http://davidmeyerforjudge.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: DAVID TRACY (2 star)

David Tracy has been a Municipal Court Judge for six years and served three years as a District Court Magistrate. He has thirty years legal experience. He is the Dean of Washington State Judicial College. Although he is a member of Diversity Task Force for Kent School District, he is also a volunteer at Second Harvest. David is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

His website is http://electdavidtracyjudge.com

His opponent is Matt Williams, who has twenty-seven years experience as an attorney, prosecutor, defense attorney and arbitrator. He is a program director for National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which means he gets paid while advancing his skills (rather than having to pay for the instruction). He states his reason for running is, “I want to give back to the community in which my wife and I raised our daughters by keeping our neighbors and our community safe.” That said from a man who does little without remuneration. He, also, is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

Matt’s website is http://electmattwilliams.com

KING / SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NE JUSTICE COURT, POS 7 – COMINUS’ PICK: LARRY MITCHELL (2 star)

Larry Mitchell has spent the last sixteen years as the City of Redmond Prosecuting Attorney. He is endorsed by King County Democrats and highly rated by the King County Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

His website is http://electlarrymitchelljudge.com

Larry has two opponents. Donna Tucker is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bar associations and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://donnatuckerforjudge.com

Ketu Shah is the other opponent and is an immigrant from India. He wants to make the judiciary “more engaged with our entire community.” Does he mean the judiciary should step aside from the practice of law and begin a dialogue with criminals and gangs? Liberals are so dependant on what sounds good and forget the rule of law. Mr. Shah has fifteen years experience in immigration and civil issues. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

His website is http://k2forjudge.com

KLICKITAT COUNTY EAST DISTRICT COURT – COMINUS’ PICK TIM O’NEILL (2 star)

Tim O’Neill has been practicing law since 1978; part of that time as an elected prosecuting attorney. In 2002, O’Neill and Gwendolyn Grundei ran against each other for the position of county prosecuting attorney. O’Neill won that contest. An incidental fact: His wife kept her maiden name.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Running against him again, but for a different position, is Gwendolyn L Grundei. She has been both a prosecutor (deputy?) and a defense attorney.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Rick Hansen is the third candidate in this race. He has twenty-five years in law practice and is a public defender.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: KEVIN MCCANN (2 star)

Kevin McCann is a Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor. He has raised almost as much money as Sussman with limited personal funds and loans. He is running because, “Pierce County has suffered too many embarrassments by public officials whose behavior has resulted in admonishments, a loss of the public’s faith and even criminal charges” True – this seems to be a decades old, perennial problem. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and unions.

Kevin’s website is http://electkevinmccann.com

Claire Sussman has raised the most money in this race, but that includes over thirty thousand dollars of her own money. That has to be worrisome when someone is willing to buy the office. Formerly, she spent six years as a prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and seven years as a pro-tempore judge. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations as well as Brian Sonntag and Rob McKenna.

Claire’s website is http://clairesussmanforjudge.org

Karl Williams is the former president and vice president Pierce County Minority Bar Association. He spent the last twenty years practicing law; fourteen years as a pro-tem judge. Aside from working to further minority interests, we know very little about Karl. He appears to have the energy for the position but we think it will be tainted by his minority pursuits as opposed to his interest in law.

Karl’s website is http://karlwilliamsforjudge.com

Finally, Lance Hester has his own private practice, the Hester Law Group. He volunteers with Young Life and Chapel Hill Church. However, he takes no stand on any issue and a perusal of cases seems to indicate that most his clients are cop killers, wife beaters and rapists. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Lance’s website is http://electlancehester.com

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: ED MCKENNA (1 star)

Ed McKenna has spent more than twenty years as an Assistant City Attorney for Seattle; now as a Senior Assistant. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. He is running because, “In the 2010 King County Bar Association survey, [the incumbent, Edsonya] Charles ranked last – 47 of 47 judges rated.  She received lowest ratings in the Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication category, which includes being attentive to court proceedings, treating people with courtesy and respect, acting with patience and self-control and using clear oral communications. It’s time for new leadership on the Municipal Court.”

