Last week there were 6 published decisions by the Court of Appeals. These were dwarfed by the 41 unpublished, non-precedential decisions released by the Court of Appeals during this same time period.
The public should look closely at what the Court of Appeals has done. In light of ongoing criticism that unpublished decisions violate the exercise of judicial power under Art. IV § 1 of the Washington Constitution, the Court of Appeals by issuing this avalanche of unpublished decisions is telling us it can do anything it wants; when it wants. It is as if the judges on the Court of Appeal are raising their arms (robes falling away) and slowly, collectively, extending their middle fingers to the public and lawyers who must appear before them.
Although not stated, the Court of Appeals is telling the public it can and will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with regard to those who come before it seeking justice.
We ought to throw the bums out and let each Court of Appeals’ judge fight for his/her home against bankers as pro se litigants. We also ought to get rid of all those Supreme Court justices that indulge this judicial abuse by the Court of Appeals.
Our Supreme Court knows this is wrong and once overruled it, only to reverse later. The federal courts did away with unpublished decisions years ago. So why does the Court of Appeals flaunt the practice now when it is a major campaign issue? To show us who is in control!
The practice of unpublished decisions is so wrong as to make the arrogance of these judges disgusting. The practice of issuing unpublished decisions invades long established Constitutional rights of appeal.
Before the creation of the Court of Appeals in the late sixties, the right of appeal included the requirement that the Supreme Court declare what the law was regarding each appeal. See Washington Constitution, Art IV, § 2.
There is no indication that the framers of the Art. IV, § 30 intended to disturb a citizen’s right to a published and reasoned determination of the law applicable to an appeal of a dispute.
By only publishing 6 precedential decisions out of 47 rulings (less than 20 per cent) the Court of Appeals ensures a barren common law. This makes the law less predictable and raises the costs of access to equal justice.
Who knows what politics motivates the Court of Appeals to publish some decisions, but not others?
Legislatures are supposed to make laws which set forth rules to apply in the future.
Courts are supposed to make common law, which thickens the fabric of predictability so essential to providing justice when resolving individual disputes. More case law makes the common law rich and diverse; and provides clarity as to its design.
Think of it like this. When the legislature writes a law it uses words to prescribe a rule.
When a Court decides a case it applies existing law to existing facts to decide a specific dispute. Under the common law system of government rules are created by the resolution of many disputes. This how judicial law grows and differs from legislative enactments.
By choosing to make some cases precedent and others not, the Court of Appeals undertakes an essentially legislative task. However, rather than writing its legislative rules in words, it disguises them in decisions which cloud future application of judicial law.
This is an aggrandizement of power to the Court of Appeals which should not be tolerated by the Supreme Court. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I am running to replace my incumbent opponent, who is the Chairman of the Court’s Rule Committee.
The Court of Appeals’ disregard of the history of the common law, dating back to before the time our national Constitution was written, hurts Washington State.
Lawyers cannot cite these bastard decisions to Washington State courts without fear of being sanctioned, but federal courts can and do use them as legitimate precedent. This hands over Washington judiciary’s obligation to make common law to the federal courts, which sometimes use this dark decisional law as it were legitimate. This hurts Washington’s people, such as homeowners fighting foreclosures by banks.
What should be done when the Court of Appeals so brazenly decides to release less than 20% of its rulings as published, precedential decisions?
We ought to throw the bums out!!!
Some we can’t because no one is running against them.
In Division One Judges Appelwick, Cox, and Becker are running unopposed. Their judicial profiles from the Court’s web site are set forth below:
In Division Tw0 Judge Quinn-Brintnall is also running unopposed. Her judicial profile is set forth below.
In Division Three incumbent Judge Siddoway is running unopposed. Her judicial profile is set forth below.
You can see from their profiles these Court of Appeals judges do a lot of other things than their jobs; which is to be judges creating a rich and diverse common law for Washington State.
I recommend you write in another person’s name on your ballot for each of the above judges. Or if you can’t think of a name simply write: “Do your job” in the write-in space.
In Division Three Judge Theresa Kulik is running against Devin Poulsen. I endorse Poulsen simply because he is not a present judge of the Court of Appeals and has not as yet been tainted by the present judges abuse of power.
Now here’s a trick question. The following link allegedly shows the published and unpublished decisions from the Court of Appeals for the last two weeks.
I was sent the following email which indicates that last week’s published and unpublished are different than is shown in the above link.
