Monday's debate in Seattle is not the only time that Justice Susan Owens chickened out from a scheduled appearance with opponent Stephen Johnson. According to the Johnson campaign, Owens was absent from editorial board interviews at the Seattle Times and P-I. She also failed to show up at a University Women's candidate forum in Stanwood and a League of Women Voters forum in Vancouver.

Owens might have been physically present at the candidates' interview with the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board (video here), but it's questionable whether she was 100% mentally present.

One of the topics discussed was eminent domain and Owens ruling in the Miller case. Ken and Barbara Miller's property was taken by Sound Transit. The action was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court with Owens' concurrence. Barbara Miller watched the interview and e-mailed that Owens did not correctly explain the facts about their case: (The discussion of eminent domain starts at 21:00. Owens' answers on Miller starts at 31:00). Miller:

Owens just was not accurate at all in her comments on our case with Sound Transit. One thing she stated was there was a 2 week jury trial where the matter was decided and compensation was awarded for our property. This is blatantly incorrect. The hearing on public necessity was 2 - part days only. There was not a jury. Judge, Catherine Nelson, decided the case giving deference to Sound Transit actually saying in open hearing that the matter was a "tie and since it was a tie Sound Transit wins". We chose to appeal our case to the Washington State Supreme Court based on the lack of statutorily required public notice and for various other issues. After we filed the appeal Sound Transit attys. began the actions which lead to 7 additional Superior Court hearings over the next several months as well as a number of motions to the Supreme Court. S.T. requested the posting of bonding of approximately $300,000 for such things as rent of our property during appeal and inflation of cost of our property during appeal. After being required to post bonding for a Superior Court stay during the appeal (a stay is normally automatic during appeal) Judge Nelson took away our stay (Pierce Co. court has not yet returned the bonding for that stay to this day) we asked the Supreme Court to grant a stay of further Superior Court action until the Supreme Court decision was issued (we requested such a stay 3 times from the Supreme Court before they finally did issue & order a stay to Judge Nelson in Pierce Co. Superior Court stopping further action there after the 7 unusual court hearings until the appeal decision was issued).

The statement by Justice Owen that compensation was already awarded is absolutely untrue. Our trial on the matter of compensation is scheduled for May 2007. In fact Sound Transit after the Supreme Court 6/30/06 final refusal to reconsider their 2/16/06 decision 5 to 4 written by Mary Fairhurst cut their previous compensation offer of $500,000 to $240,000 saying the value of the 1 & 1/4 acre property with an occupied home, nearly 500 feet of street frontage, 300 feet of rail frontage and various other improvements zoned heavy industrial in the heart of South Tacoma was now less than the March 2004 offer. Our legal cost out of pocket which will not be reimbursed have reached close to $175,000. We were pressured to give possession of our ownership to Sound Transit now and told if we did so they may pay our further legal cost thru trial in May 2007 which could easily be another $100,000 or more. We now must leave our ownership of 28 years without knowing if even enough money will be paid us totally for acquisition of our property to even cover our legal cost and receive nothing for our land & home in South Tacoma.

I have a hard time understanding how people in such positions as Justice Owen make such unfounded statements (she made many during this interview) without knowing the real facts. I have my own view of how thorough the Supreme Court process is and I worry greatly when a Justice does not even know basic information about recent matters. Either Justice Owen is not knowledgeable or
she purposely misstates various facts. It was a sad showing on her part and very revealing to those of us who are familiar with the various cases brought up and commented on. Her comments were terribly inaccurate with regard to much of the discussion during the interview.