Anthony, I've been a cow feeding off your field of news only recently. I stumbled on you and am quite surprised by your reporting. Today I felt like a cow chewing its CUD. Your news makes me go back and rechew what you have previously posted.
CUD
Food regurgitated so it can be chewed further
Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time.
I know Clallamity Jen does interviews. What makes you want to expose the corruption in politics? Anyways, it's a thought, there's always a story behind the story ; )
I'm NOT a fan of the family court system, having been abused by my ex-spouse, and without having the abuse recognized during custody proceedings. HOWEVER, I think that some parts of this situation have been less than optimal.
The most important thing to remember is that allegations are not proof of fact, and it is not the job of the police to determine if he did anything wrong; it is their job to say that there is something that needs to be investigated further, which is the job of the court. As far as I can tell in this case, he made an incorrect statement and said as much, but provided a very reasonable explanation as to why (everybody remembers every little detail of their own court case, but I would challenge anybody to recall with 100% accuracy a brief email from a year ago, amongst the dozens of other cases per day that are managed). It is absolutely the complainant's right to seek charges, and that's why the police filed the report-- but it's also his right to have due process, and subsequently, it was determined that there was nothing nefarious afoot, AND the misstatement would not have altered the outcome. But it's still being cited as a "smoking gun."
And before anyone says it, no, I'm not necessarily taking his side. But I am pointing out that honest mistakes can be taken out of context and inappropriately used-and the reporter himself is, frankly, making one: he keeps referring to "lying under oath," but according to the Written Statement 7 from Everett, the statement was NOT made under oath. So should the reporter be taken to task, or brought up on libel charges? Or did the Officer make a false statement in the Written Report by saying it wasn't under oath? If the former, I don't think so- it's an honest misunderstanding-BUT since it continues to be repeated and has resulted in harm to Parker's career, it would be within Parker's right to seek such a suit, and the reporter subject to hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses and all that...
Likewise, a lot of people are mad at him, but given his job I'd assume that probably 50% of the people he encounters-the losers of cases-are going to be mad at him, and although there is absolutely a need to hold people accountable for inappropriate actions or words, we cannot deny that there is an undeniable bias against him from the beginning, and thus the potential for inappropriate accusations, whether deliberate or just as a consequence of getting caught up in very emotional, complex situations.
What really matters is the results of investigations. He was investigated in Everett, and no wrongdoing was noted. The records from WSBA reflect the investigation, and are redacted to protect innocent people--including him. But a lot of people think that a NEGATIVE investigation should have been disqualifying on a background check? I don't know about the "stalking" allegations, nor the "spitting" allegations, but until I see a result of investigations proving that he committed such acts, I can't consider him guilty, just accused. And those are again very, very different things.
We also need to remember that even his dismissal isn't proof of wrongdoing-- he was appointed at the pleasure of the court, and he can be similarly dismissed, at-will and without due process. The Court is a political machine, and over the last few months, the optics for the court have been bad, and regardless of the presence or absence of any internal investigation, bad optics have the potential to adversely impact court operations, and can lead to dismissal. Unfortunately, many people will take this to mean an acknowledgement of guilt, when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
Again, I'm not a fan of the family court system and I don't have personal skin in the game here, but if we're caught up in the same echo chamber and confirmation bias that seems to exist here, we're no better than/ no more fair than the corrupt system that we want to fight. We want people to have a fair shake and due process-- but we forget that we should fight for his right to those as well.
Except it was Statement #5 that was made under oath not #7 (I've read the entire police report). Based on the Investigative West article, Parker also diagnosed the mom with a fake personality disorder. He's a lawyer, not a doctor or psychiatrist. Due process should also be afforded to the mom. There's a lot more evidence of his misconduct so I suggest getting fully informed first before commenting. You can read the bigger report here:https://www.investigatewest.org/a-wa-mother-had-custody-of-kids-and-protection-from-her-abuser-then-a-guardian-ad-litem-got-involved/
Kristin it started with "Old boy network" It has infiltrated the Clallam County Government. Now mix in funding by NGO's and you have a bastardized system not even similar to what we think a government should be.
Old Definitions "An old boy network (also known as old boys' network, old boys' club) is an informal system in which wealthy men with similar social or educational backgrounds help each other in business or personal matters"
Remarkable how important the role of the press is. Its a fundamental balance to the power of the state. Well done.