Why the difference?
Are there now two types of unpublished decisions?
My take: We need lawyers to run against these Court of Appeals judges next time around so we can actually start throwing the bums out.
Washington State Court Weekly Digest
|Court Notifications notifications@COURTS.WA.GOVhide details|
Division I Published Opinions
Jul. 23, 2012 – 68332-2 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Sheryl Martin,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66534-1 – City Of Federal Way, Appellant V. Carola Washburn And
Janet Loh, Respondent
Division I UnPublished Opinions
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66067-5 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Paul Anthony Moore,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66300-3 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Isaias
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66359-3 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Scott
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66495-6 – Young S. Oh & Associates, Appellants V. Malbec, Inc.,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66526-0 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. David Bryner,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66567-7 – In Re The Trustee’s Sale Of The Real Property Of
Margaret Ann Bossie
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66574-0 – State Of Washington, Res. V. Kenneth William Sweet,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66701-7 – In Re Parentage Of R.d.c. Dob 02/24/01: James
Christianson, App. vs. Sederis Wright, Resp.
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66746-7 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Justin Castillo,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66747-5 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Muhamet M. Sumaj,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66748-3 – State Of Washington, Res. V. Peter Andrew Runchey,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66759-9 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Anthony Eugene
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66794-7 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Mary Kay Dyer,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66817-0 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. William Edward
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66837-4 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Jeffry David
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66847-1 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Samuel Cornish,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66866-8 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Scott A. Meeds,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66925-7 – Cassandra L. Sage, Respondent V. Harvey P. Chew,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67016-6 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Gilberto
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67039-5 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Max Ortiz-triana,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67114-6 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Jamel Lee Adams,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67147-2 – State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant V. Juan
L. Lozano, Appellant/cr-respondent
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67148-1 – In Re The Welfare Of: M.r.s.h., Tiana Halpin,
Appellant V. Dshs, Respondent
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67149-9 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Reavy Washington,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67272-0 – State Of Washington, Res. V. Fausto Vega-filio, App.
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67353-0 – Andrew D. Machleid, Appellant V. Wendy M. Machleid,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67510-9 – In Re The Dependency Of: J.r.p.; Charles Peralta, App.
V. State Of Wa., Dshs, Res.
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67593-1 – Dependency Of J.b. Matthew George, Appellant V. Dshs,
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67602-4 – In Re Dep Of T.c.u., Dob: 01/31/02; Christopher Urga,
App. vs. Dshs, Resp.
Jul. 23, 2012 – 67872-8 – In Re The Dep. Of: R.l.(9/5/05), Arturo Martinez, App.
V. State Of Washington, Dshs, Res.
Jul. 23, 2012 – 66959-1 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ronnie Earl
Seymour, Jr., Appellant
Division II Published Opinions
Jul. 24, 2012 – 41401-5 – State Of Washington, Respondent V William Schenck Iii,
Division II UnPublished Opinions
Jul. 24, 2012 – 40810-4 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. David A. Wooten,
Jul. 24, 2012 – 41443-1 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Margie L. Derenoff,
Jul. 24, 2012 – 41476-7 – State Of Washington, Respondent V. Mario Martinez,
Jul. 24, 2012 – 42671-4 – Jimmie R. Jemison, Appellant V Billy Ray Jemison,
Division III Published Opinions
Jul. 26, 2012 – 30050-1 – State of Washington v. Carl J. Price
Division III UnPublished Opinions
Jul. 19, 2012 – 30081-1 – State of Washington v. Debra Lyn Hong
Jul. 19, 2012 – 30096-0 – A.M. Todd Company, Inc. v. B&G Farms, Inc., et al
Jul. 24, 2012 – 29856-6 – State of Washington v. Christopher A. L. Koker
Jul. 24, 2012 – 30109-5 – In re the Detention of P.R.
Jul. 24, 2012 – 30122-2 – State of Washington v. Jose Luis Zapien
Jul. 26, 2012 – 29865-5 – State of Washington v. Joey T. Ayala
All opinions filed within the last 14 days can be viewed at http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent
All opinions filed withing the last 90 days can be viewed at
If you have any questions about this notification, or any difficulties accessing
the opinions, please contact our customer support center at https://AOC.custhelp.com/.
To update or remove your account, log in at http://www.courts.wa.gov/notifications/?fa=notifications.updateaccount