Having trouble calling and getting a call answered by a Court? This document is the answer for you, contains many, many unpublished phone numbers to directly contact the court. I say unpublished only because these are normally only available to petitioners in family law matters.
When dealing with any DV related issue it is important to understand what baseline the DV Industry relies upon. DV Industry includes Judges, Lawyers, Advocates, Parenting Evaluators, DV Treatment Providers, GAL’s, Family Court Services, and to a certain degree Law Enforcement.
At some point I will go through this list and add brief descriptions about each document.
2012 Equality Wheel Duluth Model garbage, but most if not all private practitioners and Judicial Officer treat this as part two of the DV Bible (Part one is the Power and Control Wheel)
2012 Power and Control Wheel This is the pinnacle of a garbage study conducted in the ’80’s which has become the standard of the DV Industry, notice the use of Male only perpetrator identification, know and understand this document because they all rely on it.
TomGeorge (2012) DV Sentencing Conditions Recidivism_FINAL_042412 The final word on efficacy of DVPT in Washington State. After completion of DVPT you will be MORE likely of being charged with a criminal act of DV than if you do not attend!
1-2010 WSIPP Recidivism Report
05. KCCADV Victim-Defendant Report[1] If you are asking what a Victim-Defendant is, she is any and all women charged (or in the highly unlikely case convicted) of Domestic Violence related crime.
7-2008 Batterers_Intervention WSCADV Advocate handbook
8-2–8 WoodwaedBechtel DVPT Effiacacy
9-2009 DVPT Efficacy Taylor Maxwell
2006 DVPT Efficacy viewcontent
2006 Judges Handbook DV Appendix A Part of the FAMOUS 2006 Judges Handbook, read it and know it because the Commissioner you are in front of has it memorized. Gender and Justice put this together.
2006 Recidivism SMCStudy-BattererIntervention-Part2[1]
2006 Ricidivism SMCStudy-BattererIntervention-Part1[1]
2007 DOH DVPT Not effective IV-DV2007
2008 GAL Guidebook Title 26 GAL
2008 Zegree Batterers_Intervention Guide DV Advocates
2009 SKCCM BIP Study AuditFinal
2010 KCSO SOP Manual Chapter 12 DV
2010 Utah evaluating domestic violence court
2010 Zegree Walker, D. Evaluating the impact of IPV
2011 Dale Todd Quote about DV Treatment
Batterer Intervention Meeting Report
Batterer_Accountability_Responding_to_child_maltreatment_and_domestic_violence
court_mandated_domest_vio_treatment
Custody-Evaluators-Beliefs-About-Domestic-Abuse-Allegations-Final-Tech-Report-to-NIJ-10-31-11
Erin Pizzey Family Terrorist The gospel spoken from the Feminist Side of the fence, Ms. Pizzey is a stand out in the fight to end abuse. Must read for any Father.
Experiments_in_Torture[1] Think your exposure to the King County Family Law system feels like torture? Look at the similarities you are right.
Final_2010_2012_DV_Strat_Plan_10_28_09 City of Seattle 2010 Strategic Plan for DV
RADARreport-Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse
SAVE-Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse[1]
Social_Workers_Practice_Guide_to_DV_Feb_2010 Published by the Washington State DSHS, look for the mention of males victims of DV (well you can look but you will not find any)
Sunrise report 1992 DV providers[1]
Tracee Parker Fathering After Violence Parker ran the Safe and Sound Supervised Visitation center in Kent.
12-2003 KCCADV Victim Defendant Paper This is somewhat dated but still in use today, this paper gives a clear idea of the DV Industry definition of who a victim is and what gender SHE is, even is she is the abuser she is simply the victim, pure rubbish.
2011-2012PROPOSEDBUDGETFINAL Seattle page 13 Mayor McGinn suggests to eliminate funding for DV Perpetrator Treatment citing a no efficacy rating.
2013-15 City of Seattle DV Strategic Plan The City of Seattle releases this strategic plan every couple years, worth notice is the inclusion of the 2012 DVPT recidivism study (Dr. Tom George 2012 AOC study) and who does Seattle look to to determine if DVPT is effective? The private DVPT providers.
6-08-12 NBCC Code of Ethics National Board of Certified Counselors Code of Ethics
6-1999 Washington State Parenting Plan Study What the DV Insiders think of “shared parenting” must read for anyone going into a Custody dispute
6-2012 Accounting For DV In Custody Evaluations Fresh DV Industry study, well not really because the sample was 18 cases (hum, sounds like the Duluth study size) and contained within this paper is every reason why crazy abuser mommy is really just a victim, and dad? well he’s just a perp. This document is from the Washington Supreme Court’s Gender and Justice website.
3-03-11 Full DVPO Metalwala Respondent
3-03-11 Temp Orders CS and Maintenance
6-04-10 DVPO Metalwala Petitioner
6-09-10 DVPO Metalwala Petitioner
6-30-10 DVPO Biryukova Petitioner
7-14-10 DVPO Response Biryukova
7-14-10 DVPO Response Metalwala
9-13-10 Declaration of Stan Biryukova
9-13-10 Nadia Biryukova Declaration
9-23-10 DVPO Strict Reply Julia Biryukova
9-27-10 DVPO Metalwala Respondent
11-23-11 Notice_of_Association[1]
12-06-11 Declaration_of_Leslie_Clay_Terry[1]
12-06-11 Declaration_of_Service[1]
12-06-11 Declaration_of_Solomon_Metalwala[1]
12-06-11 Order_Terminating_Order_for_Protection[1]
Over the last year or so the Supreme Court has been working on revisions to General Rule 31A and presently GR31.1, the latter the public comment phase is about to expire and likely will be a public meeting or two before the Justices rule on this. Both of the General Rules deal with how the court discloses public records if not public then administrative court records (non case file documents).
Having minimal faith in our Judiciary to become more clear and transparent than a rock I have somewhat ignored the process, while it is a great importance I made the personal decision to more or less sit out GR31A and had planned on doing the same with GR31.1. However a couple months ago a met a man who was very passionate about this new rule and the positive aspects it could bring to his issue, we talked and later spoke on the phone at length. His provided me some insight and opinions which I having been embroiled in the Domestic Violence arena have not been exposed to, I must say it was quite refreshing on many levels.
