Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Anne Bremner Case: The Seattle Times Posts A Tough No-Nonsense Editorial

Posted by Peter Quennell


The post directly below this brings the case up to date.

The Seattle Times has been taking a strong principled stand in its court motions and in its reporting. Now this strong editorial indicates that the Seattle Time stand is resonating with the vast majority of Seattlites.

They presumably want to see Anne Bremner treated precisely as they would be in a like case. And their kids safe and out of harm’s way from any drunk drivers.

Respect the state’s open-records laws in DUI case of Seattle attorney

Do not allow creative arguments employed to evade the state’s public-disclosure law, in a case of suspected drunken driving, be used to compromise its intent.

Creative, aggressive lawyering intended to deny access to public records is an insult to citizens who have made open records and open government a priority in Washington.

Seattle attorney Anne Bremner, 52, is inventing arguments to stifle release of a deputy’s report describing her June arrest on suspicion of drunken driving.

However mortified she might be by the events of early June 4, personal embarrassment is not an exemption under the state Public Disclosure Act.

A King County Superior Court judge cleared the report, and selected law-enforcement videos, for release, but the decision was immediately appealed by Bremner’s lawyer to the state Court of Appeals in Seattle.

Another challenge is based on the apparently creative application of a King County District Court administrative rule procedure. Invocation of the rule comes out of the blue, especially for the King County Sheriff’s Office, which releases 17,000 case reports a year under state law and has never heard that argument used.

The Sheriff’s Office can withhold reports if release might compromise an investigation, but that is not a factor with Bremner.

Access to reports is couched in terms of release to the news media, but it fundamentally represents a conduit to the public and citizens with their own legal issues. Tamping down those rules serves no one, especially the philosophical and practical importance of transparency in government.

The court system showed an abundance of caution by shifting the judicial review to the Spokane appellate court, away from the professional and personal ties between the local bar and bench. The physical distance can be cut by teleconferencing, but an appropriate measure of detachment is maintained.

Release of the deputy’s report is routine and should be treated that way.

Rules and procedures are created for orderly, uniform application of justice, not to allow their exploitation to hide things from the public.

 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/26/10 at 03:23 AM in Hoaxers from 2007More hoaxers

Comments

8/25/10

Seattle Times, thank you. The truth well argued.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/26/10 at 07:36 AM | #

I understand that one of the arguments being used to prevent the disclosure of these documents/film footage is that they will lead to “substantial and irreparable harm to her personal and professional reputation [if the unsubstantiated DUI allegations” were made public.] (Quote from Ms. Bremner’s lawyer - c.f. Post dated 18th August on this site)

What is clear to me is that all the shenanigans that have been enacted to prevent the disclosure of these records have lead to ‘substantial and irreparable harm to her personal and professional reputation.’

The news papers and comments on the news stories make it quite clear that Ms. Bremner has done herself no favours whatsoever.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 08/26/10 at 09:44 AM | #

See the increasing conjecture in the negative comments under media stories that Anne Bremner herself is posting comments in her support under various pseudonyms?

Two negative commenters even pointed to seeming internal evidence for this in the supporting comments.

The growing outrage in Seattle is essentially over seeming suppression of facts normally released and the potential use of influence to try to sway an outcome.

In an apparent attempt to try to change the subject, the commenters in support repeatedly sneer “get a life” and “how would YOU like a trial by media?”

Good luck with that one.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/26/10 at 12:54 PM | #

The thing is, that if things had been left to tick along as they would normally this could have been a two column inches story - this is only gaining such media focus because of the actions of the defendant - and the only trial that counts is the one in the court room, now moved to a new district to try to ensure that justice can be served by independent (i.e. not known to the defendant) judges.

Additionally this “trial by media” is not trying the original charge, it is analysing subsequent actions, which the public is entitled to do.  Seattle-ites may be outraged, they have just cause, this is their judicial system and they should debate it freely and publicly it is the best “weapon” the public have for ensuring that their judicial system is fair and works for them.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 08/26/10 at 01:09 PM | #

LOL! I am truly enjoying all the attention that Anne is getting now…..Oh Anne, you self righteous, pathetic excuse for a strong willed woman!
Did I read the word “unsubstantiated”? I can only say that the longer she keeps telling tales, the more “substantiated” these DUI charges will become! Cannot wait for the other shoe to fall on Ms. Bremner’s head. 90% of these armchair experts are so offensive that it’s almost liberating to see one go down in flames occasionally….....

Posted by tigger34 on 08/27/10 at 06:34 PM | #

Post A Comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Is The Campaign That Ranted Against Italy For So Long Now Fearing An Italian-American Backlash?

Or to previous entry Amid Growing Seattle Criticism, Anne Bremner Tries Another Move To Keep Video And Records Hidden