The October-November 1998 issue of Washington Law & Politics, at page 6, printed a Letter to the Editors from me substantially agreeing with the story in the preceeding issue's "The Cadillac Judge" article, but correcting some passages about my actions at the Commission on Judicial Conduct's hearing. My letter, as printed, appears below.

The Whistleblower Blows Again

        As the whistleblower identified in your "Cadillac Judge" article (Sepember 1998), I read it eagerly and found it to be basically accurate. I believe that more misconduct by Pierce County Superior Court Judge Grant L. Anderson will be exposed in future proceedings, including those by the public hospital to recover its full bequest from the estate that he "milked."

        Please correct, however, the article's unfair implication that I disrupted the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) disciplinary hearing. On the first day of that hearing, I sought merely to quietly observe it so as to comment later to the media. Judge Anderson's lawyer, Mr. Bulmer, objected to my presence (as a sham, he'd claimed I might be a witness), so the CJC recessed early for lunch. Once the CJC's staff procured a banishment order by a Pierce County judge with jurisdiction to trample my constitutional rights, I complied and avoided the hearing until I was invited back.

        On the last day of the hearing during a recess, I approached the CJC's clerk and filed a request for public access to certain CJC investigative records that contradict testimony Judge Anderson gave the previous day. Also during that recess I politely asked Mr. Bulmer to position his projection screen such that it could be seen by the public and media observers as well as the CJC members. Mr. Bulmer beckoned Judge Brown, who angrily ordered me to sit down. This occurred during the recess while the CJC members were not even present--it certainly did not a disrupt their hearing.

        The Judge Anderson case illustrates profound problems with the practices and procedures of the CJC. It remains the very secretive and largely ineffective bureau that the 1989 voter-approved reforms following the Judge Gary Little scandal sought to change. Hopefully, Mary Lou Cooper or some other investigative writer will begin to probe into and expose the deficiencies in the CJC.

Douglas A. Schafer