The one thing I have come to realize is just how closed and opposed to disclosure our Judicial branch of Government is and I suspect there is a great deal for them to be ashamed of is full disclosure were to happen.
As normal course, even when time constraints do not allow I committed to reviewing GR31.1 and offering at least one public comment on the proposal.
After digging my brain into 31.1 I started drafting a Public Comment for submission, after completing what felt like seventy or eighty percent of my comment I took a break and came back to it an hour or so later when I noticed my word count was over 3800 words, better check to see if AOC has a word count limit, and yes the do it was 1500 words. After spending more time editing down my comment than writing it I was done and it was submitted
12-29-12 GR31_1 Chief Justice Barbara Madsen Comment 1
Fresh in my head are the countless defects with GR31.1 not the least of which is the simple fact a disgruntled requestor could all but bring the accountability arm CJC of the Judiciary to its knees from a title wave of complaints.
I could offer more on this but suffice to say a ill conceived proposal by our highest Judicial officers, again. All this could be avoided by accepting governance under the existing Public Records Act and following the Judicial Cannons.
Here are a few additional public comments made, most speak the same hollow words “We support Transparency in the Court, but…”
11-30-12 GR31_1 DMCJA Judge Durr Comment
On Behalf of Spokane County Superior Court
On Behalf of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King
Superior Court Judges’ Association-12-31-12
Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston County
Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County
Some comments from other agencies-
On Behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington
On Behalf of Association of Washington Cities – Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys
On Behalf of Disability Rights Washington – David Lord
On Behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
On Behalf of the Washington State Office of Public Defense
Justices denial of the public’s right to access is always more costly in the end.
On September 12th, 2011 Seattle Lawyer Karma Zaike brought forth a petition for a Civil Domestic Violence Protection Order on behalf of her client Saiyin Phasavath in cause number 04-3-00375-3 SEA, normal business at KCSC, almost.
The problem on this petition is that her client Phasavath was facing a Domestic Violence Assault Charge for chocking her 14 year old son and Zaike would shortly become the subject of a criminal investigation for witness tampering by the Renton Police Department.
The petition was presented to KCSC Commissioner Carlos Velategui who denied the motion
9-12-11 DVPO Denial ExParte Signed Vealtegui
9-12-11 Phasavath DVPO ExParte Denial
Zaike then went “forum shopping” she left the 6th floor of the KCSC Courthouse and went down to the 2nd floor and was able to note this motion for a second time on the family law calendar in front of Commissioner Jackie Jeske.
By any stretch of the imagination this action could only be described as a revision the petitions were identical, no declaration as why the same motion should be reconsidered (even though this would no have been appropriate as a Commissioner has no power of review/revision).
The real problem for me is that I was included as a restrained party in this civil Domestic Violence Protection Order, a action I have never been Joined into.
10-10-11 KCSO Return of Service KCPAO
10-24-11 Certificate of Service[1]
This was release in November 2012 provides insights into as least how KCPAO David Martin feels about protecting “HER” from Domestic Violence. As you read this document you may ask what is a Victim-Defendant” simply put it is a woman, any woman regardless of how violent or abusive, Jennifer Kolone comes to mind, Martin did not prosecute her.
More Gender Biased crap from the DV Industry.
For the average citizen this question may never be asked, for those who have gone into a Courtroom it is like a neon light flashing in their face “Who the hell pick this person?”
I will examine King County BAR Association here but most if not all local BAR Associations have similar committees so check your local BAR for specifics in your area.
Members of the KCBA select a committee for Judicial screening, information can be found here KCBA Judicial Screening process, applicants fill out evaluation forms and the process starts.
2012 Governor’s Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire
2012 KCBA Judicial Evaluation Supplemental Questionnaire
Every year the KCBA conducts a survey of their members concerning the performance of the King County Superior Court Judges, they then compile this data into a annual report, here is a example.
2012 KCSC Judicial Evaluation Survey Results
Coming soon.
Coming soon.
Coming soon.
This manual was created as a bench book or bench guide, in Family Law every Judge and Lawyer will rely on it. It was created by the Judges and DV Industry insiders for the use of every Judge who may rule on DV related or influenced cases
The relationship between the Judges, the DV Industry (both Advocate side and Professional Providers) is one of exclusion, they exclude any other opinion or position other than ones which serve their agenda.
This is a MUST read manual.
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 1 Scope
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 2 What is DV
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 3 Legislative Response
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 4 Criminal Pre-Trial
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 5 Criminal Trial
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 6 Evidence
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 7 Criminal Dispositions
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 8 Civil DVPO
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 9 DV Database
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 10 Parenting Plans
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 11 Child Abuse
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 12 Dissolution
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 13 DV Rural Courts
2006 Judges DV Manual Ch 14 DV Tribal Courts
2006 Judges Manual Appendix A DVPT
2006 Judges Manual Appendix B Children
2006 Judges Manual Appendix C Federal DV Laws
2006 Judges Manual Appendix D LGBT
2006 Judges Manual Appendix F Immigration
2006 Judges Manual Appendix G Child Abduction
2006 Judges Manual Appendix H DV Links
This is a email exchange between King County Prosecuting Attorney Senior Deputy David Martin and Domestic Violence Treatment Provider Doug Bartholomew.
From: Martin, David
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:51 PM
To: Doug Bartholomew
Subject: RE: Gary Ruffcorn
Gary is the poster child for sentencing reform. Unfortunately, I dealt with this son as well (also with a troubling history of DV) before his passing. With each of them law enforcement had serious safety concerns (not surprising given how Gary’s son passed). I would not spend too much time contemplating Gary. We can help make people safer, we dont make them safe.
I know there are many areas of agreement in how to move forward in DV. Its not easy but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and ideas. I dont have all or even some of the answers, but I feel as though things have changed. I guess we will see what the legislative session brings.
