Replies

I have one thing to say about cases like this. Not only should this ignorant woman lose her suit, so should her lawyer. If the lawyer doesn't wind up having to pay money for filing a frivolous law suit, and having a complaint made against him, then there is no justice.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Washington Post Doesn't Have a Clue about Government Under a Written Constitution"

...there is no justice.

I know you did not comment on the $1 million plus settlement by the estate of the passenger, assuming because you realize she had a slam dunk case. Under Washington law, the drunk driver has an interesting case. The deputy knew or should have known the driver was drunk and not arresting her was negligent in the same way that a bartender knows or should know a drunk is about to get behind the wheel of a car. Washington law permits the state and any of its subdivions to be sued in the same manner as if it was an ordinary person.

Also under Washington law, the deputy created a 'special relationship' with the drunk driver when he stopped her and realized she was drunk. Under Washington law, she actually does have a cause of action. Obviously no law can take into account all the possibilities that might arise under the law.

If she has a case, a jury might very find in her favor; and make a very, very small award of maybe around one dollar.

The Washington State Bar Association is a rather interesting organization. The Legislature created the Washington Bar Association as an agency of the state. Here is the statute. take special notice of the severability clause:

RCW 2.48.010
Objects and powers.

There is hereby created as an agency of the state, for the purpose and with the powers hereinafter set forth, an association to be known as the Washington State Bar Association, hereinafter designated as the state bar, which association shall have a common seal and may sue and be sued, and which may, for the purpose of carrying into effect and promoting the objects of said association, enter into contracts and acquire, hold, encumber and dispose of such real and personal property as is necessary thereto.

[1933 c 94 § 2; RRS § 138-2.]

NOTES:

Severability -- 1933 c 94: "If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this act or any rule adopted thereunder, is for any reason held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act nor of any other rule adopted hereunder. The legislature hereby declares that it would have passed this act, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional." [1933 c 94 § 17.]

As one can see, the Bar Association is an agency of the state, however for over 70 years, it represented itself to be a private organization. When the state auditor wanted to audit its books several years ago, the bar association refused to allow it on the basis that is was a private organization. Once the bar association realized the problems that would create, it then claimed to be an 'administrative arm of the state supreme court', a position upheld by a majority of the justices of the state supreme court. I issuing that ruling, the state supreme court said the state had no authority to audit the Washington State Bar Association.

As one can readily see, there is a huge problem. If the Bar association is an agency of the state, it is a part of the executive branch. Huge separation of powers problems are obvious. what we have, in reality, in the state of Washington is there is a private organization that regulates the practice of law within the state.

It gets worse. Judges must be members of the Washington State Bar Association. In other words, those who control the Bar Association can go after a sitting judge for any reason or no reason; or ignore the corruption by judges.

I personally also have problems with Commissions on Judicial conduct, especially when they are dominated, in numbers, by appointees of a governor. there have been two politically motivated CJC actions against WA SC Justice Richard Sanders because he actually stands up for the rule of law and the Washington and federal constitutions. The last complaint against him was made public on the day before the start of the filing period in which his position was up for re-election.