Tina Robinson, a WA State Bar Associate who is serving as Kitsap County’s Prosecutor has filed a lawsuit against William Scheidler seeking “attorney fees and sanctions” because Scheidler instituted a RECALL petition demanding the RECALL of Robinson’s colleague of the WSBA, Kitsap District Court Judge, Stephen Holman.
Citizens must be vigilant when it comes to our constitutional rights — especially when the constitutional attack comes from a gang of WA State Bar members as in this case. Here are the culprits, Judge Holman is a WA State Bar member who is subject to RECALL; Tina Robinson is a WA State Bar member defending Judge Holman. And the lawsuit they filed will most likely be decided by a WA State Bar member serving as judge of the Superior Court. It is complete power triumvirate in the hands of WA State Bar members and they can do whatever they want because they are the complaining witness, the fact-finder and the decision-maker.
Let’s examine this legal scheme by these WA State Bar members.
First: Article 1, Section 33 of our state constitution provides for the RECALL of
Every elective public officer of the state of Washington expect [except] judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of,… filed with the official who accepted the nomination of the official being recalled
Second: This is all this Constitutional provision says! Nothing more, nothing less. However this constitutional right presents a serious threat to “elected officials” who commit “some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office” and these elected officials need to “insulate” themselves from citizen and the power citizens have over them via the RECALL provisions of Article 1, Section 33.
Third: When I looked over the Session Laws that pertain to the RECALL process, this ‘chipping away’ at citizen’s constitutional rights began in 1984. Up until then, over 71 years, the laws and the constitution’s language was in harmony. In other words, the laws said the same thing as the constitution. But not any more, in 1984, our elected officials passed a law that placed a “judge” between us and our constitution. Never before was this a statutory requirement nor is it stated in the constitutional provision. How can they do this … there is nothing in Article 1, Section 33 that says a “judge” must pass on a RECALL petition before VOTERS can vote on it? Good question how can a judge be master over us if by Article 1, Section 1, governments are to “protect and maintain” individual rights. Clearly the constitutional right of RECALL is an individual right! And clearly a ‘voter’ has a right to vote on the matters “complained of”. Why all the fuss and added “procedural gymnastics”? This scheme by these lawyers is to frustrate our powers to correct government corruption and hold them accountable.
Well it is all downhill from 1984 and now these elected officials, Tina Robinson, “elected Kitsap prosecutor, wants a judge to “penalize us” for “complaining” about a judge.
Finally, what is most dangerous is the power judges have to make law through the courts — citizens have been and will continue to lose still more of their individual rights and be at greater risk from legal abuse.
Please pay ATTENTION — YOUR RIGHTS are at RISK!