David D. Martin
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Chair, Domestic Violence Unit
(w) 206-296-9503
(c) 206-898-9416
—–Original Message—–
From: Doug Bartholomew [mailto:doug@doug-bartholomew.com]
Sent: Wed 12/2/2009 10:38 PM
To: Martin, David
Subject: Gary Ruffcorn
Well, crow is a meal best eaten cold. And karma is a …
I was looking something up this evening and stumbled upon your article about tougher sentencing guidelines. I would like to say I have an excuse for what Gary did. The pictures were horrible. He was one of mine in 2006. He did what he was supposed to do and I truely believe he was sincere. I don’t know what I would have done differently. He was an old dog. But it still is a failure, and one in which someone got horribly hurt.
At the same time as he was in group I had a cop in the group which met right before his. One day the early group was late and Gary was already in the waiting room. The cop took one look at Gary and came back into the therapy room and said “you’re in over your head, and I want to be on a different night because I don’t even want to be in the same building as him.”
I’m going to be doing a lot of soul searching on this one.
On a happier note the meetings that are going on are the most exciting I’ve seen since the WAC’s were passed in 1992. You are giving me hope! We have a chance here to make history and prove that if we all work together asnd we all take responsibilty for our role in stopping violence (and keep good statistics) we can show the world that it can be done right and it is worth still trying. Thank you.
Doug Bartholomew MS, LMHC
1750 112th Ave. NE # B-218
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: 425-635-0188
email doug@doug-bartholomew.comcastbiz.net
FAX 425-451-8184
website www.doug-bartholomew.com
So, who is Gary Ruffcorn? He is a convicted serial abuser, he had SIX prior convictions for Assault in the 4th Degree Domestic Violence and THREE Convictions for violation of a No Contact Order, details and pictures of the aftermath of his violence can be found here.
The system placed this clearly troubled man in the same program as countless fathers who have merely been accused of the most petty offences, and I may add accused by only one person in a 10 minute long DVPO hearing with no rules of evidence allowed.
Bartholomew ever so casually comments about how bad he feels, how he wishes it were different, implying how he was duped by this person. This is not the case DB and Martin have been involved in DVPT for far to many years, The 2012 Washington State Recidivism study TomGeorge (2012) DV Sentencing Conditions Recidivism_FINAL_042412 paints the picture black and white, Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment as it exists today in Washington State is a failure, it does not work. If the average person who completes DVPT is slightly more likely to commit and get charged with a act of Domestic Violence what are the percentages going to look like for someone who fits this profile?
Violence and accountability, every single person who failed should have a place at that table include private profiteers like Mr. Bartholomew.
The main focus of this site is to offer a omnipresent view of our Judiciary, but there will be a great deal of information concerning the area of Family Law because it comprises such a large percentage of the average user of the Court.
Family Law in Washington is governed by a combination of Statute, Supreme Court Rules, Local Court Rules, and Common Law or sometimes called Case Law, and the Constitution (both Federal and State).
Each is unique, each is relevant, as a litigant you should have a basic understanding of all.
Statute-
The most straight forward of them all, the Legislature passes bills which then become laws and are codified by the Office of the Code Reviser and find their way into the Revised Code of Washington. These are for the most part easy to read and understand because they are written in clear and plain language. For the most part Family Law is located in Title 26.
To the lay person going to court and reviewing a RCW dealing with the specific issue at hand and think “I have this in the bag Statute is black and white and there is no way I cannot prevail” only to have the Judicial Officer rule in the opposing parties favor at the hearing. Remember Judges have the power of Discretion and what that means is that if the Judge thinks it is in the best interest of Justice he/she can ignore Statute and barring a Constitutional violation the higher Appeal Courts can or will uphold that ruling.
Think of Statute as a guide, not something carved in stone.
Rules-
There are several set of Rules to be familiar with, the Supreme Court Rules which there are many but as for most everything in this site is geared towards Civil matters I will try and stay on that line, so Superior Court Civil Rules commonly called “CR” followed by a number (CR60 for example), these are a must know for going into Court. There are Supreme Court General Rules of Application, again many subsections but generally speaking the General Rules GR followed by a number and the Evidence Rules ER followed by a number are ones you should study. Then you will be expected by the Judge to know the Local Court Rules or LCR’s each Court is unique, most if not all Courts will have them published online, find yours and study them, a Local Judge won’t think twice about levying a $500 fine for mistakenly noting a hearing in front of the wrong Judge. Spend as much time as you can learning the rules because- The Judiciary has ruled that Court Rules trump Statute so if there is a conflict between the two Court Rule will prevail, but again the Judge has the power of “Discretion” if it is in the best interest of Justice to veer from them (and yes the pursuit of Justice may be ruling against you).
Think of Court Rules as being written in Ink.
Common Law or Case Law-
Common Law is sometimes called Case Law is it the culmination of previously entered Court ruling on cases which have similarities like subject matter, jurisdiction, or application (interpretation) of Statute or Law. Finding applicable case law for a pro se litigant is much harder, most attorney’s and the Judges have access to fee based services like West Law or Versus Law, but for most the financial commitments required are just not possible, one great fee resource for case law is Google Scholar takes some hunting around but it is a good tool. Some Superior Courts have Law Libraries which are open to the public and you can access the fee based services (computer time and/or copying charges may apply) I find that I do not like spending additional time in Courthouse to be pleasant, other than trolling the halls of the second floor. The power of Common Law can be found in RCW 4.04.010 and BTW this is one of the few Statutes the Judges hold dear to their heart. Chances are that if opposing counsel is raising solid case law arguments you may not prevail.
Common Law is Written in Ink although sometimes invisible Ink
The Constitution-
Both US Constitution and the Washington State Constitution apply always, but generally speaking for Civil matters in Washington rely on the local Constitution, the Federal Courts really go out of their way to defer Family Law Matters back down to State Court, so remember if you think you are going to file a Federal lawsuit against all the people who screwed you in State Family Law case you will scare nobody, the threat of a well publicized CJC complaint or starting your own website has more teeth than threat of Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit, my opinion.
The Washington Constitution is broken up into several Articles, generally I, IV are the ones to really know, and by know I mean you should be able to stand up at a moments notice during court and make the objection with the correct cite “I object your honor Debtors Prison was abolished Article I section 17 Washington State Constitution”.
Constitution is written in Stone.
A well written Motion or Brief will contain elements of all of the above as cited authorities, and typically in a family law case even a pro se litigant can write and argue on par with most lawyers. Family law lawyers really are not very good as a whole, they are successful for many reasons and usually gender of the litigants is the predetermination factor, sorry men.
