March 18, 1998
Randy V. Beitel, Disciplinary Counsel
Washington State Bar Association
2101 - 4th Ave., 4th Floor
Seattle, WA 98232-2330
Re: WSBA Grievance No. 9702125 (the "Bulmer Grievance")
[Webmaster's 12/12/99 note: I later deduced from the Bar staff's letter dismissing this grievance (and listing the documents they reviewed) that it had been submitted by someone within the Commission on Judicial Conduct, most likely Executive Director David Akana. The Bar staff's 1/1/98 letter directed me, as Item #1, to "Please specifically indicate the facts you relied upon to determine that Judge Anderson has been accused of child abuse or runs a nursery." On a flyer that I distributed on 12/17/97 to detail Anderson's misconduct the subtitle read: "Exposing the crook inside the robe . . . How long do we let a child abuser run a nursery?"]
Dear Mr. Beitel:
This responds to the letter by former disciplinary counsel Julie Shankland (who I understand has left the disciplinary office and has passed her files to you) of 1/9/98 requesting my response to the above-referenced grievance. Though the actual grievant apparently was too shy to be identified to me by your office, I am speculating [Golly, I hope that won't trigger another improper-speculation grievance.] that the grievant was disciplinary defense expert counsel Kurt M. Bulmer. Since I find it easier to keep track of my grievances by names rather than numbers, I refer to this grievance as the Bulmer Grievance.
Item #1. I do not think that any person having the intellectual capacity to read the subject flyer would understand it as accusing Judge Grant Anderson of running a nursery or of being a child abuser. I believe such a figure of speech is called a "metaphor." My intention was to contrast the government's immediate and protective response when a nursery operator is accused of child abuse with its plodding and apathetic response when a judge is accused (even with substantial evidence) of corruption. I had spent 6½ hours on 2/13/96 sharing incriminating documents with the CJC's investigator, after which she rated the case a "13" of a 1-to-10 scale. I prepared the flyer approximately 22 months later, while Judge Anderson was still on the bench (as he remains even today--25 months later!)
Item #2. By a separate letter, I am responding to the Tollefson Grievance (WSBA No. 9800133), which is the same as this item. [Webmaster's 12/12/99 note: The Bar's 1/9/98 letter to me said, "Please specifically indicate the facts upon which you relied to "speculate" that Judge Anderson secretly influenced Judge [Brian, not Rudy (cousin judges)] Tollefson."]
Items #3. The statement about Anderson and Bulmer teaming with Hamilton to seek my disbarment was made in the context of argument seeking to be relieved from a harassing deposition by Mr. Bulmer. Hamilton and Anderson, and their lawyers, Sloan and Bulmer, did work together as a team in March 1996 to compose Hamilton's affidavit explaining why he had made Anderson's Cadillac loan payments. It can reasonably be assumed that Sloan, who I believe knows little about lawyer discipline, would have sought some assistance from expert Bulmer relating to Hamilton's grievance against me (WSBA No. 9601244), filed in late July 1996. One of the papers Hamilton filed supporting his grievance against me was a statement signed on May 8, 1996, by Pierce County Superior Court Commissioner James Orlando, who later informed me that he had prepared that statement at the request of Judge Grant Anderson (one of the Commissioner's bosses). When Bulmer spoke at a WSBA ethics CLE in October 1996, his written materials included August 1996 letters from Ms. Shankland to me (with my name redacted) and to Hamilton concerning his grievance. Bulmer either got them improperly from Ms. Shankland, or else he got them from Hamilton as a member of Hamilton's "team." I certainly did not provide the letters to Bulmer!
Item #4. Enclosed is a letter dated 2/26/98 objecting to the taint caused by Bulmer's attorney-client relationship with CJC panel member Judge John A. Schultheis. If you don't ask about conflicts and other taints, you are unlikely to learn about them. I would have though that to be obvious to disciplinary counsel.
Item #5. In my letter of 12/31/97, I asked Bulmer whether he regularly lies to everybody, or generally only to witnesses whom his is trying to intimidate. Paul Taylor, CJC's counsel, had told me earlier that he shared my belief Bulmer's only reason for deposing me was to intimidate or harass me, since I was the whistle-blower on his client. My reasons for being confident that Bulmer had lied to me are explained in the body of the letter, a copy of which I sent to Bulmer's friend, Barrie Althoff, Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
Your letter assumes that correspondence that is sent to the CJC relating to a case gets read by the members of the fact-finding panel selected to adjudicate the case. I believe you are mistaken, and that the panel only reads transcripts of the fact-finding hearing and documents admitted into evidence during that hearing. If Taylor had sought to admit into evidence my 12/30/97 letter, Bulmer could have objected. But, no one sought to admit it into evidence. Even if a CJC panel member did read it, I consider it inconceivable that it would "materially prejudice" the CJC's adjudicative proceeding. Recognize that I had previously formally requested the CJC members to relieve me from Bulmer's intimidating and harassing deposition of me.
you wish any further response to this grievance, please let me know.
EnclosuresVery truly yours,
Douglas A. Schafer