Ed’s website is http://edmckennaforjudge.com

Edsonya Charles is the incumbent and has been a Seattle Municipal Court Judge since 2004, appointed by the very liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. She was formerly a deputy legal council to Seattle Mayor Nichols and his senior policy advisor on public safety. Before that, she was a federal prosecutor specializing in fraud cases. She states, “My proudest achievements including receiving the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award and twice receiving Al Gore’s Government Reinvention Hammer Award for my work in prosecuting criminals who lied and stole from working people.”

Her website is http://reelectjudgeedsonyacharles.com but it is not active.

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: KAREN DONOHUE (1 star)

Karen Donohue has twenty-five years in private practice. She has been general counsel to an international telecommunications firm, assistant city attorney and judge pro tem for the past 16 years. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. She states the reason she is running is because, “Judge Michael Hurtado, received average ratings of ‘acceptable.’ His legal decision making skills were rated between ‘poor’ and ‘acceptable.’ In addition, Judge Hurtado has been admonished twice by the commission on judicial conduct, most recently for failing to treat attorneys with patience, courtesy and dignity.”

Her website is http://karendonohueforjudge.com

Michael Salvador Hurtado has been twice disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In both cases, the facts were agreed upon by all parties.

CJC No. 3790-F-100 (October 4, 2002) Receiving and acting upon improper ex parte (one side of the case) communications while serving as a judge pro tempore of the Des Moines Municipal Court. Judge Hurtado received ex parte information from one of the parties’ counsel and witness, and acted on it without hearing from the other side, vacating the order entered earlier. This is no small travesty and the Commission only admonished the judge.

CJC No. 5775-F-141 (December 5, 2008) He failed to treat two different attorneys with patience, dignity and courtesy. As soon as the Commission brought this matter to Respondent’s attention, he openly acknowledged the acts occurred and recognized their impropriety. The Commission admonished the judge.

To his credit, he has received numerous community service awards.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: TIMOTHY NOTE (3 star)

Timothy Note is a criminal defense attorney with seven years experience. [Update 16 July] “I own my own law office and am running on a work ethic platform.  District Court Judges make $141,700 plus benefits, they owe it to the people they serve to show up as required for work and put in a full day when they get there. Beyond that they need to treat all parties with dignity and fairness without prejudging individuals or cases.  I will do that. Unlike the the current bench, I vow to make my attendance record a matter of public record, that way the the public will know they are getting what they are paying for.  I am widely endorsed by the people who actually practice law in Spokane County as well by David Stevens and Frank Malone, candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor.  I think this shows that I have support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that District Court should be where Rising Stars in the legal community go to hone their judicial chops in preparation for greater service, rather than operating as a pasture where mediocre attorneys wait out their retirement at public expense.”

His website is http://noteforjudge.com

Debra Hayes is the incumbent and a former deputy prosecutor. However, she lacks focus on the law. On her Facebook fan page she posted several Spokane Review news stories of various crimes – cases in her court, giving the impression she had determined the guilt or innocence based upon the story. She demonstrates lack of discretion by posting the articles of interest; these are not her adventures, she is responsible to judge these cases on their merits, not the drama. Furthermore, two years ago, her son was arrested on drug charges. Maybe her fault, maybe not; we will give her the benefit of the doubt as kids from good homes sometimes go bad.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: GLEN WARREN (5 star)

You gotta love this guy, Glen Warren. He describes himself as a “lifelong taxpaying resident of Yakima county.” He has over thirty-two years of experience in criminal, traffic, civil, and other cases. He is a member of Grandview Christian Church and an “advocate of 2nd Amendment rights” He is endorsed by scores of businessmen and police. “Glen’s decades of experience, local Christian values, and upbringing will contribute to his responsible running of this office funded with taxpayer money.”

Glen’s website is http://warrenforjudge.com

Brian Sanderson is running for this position also. He has been a Selah Municipal Court Judge since 2004 and was a former Washington State Assistant Attorney General. He has all the establishment endorsements.

Brian’s website is http://sandersonforjudge.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 3 – COMINUS’ PICK: DONALD ENGEL (3 star)

Donald Engel is the incumbent and appears to be an acceptable judge.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Steve Keller is opposing him and has twenty-eight years experience as a deputy prosecuting attorney.