If you have a lawyer representing you before you just blindly sign the response to OC (Opposing Counsel) motion and email it back take a few minutes and review it, look for case law cites make sure they included at least one Constitutional cite, and make sure what made it onto the declaration are your words.
One of the reasons Family Law has a reputation for defects and poor rulings is because the lawyers who argued similar cases years before you made shit arguments and never were successful at the Appeal Court level and case law evolved from there. Where are those lousy lawyers from 10 years ago now? Chances are today they are the same person sitting in front of you wearing a Black Robe, lousy lawyers make lousy Judges and guess who picks the Judges? Your local BAR Association Judicial Selection Committee (KCBA is here).
After getting clobbered in Court try and focus your frustration at the responsible party, it is not your child’s other parent, it is not your lawyer (well maybe it is in part), it is not opposing Counsel (well maybe it is in part) it is the Black Robe, the system is created by design not happen-chance and the Judges are the architects.
Finally remember a Black Robe does not make a Judge, address all Commissioners as Commissioner they have not earned the right to be addressed as Judge.
Released in 2009 by Washington State University “Public Attitudes Regarding the Selection of Judges in Washington State” this is a great read document. I always appreciate others opinions of the Judiciary, mine has become fact based over the last few years but I still look for opposing views in hopes I am wrong.
1-2009 WSU Judicial Approval Study
While there is plenty of Glass half full insights from likely Lawyers or Law Students, the statistics are revealing the public feels there is lots of room for improvement.
For example on page 21-
“It is clear from the results set forth in Table 14 that registered voters in Washington tend to view their judges favorably. Washingtonians tend to believe that their judges are somewhat accountable to the public, they are fair and impartial in their judgments, they can be relied upon to be honest and trustworthy, and they get high marks for being qualified to serve. With respect to negative traits, there is limited sentiment that special interests exercise undue influence and that justice can be bought. However, among the negative traits, the criticism that Washington’s courts are overly “political” tends to strike a chord with Washington’s registered voters. As noted above, a common theme identified in the comments recorded on the current system of nonpartisan elections related to the “excessive political influence” present in the timing of resignations from the bench and the making of interim appointments.”
Well I guess you could look at the percentages in the above light, or I offer this:
When asked if their Judges were qualified? 45% surveyed responded NO
When Asked if Their Judges were Honest and Trustworthy? 41% responded NO
When asked if they were Fair and Impartial? 42% responded NO
When asked if they were Accountable to the Public? 49% responded NO
Are your Judges Controlled by Special Interest? 22% said YES
Are your Judges “For Sale”? 16% said YES
Are your Judges “Political”? 41% Said YES
I know if I take the BAR exam and score a 65% I have failed, if a person only provides truthful responses on 59% of their IRS 1040 they will get audited and maybe prosecuted, and a quarter of the people think you are controlled by someone or some other group in your job performance, you get fired.
My take on this study is that the Registered Washington State Voters who participated gave the Judges a FAILING grade.
The topic of RETENTION VOTING for Judges seems popular, most people do not know what this is, simply on every election every Judge would face a YES or NO vote regardless of a opponent “SHOULD THIS PERSON REMAIN BEING A JUDGE? YES OR NO.” I am a huge supporter of this, this would allow the people to clean house on some bad apples or bad orchards.
At a recent meeting Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens inquired (pleasantly and certainly no offence meant or taken) as to why I attend Judicial meetings or if I was looking for evidence of the evil empire, at the time I really did not have a substantive answer, having mulled it over I conclude the reason I attend such meetings is not to look for BAD Behavior from Judges it is to look for evidence of GOOD behavior because I have plenty of fact based material covering the abuse of office, misconduct under the color of law, and all around out of control actions of Judges from the Superior Court to the highest Supreme Court Judicial Officers.
I already know the BAD Justice Owens I am looking for the Good, still looking however.
On December 20th, 2012 the following notice was delivered to many Judges in Washington State.
Judges and Justices,
Christopher J. Hupy, Principal
Shortly after arriving in Seattle Michael La Rosa got into trouble with the law, a Domestic Violence case, his girlfriend whom he met online, was the reason he had relocated to Seattle from Florida. From the very first interaction with Law Enforcement and the Judiciary the warning signs were blindingly clear, but he was simply passed through the system as just another person needing mental health care.
2-02-09 Seattle Muli MLR case 532087 Charges
2-02-09 Seattle Muli MLR case 532087 docket hearings
2-02-09 Seattle Muli MLR case 532087 docket
10-31-08 Seattle Muni MLR Case 529259 Charges
10-31-08 Seattle Muni MLR Case 529259 docket hearings
10-31-08 Seattle Muni MLR Case 529259 docket
Here are the Seattle Police Departments Incident Reports concerning La Rosa, these leave little doubt that La Rosa needed help.
In October 2010 he was sent to Wellspring Family Services ordered to attend and complete the DSHS Certified Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment program offered. Gary Sarozek LMHC conducted a required Clinical Intake as required by WAC 388-60-0165. Sarozek was under the supervision of Wellspring DVPT director Mark Adams LMHC at the time.
2-09-10 Wellsprings Confidentiality Wavier
Gary Sarozek was previously sanctioned by the Washington DOH for misconduct-
As part of a Petition for Protection via a Domestic Violence Protection Order the following note was included in support of the petition
*I will offer caution in reading this as it is very graphic and disturbing*
2-10-10 Exhibit Attachment for Petition DVPO
On February 24th, 2010 KCSC Commissioner Megan Sassaman signed and entered a order in cause number 10-2-00459-9 SEA.
2-24-10 DVPO LaRosa Meg Sassaman
Commissioner Sassaman on her own volition made some medical determinations for the clearly troubled La Rosa (who did not appear at this hearing) Ssassaman diagnosed La Rosa with some type of disorder which would benefit from DVPT Counseling she deemed the program at Wellspring was his only choice, Sassaman has a long history with WS and thought a Social Worker qualified professional would be appropriate for a AXIS I suffering litigant would be the best, she further diagnosed La Rosa would benefit from “remaining on all prescribed medications” taking his “medications.
