IANAL but it sounds like the CAO committed defamation.

"At this time,
I believe that the
sole source of discontent
from the CAO is that I enforced an
ethical and evidentiary rule against one of its attorneys."

well
there
ya Go:

they're
little gods
and Must be
Treated as such:

if eltrumpfster
can do it so too
can the city by the Sea.

our
fascists
will brook
No exceptions
for Justice anywhere
anytime nor anyplace.

it sounds like
@1 scored
a Bingo
to me

and the CAO'd
better come up
with a damn good
Explanation. & good
on You, Judge: don't give the
fascists an inch or they'll Take a gd Mile.

I am a lawyer, and I am eager to see the CAO's response to this. I am pretty defense oriented, yet I think to basically boycott a judge from hearing criminal cases requires something more than I've read so far.

Gee, Ann Davison is a butthurt fascist. What a shock. Her term cannot end soon enough. I wonder if she'll refuse to leave once she loses?

Putting aside for the moment the substance of the reply, I find 2 things about this piece troubling:

The ethics of a sitting judge writing this.
That sitting judge choosing an advocacy publication that has become little more than a rant-filled opinion blog for articulating the most extremist public policy positions and endorsing the most extreme candidates available as the forum for publishing that ill-advised piece. (a publication which endorsed her, to make the journalistic conflict of interest issue worse)

Expanding on @5, this headline post contains no link to either or both of “a memo and subsequent press release,” even though the latter, at least, is clearly a public document. Also, the accusations, “but these cases do not exist, and the events did not occur,” and “the memo is simply false,” would seem very serious. Has anyone at the Stranger attempted any independent verification of any of this?

Cool story bro.

If you’re a judge and you have to take your case to the opinion section of The Stranger, you’re not in a very strong position.

@6 CAO would be in the best position to substantiate their claims. Seeing they have to date inexplicably failed to do so, it seems plausible they are false. Now the judge has publicly stated, after review, that they are in fact false CAO needs to bring receipts or be be proven embarrassingly bullshit and borderline unethical.

@8: That was a lot of words for you to answer my question, especially when a simple “no,” would have sufficed.

“CAO would be in the best position to substantiate their claims.”

There are currently no claims from CAO in this post. As of right now, there are only the author’s claims the quoted material is from CAO, correct, complete, and faithful to context. Why were no links posted? Especially to what are supposedly public documents?

“…CAO needs to bring receipts…”

Are you seriously claiming the burden of proof rests upon the accused?

@9 Good god you’re dumb. Do a little research maybe.

@9 let me help you out:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-city-attorneys-office-bars-judge-from-hearing-criminal-cases/

Now, "Are you seriously claiming the burden of proof rests upon the accused?"

Defamation of a public official is a very high bar. Just today there was a Seattle times article noting that the case against Sawant for referring to police officers as murderers was thrown out of court. You not only have to prove the statement is untrue, you have to prove it was said out of malice. Good luck with that. I also wonder, if this was so egregious, why it took her six months to write this response?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/officer-defamation-suit-against-ex-seattle-councilmember-sawant-dismissed/

@12 Ha! So the right wing argument is: "How dare she write this! And why did it take so long?"

(AKA... "The food is terrible. And such small portions!")

@13 not sure what you are talking about. I’m not arguing anything just noting for those who think she is being defamed and should pursue legal action that she prob doesn’t have a case.

@12 "You not only have to prove the statement is untrue, you have to prove it was said out of malice."

Like, say, to harm the career trajectory of an elected judge you don't like?

"I also wonder, if this was so egregious, why it took her six months to write this response?"

Presumably because, unlike CAO, she underwent a comprehensive record review to make sure she was accurately relaying the facts.

@15 if you say so but it sure feels like you all are reaching a bit.

To all the cope-artists whining about “no links,” and why is this written “six months” later, and why can’t the judge get published in the Seattle Times: why don’t you get Ann Davison to provide the receipts?

@17: Because it’s not the CAO’s job to respond to every Guest Rant hit piece in the Stranger?

It's funny to read rightwingers "whine"* about Judge Vaddadi airing her complaint in the press. Davidson and the CAO are undermining Vaddadi's ability to do the job she was elected for by the public, so it seems natural and indeed necessary that Vaddadi keeps the public informed.

As for the fact that right wingers, and their sock puppets, don't like The Stranger, we already know since they "whine" about it every day

• one of the rightwing favorite slur so they surely can relate to it

@18 The CAO has failed to respond to “repeated requests.” Why die on the hill of defending an authoritarian who uses fabrications to deal with perceived enemies? No need to answer. Here’s the quote:

“The CAO has failed to provide any case records to authenticate any accusation of bias or error to me or to the Court at any time. Nor, to my knowledge, has any member of the press been able to obtain any such records, despite repeated requests.”

