It’s pretty hilarious how the stranger has to remind us that she’s a republican Every. Single. Time.

So fuckin’ childish.

Seems like a nasty case of sore loser syndrome. I'm betting on the ACLU, given the CAs apparent track record.

@1 "Every. Single. Time. "

Davison name's appears 7 times in the piece, whereas Republican appears once

Considering the lack of judgement reflected in Davison's willingness to be associated with the Republican brand, it surely warrants to be mentioned at least once.

@1

Guzzles weak sauce. Collapses into flabby irrelevance.

"in a series of public information requests provided to The Stranger"

This op-ed would be much more compelling if the actual records were shared.

Surprise surprise CAO misrepresented facts and, as it turns out, was consistently wrong on the law. What a joke of an office.

@5 I was the one who filed the Public Disclosure Requests.

In the case where the City Attorney claimed that "Vaddadi thinks you can't have assault without touching", here is the transcript of what she said in court, which shows that she does know you can have "assault without touching", she just didn't find probable cause for it in this case:
https://x.com/bennetthaselton/status/1855088346802143744

In the case where the City Attorney said "In one recent case, Judge Vaddadi ruled that a defendant was in substantial compliance with treatment and dismissed the case, even though it was clear that the defendant never got on the transport van", this is the case number where in the audio the defendant's lawyer says defendant made arrangements to get on the van but she was wheelchair-bound:
https://x.com/bennetthaselton/status/1860036068612964853

This was the case where the City Attorney said Vaddadi let someone go free even though they "had been arrested twice for DUI within a week" -- this was almost right, except they were arrested twice within two weeks:
https://x.com/bennetthaselton/status/1853718381427573049

There is also, of course, the fact that it was bizarre that the City Attorney made these accusations in the first place without citing case numbers (which is why I had to do the Public Disclosure Requests). If the City Attorney believed that the judge's handling of these cases made her look incompetent, why didn't they just say in their original announcement what the cases were?

@7 "If the City Attorney believed that the judge's handling of these cases made her look incompetent, why didn't they just say in their original announcement what the cases were?"

Exactly. The case records show that wasn't the real issue, the move was purely political, and they just didn't want to admit it.

Good work @7. The legal definition of "assault" that is in question here, that does not require any physical touching, is "an assault is an act done with the intent to create in another apprehension and fear of bodily injury, and which in fact creates in another a reasonable apprehension and imminent fear of bodily injury even though the actor did not actually intend to inflict bodily injury." See link below. This definition of assault, which is not in the RCWs, comes from English common law and is widely used by other states. Judge Valdaddi was obviously aware of this law, for one, the defense attorney contended there was no "apprehension" of assault, which falls under this prong of assault and does not require physical touching. Nonetheless, Judge Valdaddi found there was not enough evidence to support this form of assault. An appeal court would defer to the trial court's factual conclusion and uphold Judge Valddadi's ruling.

https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa7d8b5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29

Vaddadi has been incompetent before the start. Let’s start with her apparently not knowing that judges typically request the King County Bar to give then a qualification rating (https://www.kcba.org/?pg=Rating-of-Candidates), or she was afraid of what they’d give her. She was the only judicial candidate that didn’t request a qualification rating in2022. So voters had incomplete information when they chose her.

Moving her cases to another elected judge doesn’t subvert the will of the voters.

What a shit article.
It spends the first four paragraphs giving deeply opinionated background a la “the CAO’s office distorted some of the details”…”Davison’s office refused to provide the case numbers”…

Then we get a “The facts of the matter” subtitle followed by these opinions:

“appear to deviate” To who? If these were factual deviations, why not just say that instead of appears? Because you’re unwilling to actually own that.

“Some of the mistakes appear more minor”
What about the mistakes that weren’t minor?

This is a sob story:
“the woman couldn’t comply with her treatment requirement because her wheelchair and upcoming surgeries prevented her from boarding the van to treatment”
When will we stop taking people’s excuses for why they can’t take their punishments at face value? When was the ADA passed? Having a wheelchair isn’t a literal get out of jail free card. You harmed others. You have a duty to society to go to your treatment. Figure it out. And if you don’t figure it out and try to skate by and not change yourself and keep committing your crimes and not complying with the rule of law, I don’t want some unqualified judges to decide to put the rest of us back in your harms way.

Go Ann!

@7 I really appreciate the effort, that's incredibly rare here. You should be writing this piece, not Ashely.

But all I am seeing are you own characterizations of those documents in Twitter posts. Can't you just share the PRR responses? That's my whole point, if these are so damning, let's see the court records for ourselves. A second-hand summary is not really compelling.

To be fair, I am not on Twitter so maybe there's more to the Tweet than I appreciated.