The record now indicates Wellspring FS provided treatment to La Rosa from October 2010 until Mach of 2011 when he was discharged for “threats to harm others”, not clear if La Rosa or the demons who told him to commit these bad acts were responsible.
Moving forward to November 2011 and La Rosa was in front of a grocery store on capital hill area of Seattle when he pulled out a camp hatchet and struck Joseph LaMagna in the head approximately 10 times killing him almost instantly. A group of small school children witnessed this attack. Seattle Police Department was on scene within minutes finding La Rosa nearby and confused stating LaMagna had given his sister a STD.
SPD arrested him and also began to investigate him for another Hatchet killing from the night before, Dale Holmes, he was charged with both murders.
La Rosa was moved into DSHS Western State Hospital when it became clear to the staff at King County Jail he was a danger to himself and/or others. Michael was diagnosed in youth as suffering from at least one DSM IV AXIS I disorder, Schizophrenia.
Back to King County Superior Court case 10-1-10060-8 SEA it has been dragging through the court between KCSC Judges Theresa Doyle and Judge Ronald Kessler acquiescence to the repeated motions by King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s Deputies to make a finding of competency, when in the face of each and every PhD level professional diagnosing AXIS I disorders.
02-02-11 Findings of Fact La Rosa Competency
02-02-11 Michael La Rosa Psych Evaluation
December 2012 Judge Ronald Kessler signs a Motion for Acquittal, included in the Exhibits in support of Acquittal is a full and complete picture of the past and present mental health state painting a clear picture of the misconduct of Sassaman, Sarozek, and Adams to name only three.
12-13-12 Exhibits to Motion for Acquittal
12-13-12 Notice Ineligibility to Possess Firearms
12-13-12 Signed Order Motion for Acquittal
What the system, King County Superior Court, Department of Corrections, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg knew about Dangerous Mentally Ill Offenders
Here is a King County Television Story about Mental Health Court–
In our legal system there is a doctrine called the Appearance of Fairness, it is spelled out in statute several places and Judicial Cannons require it. but it is by implication included in every single one, it is fundamental in application. Case law on this can be found in the 1972 case of State v. Madry, in which the following decision was offered by the Washington Supreme Court:
“—at 70: The appearance of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence in the administration of justice as would be the actual presence of bias or prejudice”
“Next in importance to rendering a righteous judgment, is that it be accomplished in such a manner that no reasonable question as to impartiality or fairness can be raised”
So in following this doctrine (or NOT), Judge Jim Doerty filed a lawsuit in and through his legal counsel (Mark Leemon 12-25-12 WBAR Lawyer Directory Mark Leemon and Craig Vernon 12-25-12 WBAR Lawyer Directory Craig Vernon) in King County Superior Court, cause number 12-2-25288-2 SEA 12-25-12 KCSC Doerty Docket. The case has been assigned by Presiding Judge Richard McDermott to be ruled on by Judge Julie Spector.
9-04-12 KCSC Complaint Exhibit A
9-04-12 Defendants Notice of Removal
9-05-12 Letter from US District Court Clerk
9-11-12 Defendants Anwser to Complaint
9-12-12 US District Court Cover Page
To illustrate this defect an examination of the hierarchy at KCSC:
12-25-12 KCSC McDermott Employee Detail
12-25-12 KCSC Inveen Employee Detail
12-25-12 KCSC Doerty Employee Detail
12-25-12 KCSC Spector Employee Detail
Judge Dick McDermott is the Chief Presiding Judge and according to the employee detail he is the only Judge in King County who reports to the People who elected them, Judge Laura Inveen Chief Civil Judge reports to Dick, Judge James Doerty reports to Dick, Judge Julie Spector also reports to Dick.
One big happy family down there and clearly the defendants in this action stand little chance at equal protection under the law.
Judge Doerty had options as the documents indicate, he could have simply filed this action in Federal Court (about three blocks from the King County Courthouse) he could have filed it in Snohomish County or Pierce County as the Court Rules allow, but he didn’t he used his position of authority to send a clear message to the defendants “pay up because me and my friends will take care of this case”. Threats and Intimidation, sounds like the Doerty I know.
Now moving off the massive procedural defects present we examine the substance of Doerty’s lawsuit; He was so physically and mentally damaged he feels entitled to some (large) financial settlement, he states he was on constant medication (assuming pain relief medication like OxyContin – Street name Oxy or OC which is best described as synthetic Heroin) for the pain, Found it hard to function at his Job (he still ruled on years and years worth of cases) many Seattle Lawyers I have spoke to about Doerty call him “unpredictable at best” even stating “He is the most overturned Judge in the State at the Court of Appeals”.
So we have a sitting Judge admittedly on constant drugs, perpetual pain to the degree he found it hard to function at his job, and suffering from ongoing and serious emotional damage.
I have first hand experience with Doerty and not as a litigant as he has never ruled on any case which I was a party, if I were to describe him I would say out of control, biased and unaware of his professional responsibilities, criminal, totally devoid of any personal acceptance of accountability, just an angry man.
The good news is that Doerty is set to retire from the bench within the next couple weeks, the bad is that he will do so getting a full judicial retirement salary.
Another example why the Judiciary should not be self governing nor self policing.
In late April 2012 Dr. Tom George who works for the Washington State AOC as a researcher completed a study on recidivism rates and Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment (DVPT). His study had a large pool to work from, he had seemingly unlimited access to the AOC JIS and/or SCOMIS databases and likely the WSP database as well. All in all not a bad study.
TomGeorge (2012) DV Sentencing Conditions Recidivism_FINAL_042412
Dr. George concludes that after completing Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment, the average participant has a higher risk of committing a future act of Domestic Violence than a person who was NOT subjected to 12 months of DVPT Psychotherapy. I spoke to a world renowned expert on Domestic Violence shortly after this report was uncovered asking his opinion, his response “this is nothing new, we (DV Industry) know this already and have for years, the fundamental way society has addressed DV treatment is flawed…”
Interesting background as to how this report came to be, the Washington State Office of Financial Management applied for a Federal grant to study DVPT recidivism, oddly enough money from the Feds came through but the OFM had no means to carry out such a study (one could question why they applied for funding when A: OFM staff could not carry out the study B: Office of Financial Management seems a little removed from DV Perpetrator Treatment recidivism and efficacy rates) so after taking a Agency Administrative cut of the VAWA Gravy money they shipped it off to the Washington Courts for completion of the study, not to question every decision made here but why did Department of Health not get this study?, Dr. Tomas George was assigned the task.