Steve’s website is http://stevenrkeller.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 4 – COMINUS’ PICK: BRONSON FAUL (3 star)

Bronson Faul is a Yakima assistant city attorney and formerly a deputy prosecuting attorney with the county. He appears to be a standup guy with a respect for law and is endorsed by Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and GOP politicians.

Bronson’s website is http://bronsonforjudge.com

Michael L Everett would be our second choice and has been practicing law since 1974 including six years judge at Wapato District Court. He is an unhappy looking fellow but very patriotic. Regarding his previous stint on the bench, he states, “During my time on the bench I never lost sight of the fact that each individual who came before me was a person worthy of respect who deserves to be heard and that the community deserved everyone be held accountable for their actions”

Michael’s website is http://everettforjudge.com

Doug Federspiel is the hands-on establishment favorite. But that is disturbing, because he appears to be the most liberal in a conservative area. He has been practicing law since 1989. He has done some mountain climbing and at age thirty-five took a month long trip in the Himalayas. In liberal fashion, he has a feel-good vision, “Make sure everybody feels like they’ve had their day in court, that they know the judge listened to their arguments and worked hard. That’s what people expect from somebody on the bench.” When I go to court, I want to know justice was administered according to the law – not feel like I had my day in court. If we are going to “make sure everybody feels like they had their day in court,” what do we do with the losers?

His website is http://dougfederspiel.com

This is the end of the report. I hope you find it helpful and useful. Feel free to pass this on with credit back to the source.

- cominus

Today let’s take a closer look at two recent lone dissents by Justice Sanders. He believes the court is there to protect people’s legal rights and will stand for them, even if he stands alone. He sees a dissent as an epitaph on a tombstone for a legal right violated. Although dissents have no immediate effect on the rights of the parties, hopefully they will stimulate further thought and perhaps reconsideration in future decisions. After all, Plessey v. Ferguson (separate but equal), was ultimately replaced by Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) — but it took a while.

Justice Sanders was most gratified when he visited Seattle’s new city attorney-elect in December to see that Peter Holmes had a quotation on his computer from Justice Sanders’ lone dissent in Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776 (1997). That decision denied a dying man his right to use medical marijuana in his final illness. Perhaps this was to remind Mr. Holmes of the potential consequences of misused government power. Justice Sanders believes the people of Seattle have a very fine public servant in Peter Holmes. That dissent was also reprinted almost verbatim in the Seattle PI as well, and may have laid some of the groundwork for the medial marijuana initiative later passed by the people. Ironically the most recent lone dissent deals with the same subject. But some things need to be said repeatedly before people are able to hear the truth.

State v. Fry, 2010 WL 185857 (2010)

Stevens County sheriff deputies went to the Fry residence to check out a marijuana growing operation. Tina Fry met the officers at the door and told the officers her husband Jason had a legal prescription for medical marijuana. Nevertheless the officers obtained a search warrant based on the smell of marijuana despite the statute’s injunction that medical marijuana users “shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege,for such actions.”

Fry moved to suppress the evidence obtained arguing that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant since he presented evidence of the legal prescription to the police indicating he had a right to smoke before they sought the warrant. Justice Jim Johnson upheld the search in his majority opinion; Justice Tom Chambers concurred in result while Justice Sanders wrote a lone dissent.

After the opinion was published, the Seattle Times quoted a representative of CannaCare as saying it is “a disaster for us…It basically says that no matter what, they can arrest you at will, prosecute you at will, put you through the system, and cost you thousands in legal fees, even though they know you’re a legal patient. That’s just wrong. We are guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent.” The Olympian also provided a very good explanation of the opinion and dissent. And, Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times posted an article siding with Sanders.

State v. Pugh 2009 WL 5155364 (Dec. 31, 2009)

Bridgette Pugh called 911 to say her husband beat her up and was now walking away from her apartment. The police arrested him for assault; however when he was tried the wife didn’t show up to testify. Over Mr. Pugh’s objections the court allowed the prosecution to play the 911 tape without live testimony to support conviction, and he was convicted based on the tape, which, of course, he could not cross examine. Although the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”, Justice Madsen writing for the majority held the right to confront the witness against you was not violated because the tape was not “testimonial.” Justice Sanders countered in the dissent that it was a narrative of past events so of course it was testimonial and therefore a 6th Amendment violation.

