To all the Cantwell surrogates who are manufacturing outrage over the fact that anybody would want to unseal a divorce file, the Judge found that the original seal was "overly broad" and is moving forward to open the file.
Unfortunately, the hearing that should have been held today is postponed until October 24th at 9:30am.
Apparently Dotzauer's lawyer did not give the former Mrs. Dotzauer timely notice of the hearing. Smart move. Expect more dilatory maneouvers to keep this thing safely under wraps until after the election.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 10, 2006 11:43 AM | Email ThisDoes anyone know if it is possible to appeal the postponement of this issue? I would think the overriding public concern would trump this personal, smokescreen issue. I mean, why doesn't someone pick up the phone and tell Angie Dotzauer that there's a hearing tomorrow? This stinks----
Posted by: LeoR on October 10, 2006 11:57 AMThey didn't bring up the divorce that Cantwell assisted in and the subsequent payment she made to her lobbyist paramour. Robert Mak glossed over any ethical issues in his glowing report of Cantwell.
It was a fawning report, with the one person critical of her saying that he was still planning on voting for her.
The smirking Robert Mak really likes to praise his democratic buddies.
Posted by: Skeptic on October 10, 2006 05:59 PMThis is vintage Dotzhauer.
Say whatever to get elected and remember that by the next election the people will have forgotten what you said before.
They got to Dave Postman, who I had previously tought was trying to be semi-balanced.
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2006 06:46 PMThe BIGGEST ISSUE in my humble opinion is this is a TAX SHAM. The proper agency to involve is the IRS!!
From everything reported and documents released, the IRS Tax Sham goes like this.
1) Political contributions are not deductible.
2) However, big money Lefty's pay so-called "consulting fees" to Dotzauer. The big money LEFTY's likely DEDUCT those consulting fees.
3) Dotzauer reports them as INCOME....however then deducts the contributions as ORDINARY EXPENSES as a Lobbyist.
NET Result===Political Contributions are deducted....No net income to Dotzauer.
Many problems with this sham. Likely the IRS will be able to go back beyond the Statute of Limitiations.
How this impacts Cantwell??? Remains to be seen. Depends upon who gave these "consulting fees" to Ron and who Ron "laundered them too.
One other HUGE PROBLEM for Ron.
Political Contributions are NOT DEDUCTIBLE...even for Lobbyists. It's pure BULLSH*T folks.
Ron's bigger problem?
He likely under-reported income for Child Support purposes. FRAUD! Child support would require including the income "consulting fees"...but would not allow him credit for purposes of calculating child support.
Once this all comes into the light....it's likely that Ronnie will have BOTH the IRS and a really P*ssed Off ex-wife on his A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will anybody be sharing this theory with the IRS and his ex-wife??? Undoubtedly!!! Remember...10% SNITCH FEE from IRS>
Stake your claim today...my gift to any of you with IRS contacts.
Congratulations.....
election dirt digging (both sides) is expected and fine with me. however, the public is still fickle. they probably decide based on ads run in the last 2 weeks and little sound bites. their own research and year-long thinking be damned. no time. have to go to choir practice, a soccer game or the latest cable sitcom.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 10, 2006 08:10 PMSad fact is that McGavick is going to be a great 2nd-placer because he doesn't have the killer instinct. On his first day in office I bet he could run rings around cantvotewell's best day, but we'll never know because he doesn't have what it takes. And the pity is that we're all the losers. Should she lose, she loses. But should he lose, we all lose.
Doncha just love politics?!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 10, 2006 08:49 PMThe truth is, Ryan was always behind. The divorce files just sealed his fate.
Posted by: scottd on October 10, 2006 09:02 PMI will vote Reichert/Cantwell.
Posted by: jd on October 10, 2006 11:34 PMThis hubbub about Dotzauer's divorce file - properly sealed or not, newsworthy or not - reminded me of how the Times did some in-depth stories lately about sealed court cases. Here's some text from one story (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003256344&slug=padillasidebar13m&date=20060913) which, although it focuses on DV cases, suggests a presumption of access to civil cases - such as divorce:
"People file domestic-violence petitions to request a protection order prohibiting the accused from contacting them. The petitions are treated as civil cases and are presumed open.
"Courts may be tempted to grant secrecy to protect the privacy of an alleged victim. But doing so can conceal alarming conduct by people in positions of public trust, or hide continuing dangers posed by certain individuals."
The same archives search turned up this recent column from Times editor-at-large Mike Fancher (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003228852&slug=fancher27&date=20060827). While the piece concerns other forms of civil lawsuits than divorce, check out the closing line:
"Meanwhile we'll work to unseal files and report the newsworthy stories we uncover."
Here's a golden opportunity for the Times to walk its editor's talk and see whether lifting the veil of secrecy from the Dotzauer divorce file turns up "alarming conduct by people in positions of public trust."
Wonder what percentage of divorce cases in Snohomish Co are sealed each year, although that's got to be a tough stat to produce.
In the meantime, good scoop SP, let's see if the MSM can catch up on this one.
And if the campaign contributions turn out to be non-deductible by Dotzauer, Dotzauer most certainly under-reported income for Child Support purposes. This could be the old double OUCH!
It will certainly be interesting to uncover the source of those "consulting fees" that clearly appear to have been "Laundered" by Dotzauer dude...as well as to WHOM those fees went.
Time is of the essence on this unselaing and investigation. The MSM is remise to not push it ASAP so voters have the whole truth BEFORE they vote. I guess that is asking way too much....for the Seattle Times to actually try to inform voters. If it were McGavick, they would be all over this (just like the 13 year-old DUI and his compensation). Maria must have cast some sort of spell on Postman!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 11, 2006 05:27 AMOn a related subject on lobbyists and the corruption in DC, I was listening to a rerun of Praeger on my podcast and he went point, point, point, point and kept listing politicians.
Apparently, the latest scam against us is the hiring of wives and kids as campaign staffers on their own campaigns and paying them from our contributions. That way, we are giving them money for their pockets which should have gone to the campaign.
Then, he mentioned Harry Reid who apparently has four sons as federal lobbyists to lobby-- hmmm, their dad?
Without a doubt he said, it also included Republicans as this is becoming a common scam.
http://car-0-insurance.blogspot.com/ used fort worth car