In all fairness the study went to a Supreme Court created arm of the AOC, the Washington State Center for Court Research , fancy name but all of them are on AOC payroll and all serve at the pleasure of Chief Justice Barbara Madsen.
I would like to mention that as of December 2012 this study no longer appears at the WASCCR website of publications.
Many who have gone to Superior Court have found themselves in front of what is called a Court Commissioner, many mistakenly think this person is a Judge but that is not the case.
A Superior Court Judge is a elected position in this state and must run for office every four years, after each election must affirm a Oath of Office which is Constitutionally required to be filed at the Secretary of State Digital Archives and generally available for online public inspection, but always is available for inspection in person. A Commissioner is Appointed by a Judge and serves at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.
A Commissioner is Constitutionally allowed under Article IV Section 23-
SECTION 23 COURT COMMISSIONERS. There may be appointed in each county, by the judge of the superior court having jurisdiction therein, one or more court commissioners, not exceeding three in number, who shall have authority to perform like duties as a judge of the superior court at chambers, subject to revision by such judge, to take depositions and to perform such other business connected with the administration of justice as may be prescribed by law.
The Washington Supreme Court in many case has ruled that any position set forth in the Constitution is dictated by those terms, ie that no authority (the legislature/executive/Judiciary) has the power to change the conditions spelled out in the Constitution, as it is both the maximum and minimum qualifications/standards. There exists a mechanism to modify the founding document via Public Vote for a Constitutional Amendment (which by design is a difficult process) or a super majority vote of the legislature. No Legislative act like a RCW, executive decree, or say a judicial Court Rule can override the specifics set forth in the Constitution.
Given the above statement on the power of the Constitution the lay person may say “Section 23 does not mention anything about a Oath of Office requirement, so the Commissioners are not required to subscribe one” this would not be the case because the appointing power (a Superior Court Judge of that County) is required to take a Oath and not requiring the appointed position would in fact give the appointee more power than the Judge, so while this fundamental requirement is not mentioned it is by application required.
Section 23 is quite specific in a very important area “not exceeding three in number”. Three Superior Court Commissioners per County is the maximum allowed, in writing this I visited King County Superior Court Employee Directory Page and found 11 active Commissioners listed and two additional vacant positions, one could deduct from this that because it is impossible to know which of the 11 are the allowed 3 that all of them would be disqualified for total lack of Jurisdiction.
In a recent Public Records Request (11-29-12 KCSC PRR email to 10-26 Request), to KCSC Chief Presiding Judge Richard McDermott seeking ALL appointments of all active Court Commissioners in response I was provided the following, Oaths of Office and Appointments
Oath of Office – Commissioners001.pdf
In reviewing the Commissioner appointments the following is revealed-
Commissioner Leonid (Les) Ponomarchuk was appointed by Judge Bobbe Bridge in August of 1998, he has never been reappointed since then. Problem here is that in 1999 Judge Bridge was appointed to the Supreme Court by then Gov. Gary Locke, Commissioner Ponomarchuk could not have served at her pleasure after that date.
The same scenario plays out over and over with all of the KCSC Commissioners listed, they serve at no Judges pleasure, and all but one have expired appointments.
Still remaining is the use of a Pro Tempore Commissioner, what the hell these are I don’t know, absolutely no mention in the Constitution for pro tems, Judges yes Commissioners no.
More to come on this story….
Washington State Constitution in a handy PDF format, this is a must read for anyone going into a Courtroom, Objections based on statute/RCW are fine but the real winning arguments are those based on Constitutional Objections.
Article I – Declaration of Rights
and
Article IV – The Judiciary
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Publishes a Statewide Judicial Directory it is a decent resource to locate that hard to find email address of most Judges in the State of Washington-
Early in 2012 a series of Public Record Requests were submitted to a group calling themselves the SCJA, so please don’t get confused I did not send these to myself. Their response goes from “A PDR what is this? We have never received a Public Disclosure Request” to “Yea we will have to look into that” to “Your request is onerous and we have been flooded with requests from other parties so you do not get anything”.
This group, who technically and legally does not exist, claimed Judicial Immunity from the Public Records Act, while I sought a administrative appeal no response was made by them.
A group who has charged $1000 fee to each county for every Judge and $500 for every Commissioner ($275,000 to $350,000 total each year), that maintains no business licenses, no address other than that of the AOC in Olympia, can produce no record of ever having purchased even basic office supplies, makes rules which affect the public, holds countless secret meetings (in violation of the Open Meetings Act), claims as a whole Judicial Immunity from the PRA even though Washington State Constitution does not provide for a Unified Judiciary, accepts public funds in the form of full time staffing provided by the AOC/Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, does not pay taxes or even report income to the IRS as required via a Form 990, and finally hires a $100,000 a year Lobbyist Tom Parker to lobby against the will of the people at the legislature.
2-12-12 Email PDR SCJA Number One
2-12-12 Email PDR SCJA Number Two
2-16-12 Email Response Judge Inveen PDR
2-16-12 Judge Inveen 5 day PDR Response
2-17-12 Email Response from Greg Howard
3-08-12 Email PDR SCJA Number Four
3-08-12 Email PDR SCJA Number Three
3-09-12 Email PDR SCJA Number Five
3-09-12 Limited Response to SCJA Letter
3-09-12 PRR SCJA Inveen Letter
3-20-12 PRR SCJA Inveen Letter
It appears that my path of redress has been cut off here, as it would be unlikely that my fate would be any different than Barbara Jo Fulton’s seeking relief in any Superior Court in this State.
Just another example of civil rights being denied by our out-of-control Judiciary.
Here is a list of websites I use almost everyday, pro se litigants should take note of all of these you will need them-
Google Scholar -Research Case Law, try searching by RCW number or specific phrase “elder abuse” “Domestic Violence” “Protection Order” etc. Not as good as West Law or a paid service but it is free.
Washington State Constitution – Old but relevant, remember that when considering a appeal of a Superior Court ruling the COA has discretion and is not required to hear a case involving only Statutory (RCW) violations, but as with the Supreme Court Constitutional Violation reviews are mandatory.