But the state constitution provides even more rights than the federal Bill of Rights. One reason Justice Sanders writes so many dissents is that he follows the express language of our state constitution. In this case, the language is very clear: “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right…to meet the witnesses against him face to face…”

In his dissent, Sanders wrote “What is there about ‘face to face’ that the majority doesn’t understand? ‘The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.’” [Ancient Chinese Proverb]

In the opinion Justice Sanders explains that the people ratified our state constitution by popular vote in 1889 and we must apply it by its plain language as it would have been understood. Apparently this view is now radical thought, and “thinking outside the box” to say the Constitution means what it says, and says what it means. Unfortunately, only Justice Sanders brings this view to the court. But at least someone reads the text and will apply it as written.

How easy it is for a grand orator to let words flow melodically from his or her mouth. How easy it is to say one thing for the benefit of a particular audience, but believe another. How easy it is to say what the people want to hear, so as to camouflage the hidden evil that lurks in the orator’s mind.

How many great speakers have been vaulted in to positions of power because they were able to project into their words strong emotions of anger, happiness, sadness or national fervor? Words that captured the hearts and minds of the illiterate, naive and ignorant masses, no matter how meaningless or meaningful those words may be; words that may have multiple meanings and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways for different constituents.

And such was the highly-hyped, but unexceptional inaugural speech of now president Obama. The 20-minute speech was full of glittering generalities and rolling hyperbole….. words of nationalistic pride and words of defiance to our enemies….. words for the freedom lovers and words for the union members….. words for the believers in global warming and words for those who would devastate America by yanking, or over-taxing, the energy source that powers our economy, oil. And once again on several occasions, Obama invoked the indefinable, mystical words of “hope” and “change” that punctuated his campaign.

But let’s be specific. In the first line he said, “I stand here today HUMBLED by the task before us…..” The word “humble” was for the audience only. President Obama is anything but humble.

In the second paragraph he went on to say: “At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.”

One must ask, “what skill and what vision of those in high office?” We vehemently claim that it is the lack of skill and the lack of vision that have driven America and many Americans into financial ruin, when in fact it was and still is power-hungry and self-serving political interests that have put us where we are today. And once more we claim, maybe WE THE PEOPLE have been faithful to the ideals of our forbearers and true to the founding documents, but government on the other hand, has been anything but “faithful” and “true”. The sad truth is, government has done everything they can to tear down those ideals and those documents, with malice aforethought.

Obama talks about “….. petty grievances, false promises, recrimination and worn out dogmas of previous governments”, as if with a magic wand he will erase these maladies from the political scene. These are empty words and empty promises. Government is like an avalanche. It will keep heading towards the valley, leaving utter devastation in its wake. The American government has immense inertia and it will take an immense force to arrest its path. Only freedom-loving Americans have that power.

He says that: “….. all Americans are equal, free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” What he really means is, that government will intercede in all of our lives to make sure that all will get a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness, at everyone else’s expense. Of course there is nothing in the constitution about government assuring everyone’s happiness by government intervention. It is up the individual to pursue happiness, not the government.

In one paragraph, Obama states that; “….. we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” Remaking America into what and does it need remaking? We say that Obama will do everything in his power to remake America into the distorted image that he holds in his mind, due to the long associations he has had with the likes of Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Reverend Wright, his developer friends and the corrupt political climate of Chicago and the state of Illinois. Obama, is by word, deed and voting record, a socialist. We care not what he says, but we shudder in fear for what he has already done and will now do, with the power he wields as President of the United States.

He also says: “….. the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ­ whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” FDR spoke very similar socialist words in his 1944 Inaugural Speech. Again, we ask, where is it written that finding jobs for people at a decent wage, health care ‘they’ can afford and a retirement that is dignified, is the job, duty, responsibility, or even the right of government? No where is it written! The power to do these things has been perverted by government from a single phrase in the pre-amble of the Constitution, wherein it states……. “and promote the general welfare”. And promote they have, with a vengeance, for the sole purpose of one party securing permanent power by buying off the illiterate, naive and ignorant masses of dumbed-down Americans, with taxes from the productive segment of our society. In one sentence this policy can be stated thus: “from those with the greatest capability, to those with the greatest need.” Karl Marx.