I am sure a lot of folks just took a really deep breath. Can not thank you enough for helping folks who truly needed this support.
Anthony, I've been a cow feeding off your field of news only recently. I stumbled on you and am quite surprised by your reporting. Today I felt like a cow chewing its CUD. Your news makes me go back and rechew what you have previously posted.
CUD
Food regurgitated so it can be chewed further
Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time.
I know Clallamity Jen does interviews. What makes you want to expose the corruption in politics? Anyways, it's a thought, there's always a story behind the story ; )
I'm NOT a fan of the family court system, having been abused by my ex-spouse, and without having the abuse recognized during custody proceedings. HOWEVER, I think that some parts of this situation have been less than optimal.
The most important thing to remember is that allegations are not proof of fact, and it is not the job of the police to determine if he did anything wrong; it is their job to say that there is something that needs to be investigated further, which is the job of the court. As far as I can tell in this case, he made an incorrect statement and said as much, but provided a very reasonable explanation as to why (everybody remembers every little detail of their own court case, but I would challenge anybody to recall with 100% accuracy a brief email from a year ago, amongst the dozens of other cases per day that are managed). It is absolutely the complainant's right to seek charges, and that's why the police filed the report-- but it's also his right to have due process, and subsequently, it was determined that there was nothing nefarious afoot, AND the misstatement would not have altered the outcome. But it's still being cited as a "smoking gun."
And before anyone says it, no, I'm not necessarily taking his side. But I am pointing out that honest mistakes can be taken out of context and inappropriately used-and the reporter himself is, frankly, making one: he keeps referring to "lying under oath," but according to the Written Statement 7 from Everett, the statement was NOT made under oath. So should the reporter be taken to task, or brought up on libel charges? Or did the Officer make a false statement in the Written Report by saying it wasn't under oath? If the former, I don't think so- it's an honest misunderstanding-BUT since it continues to be repeated and has resulted in harm to Parker's career, it would be within Parker's right to seek such a suit, and the reporter subject to hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses and all that...
Likewise, a lot of people are mad at him, but given his job I'd assume that probably 50% of the people he encounters-the losers of cases-are going to be mad at him, and although there is absolutely a need to hold people accountable for inappropriate actions or words, we cannot deny that there is an undeniable bias against him from the beginning, and thus the potential for inappropriate accusations, whether deliberate or just as a consequence of getting caught up in very emotional, complex situations.
What really matters is the results of investigations. He was investigated in Everett, and no wrongdoing was noted. The records from WSBA reflect the investigation, and are redacted to protect innocent people--including him. But a lot of people think that a NEGATIVE investigation should have been disqualifying on a background check? I don't know about the "stalking" allegations, nor the "spitting" allegations, but until I see a result of investigations proving that he committed such acts, I can't consider him guilty, just accused. And those are again very, very different things.
We also need to remember that even his dismissal isn't proof of wrongdoing-- he was appointed at the pleasure of the court, and he can be similarly dismissed, at-will and without due process. The Court is a political machine, and over the last few months, the optics for the court have been bad, and regardless of the presence or absence of any internal investigation, bad optics have the potential to adversely impact court operations, and can lead to dismissal. Unfortunately, many people will take this to mean an acknowledgement of guilt, when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
Again, I'm not a fan of the family court system and I don't have personal skin in the game here, but if we're caught up in the same echo chamber and confirmation bias that seems to exist here, we're no better than/ no more fair than the corrupt system that we want to fight. We want people to have a fair shake and due process-- but we forget that we should fight for his right to those as well.
Except it was Statement #5 that was made under oath not #7 (I've read the entire police report). Based on the Investigative West article, Parker also diagnosed the mom with a fake personality disorder. He's a lawyer, not a doctor or psychiatrist. Due process should also be afforded to the mom. There's a lot more evidence of his misconduct so I suggest getting fully informed first before commenting. You can read the bigger report here:https://www.investigatewest.org/a-wa-mother-had-custody-of-kids-and-protection-from-her-abuser-then-a-guardian-ad-litem-got-involved/
Absolutely đŸ’¯
Kristin it started with "Old boy network" It has infiltrated the Clallam County Government. Now mix in funding by NGO's and you have a bastardized system not even similar to what we think a government should be.
Old Definitions "An old boy network (also known as old boys' network, old boys' club) is an informal system in which wealthy men with similar social or educational backgrounds help each other in business or personal matters"
Okay sorry about getting it wrong again.