Written by After more than a year of harassment, false innuendo, defamatory comments, and frivolous legal action from ex-councilman Dan Clawson, his lawsuit against me and my council colleagues has been firmly and completely thrown out by the court.
King County Judge Mary Yu made it very clear in her ruling that she takes the Open Public Meetings Act very seriously, and she would do anything to protect it. She also said she read every word of the sworn statements and supporting materials that Dan Clawson submitted to her. She also looked at Dan’s post-it notes he dug out of the trash can. And then for purposes of this Summary Judgment Hearing, the judge made the legal assumption that all of the disputed facts and inferences went in Dan Clawson’s direction, as if a jury fully agreed with Dan’s version of the facts (which I know they would not if went to trial). Even giving Dan the benefit of all the assumptions, claims, and inferences, King County Judge Mary Yu determined that that the Open Public Meetings Act was NOT violated.
In fact, the judge questioned Dan extensively on how Dan Clawson presumed we council members were supposed to accomplish our normal responsibilities without talking to one another occasionally in our offices, something that Dan tried to present as a violation. “Groups-of-two” he called them, as if there was something sinister about the council president talking to a committee chair.
Along the way, Dan insulted me repeatedly in the media and in court. He harassed me at my office, he wasted time by many city staff, he temporarily froze and overburdened our email and records systems, and he cost the city of Renton a large amount of money.
Latest estimates are that Dan cost the city about $43,000 in legal fees alone. We will be able to recover a small fraction of these costs, around $2000, from Dan as a result of the judge’s recent ruling. But the rest is lost funds, unless we find a way to counter-sue him for the waste.
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
Here are the key legal documents:
Here is our request for summary judgement
Here is our rebuttal to Dan’s rant that I mentioned in my last blog on this topic
Here is the judges order that throws the case out of court.
But this is not all the news…
DAN’S APPEAL
I was going to give Dan a chance for a new beginning– I held off in this blog even though this ruling occurred last week. However, word has come today that Dan Clawson (who does his own legal work) has now filed a virtually impossible appeal of the judges ruling that threw his case out. Even if Dan could win such an appeal, it would not win his case for him– it would only give him a chance go to trial (where the jury would find the facts are against Dan). And Dan can not win this appeal. To do so, he now faces a much higher burden than he did at the last hearing. The appellate court will actually assume all the disputed facts are AGAINST Dan Clawson’s position when the court decides whether or not to overturn the Superior Court Judge.
So, Dan may end up costing us another $15,000 or more in legal fees and many hours of staff time just to handle paperwork through this pointless appeals phase.
In the economic climate we are in, we have had to leave dozens of public safety positions unfilled, and eliminate positions of School Resource Police Officers. We have also reduced contributions to many social services, such as King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, RAYS, and other very worthy causes.
With the money Dan Clawson has cost the city, including out-of-pocket legal fees and city staff time, we could have restored one of these public safety positions, enhanced our support of KCSARC and RAYS, restored some funding to another department, or reduced taxes or fees.
Finally, I will point out again that the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) is an excellent law, that I zealously support and promote, and all of us Washington residents benefit from the transparency it instills into government processes. OPMA is more than a law…it is a philosophy of including the public in ALL stages of government decision making, something that I have always striven for. This philosophy is why I place my email in a citizen retrievable file; why I always steer toward giving more than enough opportunity for public input, and why I started this blog. Ironically, Dan Clawson hatched this lawsuit after a night when I wanted to allow extra public input at a meeting when he wanted to shut it down; and when he sent his lawsuit to the newspapers he mocked me for sharing my email. I was on a committee with Dan in which we were working on email policy. During those deliberations, Dan made it clear that he did not want his council email to be read by the public unless they filled out Freedom of Information forms first, and gave Dan a chance to keep some of his correspondence private. And Dan was the instigator of an email which was sent to three other council members (but not all seven) in an apparent effort to obtain a behind-the-scenes majority prior to a council vote…to date, the most clear violation of OPMA standards that the city has documented. For all these reasons, Dan’s failed lawsuit seemed as hypocritical as it does wasteful.
In this appeals chapter, Dan will make his last stand on an issue he has been on the wrong side of from day one. I am thankful that I will no longer be bothered by his daily requests for more records; Dan will be forced by the court to work only with the data he has amassed in the last thirteen months (the record as it stands), he can not harass anybody at city hall for more depositions, affidavits, etc. This will give us a greater ability to forget about Dan while we work on the issues important to the citizens of Renton. Our attorney Mike Kenyon, who has done a professional and diligent job of representing the city’s interests, will continue to handle Dan Clawson for us. I wish Dan Clawosn would realize the 2007 election is over, that the courts have looked at his evidence in the most favorable way the could for him and ruled against him, and that he might find the strength to let go of this loss and move on.