In his message to the third world, Obama said this: “And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

What do these grand words mean? Yes, of course the world has changed, as it grows smaller by virtue of transportation and communication. Yes, America does consume a good portion of the worlds resources, but we also have the highest production rate of any nation on Earth and our farms and fields feed a good portion of the third world. Yes, we recognize that people are suffering outside of our borders, so much so they will go to any lengths to come here and break our laws and use more of our resources, all the while making less resources available for our own citizens.

But what this phrase really means is to prepare us for the one-world-order and the dissolution of our sovereignty. It also means that Obama wants us to use up a large portion of our wealth and give it, free gratis with no strings, to other countries and dictators who refuse to use their own resources to elevate their own people. We are the most generous nation on Earth, but Obama and his minions in the U. S. Government and the United Nations tell us, it isn’t enough. We have to give more, no matter how much it hurts our economy, or our individual lives, or our living standard.

In the rest of Obama’s speech he invoked American history, our revolution, our national pride and quotes from some of our Founders. This was a blatant attempt to pander to the 59,000,000 conservatives who voted the other way. But these words belie what is in the mind and heart of Obama. He has the power and he intends to use it. He won’t use it for the ideals of our forbearers and he won’t use it for remaining true to our founding documents as a Constitutional Republic. He will use it to mold America into his distorted image. An image that was placed there by his associations with his mother, two fathers from foreign countries and his grand parents, but mostly from the associations with the likes of Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, his developer friend (now in jail) and the corrupt political climate of Chicago and the state of Illinois. That is the camouflaged treachery in Obama’s Inaugural speech.

It was freedom that built America into the most powerful, industrious, creative and generous nation on Earth. If Obama is successful in his camouflaged mission, he will take away our freedom and strip us of our power and generosity, to prepare us for entry, as a third-world country, into the one-world-order, under the thumb of the United Nations and the moneyed elite.

If you are not fearfully concerned, then your eyes are not open.

President-elect Barack Obama welcomed Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine Thursday as the new Democratic party chairman, while praising the work of outgoing leader Howard Dean.

Obama said Dean served his party and the nation as a “visionary and effective leader,” and made Democrats competitive in states where they hadn’t competed in years.

But Dean wasn’t on hand for the president-elect’s visit to party headquarters, traveling instead in American Samoa. Democrats with knowledge of the situation said Dean, who clashed with Obama aides and Democratic leaders in Congress, had been asked by Obama advisers not to attend.

Obama described Kaine as someone who can bring people together.

Kaine says he’s looking forward to being a “passionate and positive promoter” of Obama’s agenda.

Here is the outgoing Democratic Chairman, Howard Dean – except he is not here because he was asked to stay away. He was asked not to attend the celebration because he and Obama’s people could not get along. And, according to Obama, he is being replaced by someone who “can bring people together.” In other words, does not clash with Obama’s people.

Howard Dean was praised for making the Party “competitive in states where they hadn’t competed in years” but I guess that is not as good as bringing people together. Kaine, on the other hand, is going to be a “passionate and positive” yes man for Obama.

Obama was “passionate and positive” as well: Passionate about keeping Dean away from him, the Party and the party and positive in how he positioned their division.

My suggestion: if you are sincere in your praise of a man, don’t ask him to stay away from the celebration.

At the end of the poem, I have attached one of my favorite verses. May this bless you as it blessed me.

God moves in a mysterious way
   His wonders to perform:
He plants His footsteps upon the sea,
   And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
   Of never - failing skill,
He treasures up His bright designs,
   And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
   The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
   In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
   But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence,
   He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
   Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
   But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
   And scan His work in vain;
God is His own Interpreter,
   And He will make it plain.

This reminds me of one of my favorite verses:

Let the morning bring me word
     of Your unfailing love,
     for I have put my trust in You.
Show me the way I should go,
     for to You I lift up my soul.
Rescue me from my enemies, O LORD,
     for I hide myself in You.
Teach me to do Your will,
     for You are my God;
May Your good Spirit
     lead me on level ground.
[Psa 143:8-10 NIV]

As you look to Christ, may your spirit be lifted this Christmas season and throughout the coming year. Amen.

