NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Thursday, August 1st, 2019

As Tim Eyman’s personal income falls, State of Washington asks judge to force him to pay up

Tim Eyman is get­ting squeezed on the mon­ey front. Big time.

The lat­est month­ly finan­cial report filed by the dis­graced ini­tia­tive pro­mot­er with the Unit­ed States Bank­rupt­cy Court for the West­ern Dis­trict of Wash­ing­ton (for the month of June 2019) shows that for the fourth con­sec­u­tive month, Eyman’s receipts have declined sig­nif­i­cant­ly, while his expens­es have not.

At the same time, the State of Wash­ing­ton is mak­ing an attempt to col­lect the civ­il con­tempt penal­ties that Eyman has been busy rack­ing up in the main cam­paign finance enforce­ment law­suit the State filed against him and his associates.

Last Fri­day, the State moved for an order find­ing that the Eyman Defen­dants (Tim Eyman and his now defunct com­pa­ny “Watch­dog for Tax­pay­ers, LLC”) be held “joint­ly and sev­er­al­ly respon­si­ble for the con­tempt fines imposed against Eyman Defen­dants col­lec­tive­ly as well as those imposed against Watch­dog alone.”

To ensure the order has teeth, the State wants Eyman to be required to pay up with­in five days of the date of the order. From the state’s motion:

“The State fur­ther requests that the order require the Eyman Defen­dants to pay those con­tempt fines accrued to date with­in five days of the date of the order. Final­ly, the State requests that the Court award the State its fees and costs against the Eyman Defen­dants joint­ly and sev­er­al­ly for hav­ing to bring this motion.”

Motion to order Eyman to pay con­tempt fines

The con­tempt fines Eyman owes through August 2nd, 2019 (tomor­row) total $155,500, accord­ing to the State’s motion. That’s the grand total for all defen­dants in the case, includ­ing Eyman per­son­al­ly and his LLC. Court costs and attor­ney’s fees will be extra, so Eyman will owe even more on top of that.

I have no doubt Tim Eyman’s response to this motion will be to whine about how he’s being per­se­cut­ed and unfair­ly treat­ed. The real­i­ty, though, is that Eyman dug him­self into this hole by mak­ing stonewalling in the extreme his legal defense strat­e­gy. Again and again he has test­ed the patience of Judge James Dixon and retired Judge Gary Tabor, the spe­cial mas­ter over­see­ing dis­cov­ery mat­ters, in his des­per­ate attempt to evade account­abil­i­ty for his lawbreaking.

Judge Dixon is sched­uled to hear oral argu­ments on this motion tomor­row morn­ing at 9 AM in Thurston Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court. As Eyman has cho­sen to rep­re­sent him­self, at least for the time being, he will have to appear in court to present argu­ments against the motion on his own behalf.

Although Eyman is a pro se defen­dant in State of Wash­ing­ton v. Tim Eyman, he still has big legal bills to pay, and that’s because of his bank­rupt­cy case before Judge Marc Bar­reca, which is being han­dled for him by Vort­man & Feinstein.

Last month, Eyman paid his bank­rupt­cy attor­neys $34,319.32 for their work — fees which were approved by Bar­reca. That caused his month­ly expens­es for June 2019 to top $50,000, while his report­ed income was a mere $6,633.56.

That might sound like a lot, but it pales in com­par­i­son to pre­vi­ous months.

Tim Eyman steals a chair from Office Depot

Tim Eyman steals a chair from Office Depot

Pri­or to Eyman’s now-infa­mous chair theft in Feb­ru­ary, his income was over $25,000 a month. But since then, it appears his friends have become few­er in num­ber and less gen­er­ous. His expens­es and lia­bil­i­ties, how­ev­er, just con­tin­ue to mount. It looks like his finan­cial sit­u­a­tion is becom­ing extreme­ly precarious.

Eyman’s obses­sion with post­pon­ing his day of reck­on­ing has caused the wheels of jus­tice to grind very slow­ly. But they are grind­ing nonethe­less. We will let you know how Judge Dixon rules on this motion for pay­ment of con­tempt fines tomorrow.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation


    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation