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.

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Tim Eyman loses again in court as Judge James Dixon declines to reconsider sanctions

Disgraced initiative promoter Tim Eyman has lost another court battle.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon today denied Eyman’s motion to reconsider his previous ruling imposing new sanctions and denied Eyman’s request for a further stay in the proceedings.

The motion was Eyman’s latest attempt to postpone his day of reckoning through a stonewalling in the extreme legal strategy. He is being sued by Attorney General Bob Ferguson for egregious violations of Washington’s public disclosure laws.

Eyman’s associates have already been found guilty in the case (No. 17-2-01546-34) and fined more than $1 million for their role in covertly funneling money back into Eyman’s pockets in the form of kickbacks.

Eyman, meanwhile, has been in contempt of court for more than a year because he refuses to turn over records the State is seeking to prove that he broke the law. Eyman’s blatant disregard of the Court’s lawful discovery orders has infuriated the attorneys working to hold Eyman accountable as well as the case’s Special Master, retired Thurston Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor.

Because Eyman is in contempt, he’s racking up daily monetary fines.

But those fines have not motivated him to comply.

So Ferguson sought the imposition of additional, non-monetary sanctions.

Last month, state attorneys convinced Dixon to reclassify seven years of “gifts” and other income that went into Eyman’s pockets as reportable campaign contributions as an additional sanction upon Eyman. As a consequence of that decision, Eyman is now faced with having to break his promises to his wealthy benefactors, whom he assured could remain anonymous if they gave money to him personally, as opposed to donating to one of his initiative factory’s committees.

The prospect of having to report who has been writing checks to his personal purse has frightened Eyman. That’s why he asked Dixon to reconsider his decision ordering that Eyman’s “gifts” be reported as campaign contributions.

Eyman also requested a stay in the case, as mentioned, to buy himself more time.

Eyman is petitioning U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Marc Barreca to allow former State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders (who always voted against striking down Eyman initiatives that were clearly unconstitutional) to represent him as his new legal counsel, after having spent months as a pro se defendant.

State attorneys Eric S. Newman, S. Todd Sipe, and Paul M. Crisalli wrote a powerful brief shredding Eyman’s request for a reconsideration.

“The State has waited a long time for justice in this matter because of Defendant Eyman’s antics,” their brief notes. “The State is still awaiting that justice. There is nothing unjust about a discovery sanction against a defendant who defied this Court’s orders and his discovery obligations for two years, especially when the discovery violations continue even after the sanction. The Court’s order is only the first step toward the State’s finally having the issues in this case resolved. Defendant Eyman’s hollow gesture does not change anything.”

With respect to Eyman’s efforts to bring Richard Sanders on board to represent him, the state’s attorneys observed:

“Defendant Eyman chose to proceed without an attorney for eight months. He
intentionally avoided hiring an attorney so that he could falsely tell this Court and the Special Discovery Master that his failure to respond to discovery was out of ignorance, not defiance. He repeatedly claimed that it was the State that was preventing him from getting a lawyer, despite that assertion being patently false.”

Not only did Ferguson’s office not prevent Eyman from getting a lawyer, it repeatedly advised him in writing to obtain a new attorney, and objected to the withdrawal of Eyman’s previous counsel, Joel Ard.

You can read their brief in its entirety here:

State of Washington's opposition to motion to reconsider non-monetary sanctions

Adjacent posts

  • Donate now to support The Cascadia Advocate


    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: we have never accepted advertising or placements of paid content.

    And we’d like it to stay that way.

    Help us keep The Cascadia Advocate editorially independent and freely available 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

Post a Comment

By submitting a comment using the form below, you acknowledge that you understand and accept the terms of the Northwest Progressive Institute's User Agreement, and you agree to abide by our Commenting Guidelines. We will not publish or share your email address. See our Privacy Promise for more information. Your comment must be submitted with a name and email address as noted below. *

*
*

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>