The key verse is in the greeting: “. . . the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.” [v1] In other words, sound doctrine leads us to proper obedience. Paul warned later in verse twelve, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” So, it appears Paul’s purpose in writing to Titus was to encourage him to encourage the Christians to be different from the norm, to rise above evil and sloth and to follow Christ.

Sidenote: Some friends are missionaries on the island and they tell me not much has changed. The people still are much the same as Paul described.

v2 – Paul claims that God gave the hope of eternal life even before He created us; “promised before the beginning of time.”

v5f – Paul left Titus on Crete to raise up leaders in every town. The criteria for an elder:

1. Blameless,
2. Husband of one wife,
   1. This is obvious, Paul is talking about divorce and faithfulness, but some people want to split hairs, claiming he means non-polygamous, to allow for those who have been unfaithful to be in positions of leadership and preaching.
3. Whose children are believers and not wild and disobedient,
4. Not overbearing,
5. Not quick tempered,
6. Not given to drunkenness,
7. Not violent,
8. Not pursuing dishonest gain,
9. Hospitable,
10. Loves what is good,
11. Self-controlled,
12. Upright,
13. Holy,
14. Disciplined,
15. Holds firmly to the trustworthy message as Paul taught,
    1. So he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and
    2. He can refute those who oppose sound doctrine.

v10f – Speaking of sound doctrine: Paul refutes those “of the circumcision group,” the Judaisers.” These were those who taught you cannot be saved without following the law. We see this today: those who want to add rules to being a Christian. But it comes down to Paul’s warning in Hebrews chapter ten, that if we add to our faith, we are trampling on the cross of Christ. Paul also refutes this false doctrine in the book of Galatians. We come to Christ by faith. It is the Holy Spirit within us leading us in obedience that causes us to do good works but we cannot add good works to our salvation.

So, Paul says they claim to know Christ but deny Him by their actions. The actions are two-fold: one the one hand, you have the Judaisers, and in the modern sense, some fundamentalists, who add works to faith for the obtaining of salvation. On the other hand you have those who are lazy and do not want to leave their life of sin. Both deny Christ by their actions and neither one is saved, whether they gave a confession of faith or not.

Titus chapter two:

Paul reinforces the importance of sound doctrine, without which error will creep into the church. In chapter three, he ends this segment with a warning to avoid foolish controversies. In every instance that he preaches on sound doctrine, he tempers with this warning. It is human nature to be carried to extremes. Thus, “sound doctrine” could be carried to the extreme of the Jewish leaders and their book of Torah, where they even define how far one can walk on a Sabbath. Sound doctrine always leads to following Christ with a pure and faithful heart but it never adds works or frivolity to our faith.

A list of things to teach (in accord with sound doctrine):

1. Teach the older men to be
   1. temperate,
   2. worthy of respect,
   3. self-controlled and
   4. sound in faith, love and endurance
2. Teach the older women to be
   1. respectable in their lifestyle,
   2. not slanderers,
   3. not addicted to much wine,
   4. teach what is good.
   5. Then they can train the younger women
3. The younger women should be taught by the older women (as opposed to male teachers) to:
   1. love their husbands and children,
   2. be self-controlled and pure,
   3. be busy at home (not busybodies travelling the globe in their SUVs),
   4. be kind,
   5. be subject to their husbands (sensitive one in these modern, feminist times).
4. Encourage the young men to be self-controlled (encourage, as opposed to teach?)
   1. Set them an example by doing what is good
   2. In teaching demonstrate
      1. integrity,
      2. seriousness,
      3. soundness of speech that cannot be condemned (as opposed to the modern practice of frivolity and pushing the envelope)
5. Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything
   1. try to please them,
   2. not talk back to them,
   3. not steal from them,
   4. demonstrate integrity and faithfulness and so make the teachings of the gospel attractive.

Sidenote: The Bible, while not promoting nor condemning slavery, recognizes the reality of it. Paul told those who were slaves, if they were able to obtain their freedom (lawfully) to pursue it (1Co 7:21). Nonetheless, regardless of status, we are all slaves of Christ and we are to act in that respect.