"Why
die on
the hill of
defending an
authoritarian who
uses fabrications to
deal with perceived enemies?"

when
the Lies
are Bottomless
the repercussions
nonexistent the Far
reichwing's fabrications
will live on in infamy tho
Civilization as we know it
likely will Not. it's Not Their
Concern: the reptilican brainstem

at
its
finest.

@19 lol at progressives claiming the CA is undermining the justice system when they have spent the last 10 years doing just that. This paper endorsed someone who said they had no intentions of doing the job. At least we finally got to the truth, it’s the “authoritarian” atty that is the issue. The jokes write themselves.

@11: That Times story is just the flip side of this Guest Rant. It selectively quotes from the CAO's Memo, without reproducing it, or linking to it. In both that story and this Guest Rant, there's no way for a reader to make an independent decision. Therefore, a reader has no reason to believe anyone's claims.

I'm guessing this will all get sorted out by Seattle's voters, eventually.

@22 "authoritarian"

It seems like an adequate qualifier for someone who invokes a reason to deny the will of voters yet repeatedly refuses to provide the supporting evidence

As for your extraordinary claim regarding who is undermining the justice system, it needs supporting evidence as well.

@23 ya maybe it's a vast media conspiracy to falsely attribute memos to Davison and her cronies. Or maybe not:

https://news.seattle.gov/2024/03/08/seattle-city-attorneys-office-issues-standing-affidavit-of-prejudice-on-seattle-municipal-court-judge/

@24: Seattle's City Attorney is also elected by Seattle's voters, so your expressed concern for the "will of the voters" seems extremely selective, at best. (Hence my comment -- you know, the one immediately preceding yours? -- about how Seattle's voters will sort it out eventually.) There's plenty of other work for Judge Vaddadi to do, so Seattle's voters will still get their money's worth from her.

@25: That's presumably the press release Judge Vaddadi complained about in the body of this post, although she never identified it. We remain where we started: the City Attorney's office made these claims, and Judge Vaddadi claims the City Attorney's Office is wrong. That's it.

It really doesn't matter, because the City Attorney, like any other entity filing an affidavit of prejudice, need not provide any reason for so doing.

@26 More ad-hock reasoning from you. Being elected doesn't give the right to use city institutions to deny voter will without very valid reasons. Donald Trump too believes being elected makes him unaccountable. What happens between elections also concerns us so that we don't end up with messes like the current one.

@26 glad you finally managed to unconfuse yourself and realize the situation is that CAO made allegations, the target has refuted them, and CAO now needs to substantiate their claims if they hope to preserve their credibility. Like I wrote way back at 8. Please try to keep up next time.

“Inconvenience, venom, completely lack merit, false (+1), misconstrues, mischaracterizes, reductive, misleading, most problematic, recklessness, scathing memorandum, riddled with misrepresentations or outright fabrications
Honorable Judge Pooja Vaddadi

For argument’s sake, let’s say the AOP filed by the CA did, in fact, lack basis. Having now published this piece, to quote Judge Vaddadi’s own reference to it:

“Court rules (CrRLJ 8.9 (b)) provide for disqualification of a judge if a party “files an affidavit alleging that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial by reason of the interest or prejudice of the judge,” within limits set by the statute.”

This “rant” is now, taking into account the choice words highlighted at the outset from the Judge’s piece, evidence of judicial prejudice against the CA in violation of..wait for it…CrRLJ 8.9 (b).

The CAO has “….the unprecedented step …by issuing an Affidavit of Prejudice (AOP)”

Ehh, maybe more accurate to say “slightly precedented here” – except it was done by defense attorneys to an also elected judge “in defiance of the will of the voters”
https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders

If prosecutors can effectively nullify a sitting judge this way, we do not have real elections.
What if defense counsel do it? (see, https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders)

“The use of the disqualification rule does not require that the party specify a reason why they ascribe bias to the judge when they file an AOP, and attorneys typically don’t.” -Judge Vaddadi

13, 20, 27, 28: game, set, and match to Tensorna on this one.

“Seattle Municipal Court is a teaching court.”-Judge Vaddadi

I like this and think it should be, but an individual judge so stating doesn’t make it so. Is this actually a thing?

“The CAO could have engaged with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, but as far as I know, it did not.” – Judge Vaddadi

Having now published this, Judge, I imagine they might take you up on that.