I can fully understand Dan’s reason for being his own lawyer. Not only is it cheaper but any good lawyer (yes they are out there, you just have to look real good) would take the case.
Dave
What case?
H
Generally, I try to never do business with someone who has passed the bar but it working in other endeavors.
Generally, being a lawyer is about the most productive profession out there – and someone who could, but isn’t working in that capacity, usually has some sort of issue.
…
Once the lawsuits start up they don’t have to worry about the repercussions of doing dirty tricks – they don’t have a reputation to protect and they can bill themselves out for massive hours to drain you if they get their fees covered in the judgment.
….
Non practicing attorney =
What a wonderful Christmas gift, Victory!
Mark
Crazy
Now, more than ever, I am convinced that Mr. Clawson is mentally ill. Seriously. Where he used to have a fairly decent reputation in this community, I don’t know how anyone could possibly trust him or his judgment any longer. He is so hell bent on being “right” that he no longer can see anything close to reality.
What the he!!
Does the city own any sanding equipment? Rainier is an ice rink.
C’mon, Dan . . . .
Just stop this. Why are you doing this to Laura, let alone what you have left of a reputation?
Clawson Lawsuit
“….DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice.”
So will the City will be presenting Dan with a bill for its legal costs to defend this?
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
The city can get its costs (out of pocket expenses for things like depositions)and have submitted (or will) a bill for about $1.9k, but the attorney fees ($50k and rising)–nope. The City cannot get those from him.
A small chance they could get the additional costs and attorney fees of defending the appeal if the appellate court found it to be a frivolous appeal.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
As much as Dan is a twit – he shouldn’t be on the hook for the $50,000 as it’s the city that decided to mount such a very vigorous defense.
The english have a “loser-pay” system that sometimes feels like it would be the right thing to do – but all to often when the sides are unbalanced, it keeps the little guy down even further.
I’d love to see a modified “loser-pay” that took into account the asset disparity of the sides – so that if a little plaintif loses, he’s only out a ratio of his larger opponents expenses.
…
I’m sure the $50,000 was well spent as they got the whole thing tossed out before a trial – but this looks like it could have been defended easily by just telling the simple truth and letting a judge decide.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Just so everyone knows, we did try a number of ways to resolve this before it got expensive. But Dan wanted us to do the one thing that we could not… lie to the court to make Dan look good.
The normal way that we would resolve a case like this is to write the facts in a letter, and send it to the Attorney General for a ruling on whether it was a violation. That hardly costs anything.
We also gave Dan an opportunity to back out of his suit with everybody taking more classes on OPMA. This would have allowed him an opportunity to save face. And even though we did nothing wrong, a couple of the council members even offered to donate the maximum collective OPMA fine to a charity of Dan’s choice, just to get him to quit wasting taxpayer money.
But he was obsessed and would not be dissuaded by facts or logic. So all we could do was respond to his subpoenas, deposition requests, court filings, etc. And the judges position speaks for itself.
I agree with Renton Ben’s point that there is a risk in having the losing party always pay when going up against a government; such a system might frighten some people into not filing legitimate grievances. However, in Dan Clawson’s case, I think he was negligent and dishonest in filing this suit. He should have waited until he had the facts before he filed it. Filing it within 16 hours of losing his temper at the council meeting was an amateur’s mistake… he hadn’t even cleared the adrenalin from his system. And he should have sought a second legal opinion. You know what they say, “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”.
I’m still considering a counter-suit and an ethics complaint with the bar.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Well now congratulations are in order. The burden on Mr. Clawson is now much heavier on appeal. If he can win on appeal readers will be surprised. You may see a few facts………..that it seems a bit like a good game of poker, or maybe a game of risk. But you need to admit that the reason the case got so expensive is that you just couldnt stand the thought of losing to Clawson. One reader doesnt believe that if, should we say,……Mayor Law were recalled because you paid $25.00 to save the Citizens money, for, lets say for the sake of argument……because of a certain twitch of the nose or flick of the ear, that Kathy would run against him again or would she be able to beat him. You could have called the hand with a plea even while you were innocent and the result may have just been better? I think you have run her under. Not saying she didnt deserve it, just that you might be beating a dead horse?