RCW – Specifically Title 26 Domestic Relations, Title 42.56 Public Records Act, Title 2 Courts and the Judiciary, Title 42.20 Misconduct of Public Officers.
Washington Courts – Specifically the Docket search function, on the left side of the page click “Search Case Records” on the next page click “Name Search” I find the case number search function to be hit or miss. Court Rules section is a must use for anyone who is in Court, if you don’t know the rules life can be hard. Generally the CR (Civil Rules) rules for Superior Court will be the one you need to know and to a lesser degree for everyday Courtroom visits the GR (General Rules) apply.
WBAR Lawyer Directory – Look up your favorite lawyer, get business address, contact information, email address, also can be used to look up Judges and often the Judges Bailiff is a BAR member. Always a good idea if you are talking to some State or Local employee to check and see if they are a lawyer.
RPC – Rules of Professional Conduct, these are the rules which govern the conduct of lawyers. If you deal with a lawyer either as a client or face opposing counsel in Court matter you need to know these rules well, can’t hold any professional accountable if you do not know the rules.
CJC – Think your Judge violated a Judicial Cannon or two these are the people who you need to report it to. Once you report the complaint there likely will be no more information from them as there is confidentiality built in for the Judges and CJC is immune from the PRA. That being said if you file your initial CJC correspondence (Complaint) on your family law case it is always in a handy place to reference it.
Judicial Cannons – These are the only rules of conduct a Judge must adhere to, and to answer the question “My Judge made a shit ruling can I file a complaint against him?” you can but it is a waste of time, bad rulings are just that and you would need to seek redress from a higher court. A good CJC complaint is a clear violation of a Cannon so you need to know what they are, read them.
DOH – Department of Health Provider Credential Search, it seems like the Family Law Commissioners and Judges have a overactive desire to Order specific personal health care services, DVTP for example is Mental Health Psychotherapy it is Health Care and it is governed by HIPPA. Make sure your provider is licensed by DOH, many GAL’s and Parenting Plan Evaluators are not licensed, if they are not regulated then they cannot make mistakes, insist on at a minimum of a DOH license and a PhD level is highly preferred.
RCW Title 18 – This is the section that covers Health Care providers and/or misconduct. Several sections RCW 18.19 covers counselors, RCW 18.120 covers regulation, RCW 18.122 Uniform Administrative Provisions (this is the nuts and bolts of how your provider can appeal any complaint findings), RCW 18.130 this is the one you should pay close attention to because this spells out what actionable health care provider misconduct is. A complaint saying “My Health care provider is a hack..” is not is a non starter, but “my DVPT provider subjected me to Mental Health Psychotherapy without a diagnosis I suffer from a medical condition which would benefit from said treatment regimen” has teeth under Standard of Care and Ineffective and Unnecessary Treatment. Remember DV Perpetrator is not recognized by the DSM IV as a “condition” as such no legitimate cure exists.
RCW Title 19.86 – Unfair Business Practices – Consumer Protection Act, the CPA does subject Health care worker and Social Workers as long as they are licensed by the DOH, RCW 18.320.020 spells it out. Another great reason to demand any and all so called “professionals” Court Ordered onto your case be properly qualified and licensed. Demand it as a minimum settle for nothing less, you and your family deserve it.
Washington State Court Pattern Forms – If you are still running on the Hamster Wheel and litigating your case the Courts generally require the use of their specific forms, all (or most all) required forms are listed at the AOC in a downloadable format so you can populate the form on your computer.
WAC 388-60 – The only rules which apply to Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment Programs, weak and unenforced by the DSHS. DSHS DVPT program Manager is Maureen Kelly her emails are maureen.kelly@dshs.wa.gov and kelm300@dshs.wa.gov, her phone number is 360-902-7901 she rarely answers her phone so expect to leave a message. DSHS devotes 1/2 of one employee per month to the management of the DVPT programs. She is under supported, under qualified, and generally a worthless resource but I do not want to predispose anyone’s opinion so judge for yourself.
King County Recorders Office – Great resource for looking up property transactions, typically in a dissolution case everything for the last 7-10 years will be brought up, and if you were removed from the house via a DVPO you can bet opposing counsel will be sending you 75 pages of interrogatories to frustrate you because you can’t get back into the house to get the document to satisfy the discovery request, and if you don’t produce likely a contempt finding or abusive use of conflict both are terrible and will haunt you for years. Also can be used to identify title real property assets, foreclosure information and marriage licenses. Most documents are online and can be downloaded for free, Hum makes you wonder why the Court Clerk Documents are all fee based.
Snohomish County Recorders Office – Same as King County above, just for SnoCo.
Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys – This Association has some useful information, this link provides some information on utilization of search engines, this Link has a somewhat small listing of Manuals including the 2012 Prosecutors’ DV Manual, 2012 WAPA KCPAODV Manual 12.11.14.
It can be confusing keeping track of all the acronyms used by the Judiciary so here is a list, I am sure this will be a ongoing updated post, so check back.
10.99 – RCW Criminal Domestic Violence
26.50 – RCW Title 26.50 Family Law Domestic Violence
191’s – RCW 26.09.191 Restrictions in Permanent Parenting Plans
388-60 – WAC Which applies to the DV Perpetrator Treatment
1983 – Subsection 1983 Title 42 United States Code / Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
1985 –Subsection 1985 of Title 42 United States Code / Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
ABA – American BAR Association
ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
AG – Washington State Attorney General
AOC – Administrative Office of the Courts
ATJ – Access to Justice Board
BJA – Board of Judicial Administration
BPD – Borderline Personality Disorder
CA – DSHS Children’s Administration
Cannons – Judicial Cannons (Codes of Conduct)
CJC – Commission on Judicial Conduct
COA – Washington State Court of Appeals
CPA – Consumer Protection Act (Yes DOH Licensed Health Care Workers are Subject to the CPA)
CPS – DSHS Department of Child Protection Services
CR – Washington State Supreme Court Civil Court Rules
DAWN – Domestic Abuse Women’s Network
DJA – Department of Judicial Administration
DMCJA – District and Municipal Court Judges Association
DOC – Washington Department of Corrections
DOH – Washington State Department of Health
DOJ – United States Department of Justice
DOL – Washington State Department of License
DOR – Washington State Department of Revenue
DSHS – Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
DSM – DSM IV TR Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Duluth – Duluth Model of Domestic Violence
DV – Domestic Violence as defined by RCW 26.50.010
DVPO – Domestic Violence Protection Order
DVPT – Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment
EDVP – Eastside Domestic Violence Program
ER – Washington State Supreme Court Evidence Rules
Evaluation – A clinical Evaluation with measurable Forensic Protocols normally conducted by a PhD level Professional
FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation
FCS – Family Court Services
General Fund – Refers to Washington State Government General Revenue Fund
GJC – Gender and Justice Commission
HHS – US Department of Health and Human Services
HIPAA – Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act of 1996
JIS – Judicial Information System
KCBA – King County BAR Association
KCBA FLS – KCBA Family Law Section
KCCADV – King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence
KCSC – King County Superior Court
KingCo – King County Washington
Kool-Aid – Term referring to blindly following instructions to your own personal detriment sometimes called “drinking Kool-aid” or “Kool-Aid drinkers” when referring to others.
