JULY 7, 2012 — SEATTLE TIMES EDITORIAL IS NO LAUGHING MATTER

On my July 5, 2010 blog I chuckled about the Pierce County Bar Association’s conclusions about me because they set forth no reasons for them.  But yesterday the Seattle Times endorsed my opponent and I am hopping mad.  This is because the Seattle Times editorial board flat out lied.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2018613884_edit06supremes.html

Newspapers that lie should not be in business.

The Seattle Times editorial board wrote:

“Owens has two challengers: Douglas McQuaid, a sole practitioner in Seattle, and Scott Stafne, who has a law office in Arlington. Neither has been attending candidate interviews and, the last we checked, neither had raised a nickel, which says something about how seriously they take a statewide campaign for the high court. Owens has raised $41,525.”

The statements about me are false.  I have been attending candidate interviews.  Owens is the one who has been refusing candidate interviews.  Both Justice Owens and Mr. McQuaid refused to be interviewed by the King County Bar and that organization had to solicit comments from its members about them.   I am participating in the King County Bar Association’s interview process and have tried to answer all interview requests and questionnaires I have received.

The Seattle Times editorial also suggests I have not been out campaigning with the people and spelling out my judicial philosophy.  This is demonstrably untrue.  See my web site: Stafneforjustice.com .  I do not believe either of the other candidates for the Supreme Court Position 2 has attempted to engage the public by campaigning for the primary.

While I understand why the Times considers judgeships to be all about money since the results of the judicial system seem overwhelmingly  affected by  litigants’ wealth, it perturbs me that the Times is trying to use the amount of money a judicial candidate receives from special interests as a major factor in evaluating judicial performance.  The most pressing issue of the day is the ever growing disparity of wealth, which make many of the people I represent in foreclosure defense work or with regard to school issues unable to donate.  Indeed, I have to often do pro bono work or reduced fee work for them.  Hey editorial board, is it really just about the money for the Times?  Doesn’t the merit of the candidates and issues before them matter to the Times?

Since the Times chose not evaluate me, let me point out those areas where I believe I am better qualified than my opponent:

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND:  I graduated summa cum laude from both college and law school.  I was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and Order of the Coif honorary societies.

http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=8

http://www.orderofthecoif.org/

I obtained an advanced law degree from the University of Washington in Law and Marine Affairs.

http://www.lsac.org/llm/degree/jd-llm-difference.asp

I may be wrong, but I do not believe Judge Owens has obtained any of these honors.   What has the Editorial Board learned about her academic background?

EXPERIENCE:  I have been a lawyer representing the little guy since I started practicing law in Washington in 1976.  Unfortunately, I know what it is like representing clients in a judicial system which is not working, partially because of the arrogance of judges.  We need change in our system.  As I state in my web page, http://stafneforjustice.com/ , I am committed to reducing the growing number of unpublished decisions and/or judicial orders which provide no reasoning for the results reached; and to responsibly supervise the lower courts so they operate in a fair manner for all.  We cannot accept a two-track justice system, which is unaffordable to the poor and much of the middle class.

Owens has been a judge for over 30 years.  She is a creature of the same courts, which are failing most of the people.  What is working so well with the court system that the Seattle Times is endorsing her for another six year term?

THE SEATTLE TIMES DID NOT DO ITS HOMEWORK:  As the Seattle PI noted in a recent blog, those lawyers who represent the poor are often burdened with unfair judicial ratings.  http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/06/29/a-bar-fight-over-judicial-candidate-ratings/  I won’t let the Seattle Times do that to me.  I’m old enough and wise enough to know that that it is hard to silence the truth once it has been told.  I am the better candidate and the times worship of money does not change this truth.

The Seattle Times editorial board does not know what it is talking about.  It is part of the corporate greed system which has allied itself against the people.

Please get the real facts before you vote.  Then vote for who you believe will make the best Supreme Court Justice for Position 2.

About admin

Scott Erik Stafne was born on January 18, 1949. He lives on a mountain about an hour from Seattle, Washington and two hours from Vancouver, BC. He is the owner of Stafne Law Firm in Arlington, Washington. Scott practices law full time. Scott ran for Position 2 of the Washington Supreme Court, position 2, in 2012 based on a platform that Washington's judicial department was failing. Stafne lost in the primary; garnering over 140,000 votes in the state wide race. This amounted to only a little over 12 % of the state wide vote for Position 2. Stafne's campaign asserted that Court of Appeals growing use of unpublished opinions was contrary to the concept of the common law upon which the American judicial system is based and has resulted in a dual system of justice which allows judges to act more like legislators than the servants of law contemplated by our Constitution. Although his campaign for the Supreme Court is over, Stafne has decided to continue his blog.
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>