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
This doesn’t just involve Randy, it involves 3 other council members. Are they supposed to admit guilt to something they were not guilty of just to save the city money? I don’t think so. The cost lies strictly in the lap of Clawson. It was all political to get Kohlker re-elected. She would not stand a chance running against Law. He is far better candidate without a big ego like she has. TCC
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
You are entitled to your opinion and it is well taken. However, where we disagree is that the number one purpose, in fact the only purpose of an elected official like Mr. Corman or Law or any of them is to act with Citizen’s best interest in mind on everything they do: and I dont think you write as if that is what you are demanding. They represent you and me. I want to spend money on better things than a p……contest with Clawson……..or Koelker. No doubt your right about your politics, difficulty is that your posture indicates that you are against just letting the chips fall and spending the cash on, can we say, for entertainment, Hilands improvements or something for the public at large. That is the only real legitimate business of the government is it not?
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Just to be clear… I feel like the chips have fallen, and Dan lost big.
If he appeals, it’s not because I am trying to continue a dispute with him. It’s entirely HIS doing.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Here in the lowly Renton outskirts there is an environment where we know our Fed Government spends 700 billion for a bunch of connivers that knew in advance the mess they were making, great personalities continue to mismanage the auto industry while we pay to give them a bailout, (even though their credit must be about zero) (isnt that what caused the mortgage mess?) even President elect Obama is talking of printing another 750 billion to “create” jobs. Our principles dictate that being willing to spend my money on certain interests or your Lawyer is a willingness to TAX the people (me)to pay for it, just like it is for the U.S. government (to TAX me) for thier bailouts. (that is unless the money is coming out of your pocket)(I understand your 401K is getting low so I doubt it is) Clawson had nothing to do with signing the orders or approving whatever agreements to “create” certain jobs in the legal profession to defend you and City politicians. Mr. Corman, I want my tax money spent on me! Not on your Lawyer. Not on your case. I really truly dont care who won or lost I just want my tax money back…….I dont want it spent on a Lawyer. One reader doesnt want a mortgage bailout or auto bailout or money spent to “create” jobs for your interests, in the legal profession. There are big sharp pieces of metal sticking up out of the beach on the island at Coulon Park. I want them removed before somebody gets maimed by them. You would know about that problem already if you were not so busy in your contest with Clawson…….the fact is, park workers already do know about it. (I asked them)
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
I agree. Dan’s ridiculous failed lawsuit was a terrible waste of your money and my time. Shame on Dan Clawson. I had no option other than telling the truth, and spending hours finding records for him to prove he was a liar. I wish Dan had also told the truth, in both this case and in the lipstickgate/lie detector case.
As for the metal stakes, I will make sure to report them to our parks department. I was not aware of them. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Great. Thankyou. I am leaning toward believing you about the Clawson thing. The thing is, sometimes you might realize that it doesnt really matter whether you violated the OPMA or not to most citizens……. they dont care. They just want their money spent properly and their elected officials to work for them exclusively. I wish the only ticket I ever got that was totally unjust was just $25. OK here is an idea……………..what if you would have just not answered him…….. that would not have been lying. I think you can work on when to answer and when not to. That is my suggestion and request. Start answering people that care about the proper things.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
By the way I dont mean to imply that I dont beleive you about Koelker. That should be too obvious.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
The term “beating a dead horse” would apply more to Dan, I should think. He’s the one trying to drag city officials through the mud without a shred of evidence.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
you are entitled to your opinion but think about what you are saying are you saying Randy and Denis are “dead horses”? I dont think that is what you are saying. I would prefer to refer to Kathy as a “dead horse” You just need to stop beating her she is gone.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Look, someone else used the phrase, not me. I was merely pointing out the fact that he/she misused the phrase in my opinion.
Also, Kathy may be gone, but her #1 sidekick Mr. Clawson is not. His “team” lost and he refuses to let go despite facts and logic. Yes, America’s judicial system is horribly flawed, but that doesn’t mean we should be blame the honest ones for Clawson’s stupidity. And think about it, what good would it have done for Randy and the others to lie just to save the city money? None, I say. I guarantee that if they had said that they broke the law even when they didn’t, Dan would have rubbed it in their faces till the end of time. He wouldn’t have stopped at this.
Re: Clawson Lawsuit
Renton Ben:
honest question: Do you think that Kathy or Dan will run for office in Renton politics again? Would they have if they could have called for a recall? I mean would she or he just instantly jump at the opportunity for a new vote? Do you really think either would do that? justify you answer…….hey I read what you are saying. this is an honest question valuing what you might say I want to hear it.
He Wins for Losing?
This strikes me as funny?
If Dan sat in the next room and was wired to 450 volts of electricity and you sat in the next room with the button, would you push it? Odds are, you would, or at least you would think about it.
Re: He Wins for Losing?
I never had control of the button….Kathy Keolker did. I would watch her press it, and then blog about it.
Re: He Wins for Losing?
Instead of Munchausen by Proxy – and now we have Milgram by Proxy.