LCR – Local Court Rules
LMHC – Licensed Mental Health Counselor
MD – Medical Doctorate Degree / Physician
Meretricious – A Term Created by the Court referring to a Stable and Committed long term relationship, recently has been replaced by the term “Loving and Committed Relationship” in essence “Common Law Marriage”
MSW – Masters Degree in Social Work
NBCC- National Board of Certified Counselors
NCO – Criminal No Contact Order
NWADVTP – Northwest Association of Domestic Violence Treatment Professionals
OCLA – Washington Office of Civil Legal Aid
OCVA – Washington Department of Commerce- Office of Crime Victim Advocacy
OFM – Washington State Office of Financial Management
OJA – Office of Judicial Administration
OVW – US Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women
PAS – Parental Alienation Syndrome
PD – Police Department
PDC – Public Disclosure Commission
PDO – Agency Public Disclosure Officer
PDR – Public Disclosure Request
PhD – Doctorate Degree Level
PLB – Washington BAR Practice of Law Board
Power and Control Wheel – Part of the Duluth Model
PRA – Washington State Public Records Act
PRR – Public Records Request Agency Response
RCW – Revised Code of Washington State
RO – Restraining Order non DV related
RPC – Lawyer Rules of Professional Conduct
SCOMIS – Superior Court Management Information System
SLL – Washington State Law Library
SnoCo – Snohomish County Washington
SOS – Washington State Secretary of State
STOP Grant – Federal Domestic Violence Monetary Grant – VAWA Funds
SW – Social Worker
TCSC – Thurston County Superior Court
Temp Order – Temporary Court Orders put in place at initial filing of legal action. Generally Civil Actions Dissolution, Custody, DVPO, Meretricious
Triangulation – Also Called Parental Alienation Syndrome
UCCJEA – Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act
VAWA – Violence Against Women Act
WA-AFCC – Washington Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
WAC – Washington Administrative Code
WADOC – Washington Department of Commerce
WADVC – Washington Domestic Violence Commission
WCSAP – Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs
WSCCR – Washington State Center for Court Research
WSIPP – Washington State Institute for Public Policy
WSCADV – Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
WBAR – Washington State BAR Association
WSSC – Washington State Supreme Court
WSP – Washington State Patrol
The Washington Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) finances monthly BJA meetings, below are the supporting documents for the monthly meeting discussions, previous meeting minutes, and lists of who attended the meeting. Some of these are fairly large (200 pages or so) but there is good reading in them, banking, lobbying this background helps paint the picture of the attempted “unification” of our courts. Questionable lobbying activities.
The Board of Judicial Administration is comprised of members from the Superior Court Level, the District and Municipal Court Level, all three Divisions of the Court of Appeals, the Washington State BAR Association, AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts), ATJ (Access to Justice), the Supreme Court.
These meeting materials provide a seldom seen inside look into what these Judicial Actors are up to-
10-19-12 BJA Meeting Materials
11-16-12 BJA Meeting Materials
12-14-12 BJA Meeting Materials
10-18-13 BJA Meeting Materials
12-13-13 BJA Meeting Materials
10-17-14 BJA Meeting Materials
11-21-14 BJA Meeting Materials
12-12-14 BJA Meeting Materials
The DMCJA was authorized by the Legislature as was their older brother the Superior Court Judges but the lawmakers gave them no description as to what the purpose was or mission was. To a large degree the DMCJA has played by the rules, they incorporated, they maintain a UBI license and they pay their taxes (or at least report to the IRS on Form 990).
DMCJA Registered Agent Hinchcliffe AOC Lawyer Lookup
Some history on the Lobbying efforts the DMCJA has engaged in over the years-
2012 Melanie Stewart and Associates L2
DMCJA still however is provided at least one full time AOC staff member (public funds diverted for private cause). The AOC claimed authority to violate the Constitution is the legislation creating the AOC-
1957 Legislative Session Chapter 259 Creation of AOC
Legislative History of the Association of Superior Court Judges-
1933 Legislative Session Chapter 58 SCJA Created
1955 Legislative Session Chapter 38
1957 Legislative Session Chapter 259 Creation of AOC
1973 Legislative Session Chapter 106
1981 Legislative Sessions Chapter 331
1987 Legislatiive Session Chapter 202 SS 102
1996 Legislative Session Chapter 82
2005 Legislative Session Chapter 182
2005 Legislative Session Chapter 282
All of these sessions are mentioned in Washington RCW Title 2.16 which is the Code Reviser publication.
There are a few mentions of some earlier Legislative Sessions in 2.16 as well-
1889-1890 Legislative Session Pg 344 Section 13. Rules
1925 Legislative Session Chapter 118
The Association was authorized in a very limited manner, unlike the District and Municipal Court Judges Association, providing for the relief from the overcrowded court conditions of 1933 and a mechanism for meetings to conduct the Constitutionally mandated Uniform Court Rules. Each Judge is sworn a oath to the Constitution prior to taking office and upon each re-election to office, these are maintained by the Washington Secretary of State.
Creation of the Administrative Office of Courts
1957 Legislative Session Chapter 259 Creation of AOC