Here is the fundamental of what Titus was instructed to teach:
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldy passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, [who are] eager to do what is good.” [v11-14]

Titus chapter three:

Continuing the list of teachings in sound doctrine:

6. Teach the people

a. to be subject to rulers and authorities,
b. to be obedient (as opposed to being rebellious),
c. to be ready to do whatever is good (this requires keeping your eyes open as well as maintaining a pure heart),
d. to slander no one (even politicians you do not like),
e. to be peaceable and considerate,
f. to show true humility to all men (while humility is not being a milk toast or a doormat, we serve Christ first and others over ourselves).

Paul reminds us that we were once foolish and caught up in the world with all its passions, sin and hate, but God saved us, “not because of the righteous things we have done, but because of His mercy.” [v5] This reminds me of Daniels prayer: “We do not make requests of You because we are righteous, but because of Your great mercy.” [Dan 9:18] So, it is not because of us but because of God and His plan – keep that in mind. And we are reborn and renewed through the Holy Spirit, given generously to us through our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Because of this, we should hold to sound teaching, or doctrine, but not get caught up in “foolish controversies,” or “disputable matters,” as Paul says in Romans chapter fourteen. We hold to truth but we do not create division. Division is properly defined as dividing people against Christ. A divisive person is to be warned, once, then twice. The third time, have nothing to do with him. This person condemns himself and demonstrates that he is “warped and sinful.”

Philemon:

Paul asks Philemon’s permission to free his servant so that he is available to work with Paul. As we said before, the Bible is generally neutral on slavery, neither condemning nor condoning, except for specific instances. Most people understand that slavery is wrong, with few exceptions. In America, we condemn it and we stand in judgment above our predecessors with little regard or acknowledgment for the realities of the day. Slavery is real today in most the world: and those who condemn our predecessors (as if their fault were our own) fail to address the injustice around the world today.

Paul recognized that Philemon’s slave was his property. Regardless his views on the institution of slavery, he could not stand in judgment of his brother, nor could he declare his slave to be free because of his higher authority. Instead, Paul gracefully requests freedom on behalf of Onesimus. The Bible does not tell us the outcome of this request. Paul has confidence in his brother to do the right thing and it is reasonable to assume that is what happened.

With that run-through, here is what I see as the key verse to the book: “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” [v6] Isn’t it true, the more we share our faith in Jesus Christ, the more we understand what God has rescued us from?

The last few years have seen several “conservative” judicial watch organizations form. All of them proved to be anything but conservative. This organization, while not Biblically based, will likely prove their mettle as conservative. The head of this group is Justice Richard Sanders and the members are lawyers who support Ron Paul. This will be an interesting group to watch and I will be looking forward to their reports.

Here is the first:

From State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders

Dear Friend,

Any friend of Ron Paul’s is a friend of mine.

I never heard Dr. Paul give a speech where he did not talk about constitutional government. If the US Supreme Court agreed with his views on the constitution maybe he’d go back to delivering babies; but there’s not much chance of that, and not much we can do about it. But here in the state of Washington there is a lot we can do.

I’ve been on the Washington Supreme Court for 13 years. The most important things in our state have a way of ending up before our highest court: civil liberties, property rights, gun ownership, taxes, public works, criminal justice, and, oh yes, the Mariners and Seahawks. Our state has a wonderful constitution, much more protective of liberty than the national one; however to recall the words of James Madison, constitutions are mere “words on parchment” without a vigorous and independent judiciary to apply them.

Who sits on our Supreme Court is up to you. We serve staggered 6 year terms, which means every 2 years three of us stand for election. Any lawyer can run against us, and many do. That’s how I got on the court in 1995, I ran against a person appointed to the court by Governor Lowry. These are low profile races, not much money to campaign, and not much understanding by the general public on how individual justices stand on issues which are important to you. But (trust me on this, I’m from the government) these decisions impact you more directly than most anything the legislature or governor does. But we need more good men and women on the court who truly love liberty.

So what is to be done? I have encouraged many liberty loving lawyers to get active in Lawyers for Liberty. They will be sending you blurbs on recent interesting state Supreme Court cases naming names and telling you exactly who is doing what for you, or to you. Seattle lawyer Matt Dubin is the chairman. Matt@Dubinlawoffice.com In 2010 three of us are up for election: me, Jim Johnson and Barbara Madsen. I hope you will care enough to get involved in judicial campaigns–because you really matter and can make the difference.

Have a very merry Christmas,

Richard B Sanders