“…campaign of unprecedented scope and severity”- Judge Vaddadi
Again, maybe just a wee bit precedented. (see, https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders)

“I remain now, as when I campaigned, committed to fairness and impartiality. My record reflects nothing less... I ask the CAO to retract this memo

Umm. Fairness and impartiality? (see, https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2024/08/30/79670096/statement-from-the-honorable-judge-pooja-vaddadi-in-response-to-city-attorney-memo)

@29 "blah blah blah"

The reality of this situation is CAO unilaterally disqualified, on every criminal case, a judge because of unsubstantiated claims of inappropriate conduct. And despite ample opportunity they have utterly failed to substantiate their claimed grievances. CAO took a shot and missed, and you and other clown commenters are desperately flailing in an attempt to salvage their credibility. Davison is an amateur hack and no amount of bizarro whataboutism can conceal that fact.

30 thats really the best you've got?

Judge Vaddadi makes the point in her own piece. AOPs aren't handled the way you describe.
CAO clearly didn't miss. She's not hearing their cases as a result of the AOP.

That you seem so outraged suggests there are outcomes in those cases you're not getting that you thought you'd get with Judge Vaddadi, which weakens, not strengthens, your argument.
If you were as upset about the AOPs leveled against Judge McKenna, your point would be stronger...but, unsurprisingly, you're not.

@31: “If you were as upset about the AOPs leveled against Judge McKenna, your point would be stronger...but, unsurprisingly, you're not.”

Watching the Stranger, and supportive commenters, denounce as “unprecedented” the very practice they recently praised, really makes for quite the show of bald political hypocrisy, doesn’t it?

‘There is a coup going on in Seattle’s Municipal Courts: Public defenders are filing affidavits of prejudice against Judge Ed McKenna at a rate 10 times higher than his colleagues in an attempt not only to get a different judge but to highlight how public defenders have lost confidence in Judge McKenna. According to Crosscut, McKenna was previously asked by City Attorney Pete Holmes and Anita Khandelwal, the director of the Department of Public Defense, to step down on accusations of prejudice, but McKenna refused. Now McKenna is being removed from the equation by a united front of public defenders that simply switch judges if he’s assigned to their case. One official called it essentially “a vote of no confidence” in McKenna’s ability to serve.’

(https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/03/01/79409369/republican-city-attorney-ann-davison-throws-municipal-court-into-chaos/comments/29)

Amazing how the public defenders could try to reverse the results of a judicial election without invoking the wrath of either the Stranger or supportive commenters, isn’t it?

Sounds like the judge ruled against the City Attorney's Office a few times, the subordinates reported back (with incomplete or misleading accounts) and the elected made the decision to disqualify on all criminal cases, as is one of the City's available options.
It is an option, but one not employed often. The long-time King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng refused to let his deputies use it, because of democratic and public relations considerations.
Seattle Muni is a teaching court. Many attorneys who practice there are recent law school graduates. Also the court bears significant responsibility to protect a defendant's constitutional rights even absent a specific motion or objection from the defense.
There is also the bureaucratic hassle involved. By filing what used to be called 'blanket affidavits

continued, sorry.

By filing what used to be called 'blanket affidavits,' you essentially have one branch of government dictating to another how to run its operation. This is far different than individual defense attorneys doing so on individual cases, since they have clients who may have their own specific issues and considerations.
In short, knocking out a judge in the very public manner is not a step to be taken lightly. And the City Attorney showed she understood this by composing a memo with specific examples. Unfortunately for her, it appears that she relied on her own deputies' accounts instead of pulling the actual court records (all court proceedings are reported verbatim by a court reporter or audio recorded and preserved). So they appear to be unsubstantiated claims, and thus reflect quite poorly on the CA's reputation.
For young attorneys, and any attorneys, it is very tempting after losing in court to head back to the shop and complain about the judge. A good leader would urge them to learn from their mistakes, make a better record, make a better argument, or even pick battles more carefully.
Instead, this move by the CAO just comes across as sour grapes.

@29 Well, you certainly twisted yourself into a pretzel to come up with the rather farcical 'claiming lack of evidence of prejudice and deceit is all the evidence of prejudice we need' type argument.

As for the rest you are basically repeating the claim that the same scenario happened with judge MCKenna to justify what City Attorney Davison is doing to judge Vaddadi , which has been shown to not be the case yet you do not account for these major differences: a) no blanket AOP issued from the top for McKenna. There are few questions asked for filing an individual AOP but a top down, blanket decision to sideline the judge in all but minor cases does need justification, b) nobody contested the major facts in McKenna case after the story became public, we have yet to see what they are for judge Vaddadi c) a build up over 3 years and 100's of cases for McKenna, and d) both prosecution and defense agreed that Judge McKenna was prejudiced and both filed individual AOP

LOL - this is becoming comical.

Judges are not similarly positioned with either defense counsel or prosecutors. The conduct rules applicable to judges are different (and significantly higher). So, let's see how to the Commission on Judicial Conduct would view an opinion piece titled a "rant" (by the Stranger) in an advocacy publication. I expect you aren't going to like their perspective.

"blanket decision to sideline the judge in all but minor cases does need justification"
Except you're wrong about that. It doesn't and, in any event, the CAO wrote a justification narrative. You just disagree with it--which is your right entirely, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen nor, in fact, was it actually "need[ed]" as you assert.

Again, you (along with a few others) seem awfully worked up about rulings you're not getting in cases a judge isn't hearing. This really does feel like you expected a parade of rulings on CJ matters from the judge you're now not getting.

To pivot a moment to #30's assertion that the CA is "an amateur hack", then it must be particularly galling to have been outplayed by "an amateur hack" with regard to criminal cases coming before the municipal court. She could entirely lose her office in 2025. That said, the outcomes of the local elections in both 2021 and 2023 suggest that she's not the outlier in this equation.

@31 both the prosecutors and defenders agreed McKenna was out of line, and they jointly explained why with concrete examples. That situation was not the same. And while you're right that CAO didn't need to give a reason to AOP, they nonetheless chose to purport to, but they haven't been able to back up their accusations at all. Using the AOP, even in what is in fact an unprecedented manner, isn't what was amateurish it was trying to smear a judge publicly and getting caught with their pants down.

@37: Either intentionally filing AoPs as a matter of practice against a judge is inherently abusive, or it is not. Your prior explicit approval of this use of AoPs now jams you into “explaining” why the exact same practice is bad if used against a judge you like. (Given how crushingly voters ended the previous City Attorney’s tenure, reliance on his opinion against another elected official just shows how desperate you really are.)

@38 "Either intentionally filing AoPs as a matter of practice against a judge is inherently abusive, or it is not" is an obvious oversimplification, everything depends on context. In the McKenna case both sides of the adversarial system agreed a judge was misusing his authority, they had concrete examples, and they tried speaking to the judge directly before AOP'ing, which was not done across the board on orders from above but left to the case-specific best judgement of the individual attorney. Pretending these situations are the same is no better an argument than your earlier speculation that maybe the CAO memo didn't actually exist.

@39 et all

a wormtongue's
gotta Worm.

@39: You forgot to mention the part where Holmes and the head of the public defenders’ office had both asked McKenna to resign, and when he did not, they started filing AoPs. They were blatantly trying to nullify the results of an election. If that’s not a flagrant abuse of AoPs, then what is?

@41 " both [prosecuting and defender's office] asked McKenna to resign, and when he did not, they started filing AoPs"

You are lying again. The letter asking that he step down was sent on April 28, 2019 yet a great numbers of AOP where filed as early as 2017:

"With 200 dismissals in 2017 and 2018, he far outpaced his colleagues." and he was booted from ~100 cases in 2019 before the letter was sent (another ~100 cases subsequently)

and

"Supervisors with DPD said repeatedly that there is no top-down order to file an affidavit against McKenna, but that the increased numbers are the result of individual decisions based on what’s best for clients.

and

"It's to the level where the attorneys that I supervise, it's essentially unanimous that the best thing that they can do for their clients is to affidavit [McKenna] because they have no confidence they can get a fair hearing or trial from him," said Matt Covello, a supervisor in DPD."

https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders

It is important to understand the event that precipitated this imbroglio: A witness (in a case that is so stupid I can't bare to repeat the facts) told a city prosecutor a story that differed from the story told to investigators. This judge brilliantly thought that since the prosecutor may now herself have to be a witness to conflicting accounts, the prosecutor could not longer be on the case. Just stop and think about how in-the-pocket for defendants you must be as a judge to knee-cap the prosecutor because a witness told an inconsistent story. Sorting BS from truth is the whole point. The CAO has come to believe that this judge is biased in favor of criminals, and they may be right. Where the CAO fell short is properly documenting that perception and making an effective case against the judge.

@43 CAO appealed her decision to Superior Court and the decision was upheld. Every attorney (except apparently that one) knows not to make themself a witness so they always have a third person present for an interview. That prosecutor made a rookie mistake and the whole office embarrassingly doubled down instead of just taking the L and making it a teaching moment.

The CAO claimed to have a specific case in mind when referring to the “fake handgun” case, and similarly for the DUI case.

If that is the case then there is no legitimate reason why the CAO can’t just say specially what those cases are.

@42: Thank you for pointing out that I got my facts out of order. However it happened, the blanket filing of AoPs became part of an attempt to drive Judge McKenna from office, in violation of the will of the voters. In your mind, that's somehow better than just removing a judge from cases, which is what both the public defenders' office (McKenna) and the City Attorney's Office (Vadaddi) have done. The main difference is the City Attorney's Office has been up-front about what they're doing and why. We can agree or disagree with their decision, and with their stated reason(s) for it, but at least they told us outright, instead of doing it unannounced.