> Judge Linde,
>
> This is an error in the form used by the State Prosecutor who was
> scheduled on 1-07 Seattle jail calendar, on a City of Kenmore case.
> I can contact the State Prosecutor’s office and ask them to submit
> the
> NCO on the correct District Court form or, wait until the next hearing
> on 2-17 where the City of Kenmore Prosecutor will be present and can
> readdress the NCO.
>
> Thank you.
> Rochelle
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Linde, Barbara
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:30 AM
> To: McKenzie, Rochelle
> Cc: Crozier, Tricia
> Subject: FW: Protection Order Issue
>
>
> Rochelle-
> Can you help us look into this problem order attached below? also
> please send me the docket.
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Pompeo, Kathryn
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:25 AM
> To: Linde, Barbara
> Subject: FW: Protection Order Issue
>
>
>
> Judge Linde and Bathum;
>
> Here is a classic issue on the enforceability of a protection order
> that
> was discussed in the Domestic Violence Initiative meeting on Tuesday,
> Jan 26 and the issue of being on the wrong form that was discussed in
> the December 2009 Protection Order Summit.
>
> We received this order from the City of Kenmore via Shoreline District
> Court today in the Data Control Unit (notice the date of the order.)
>
> <<Suchy Protection Order 010710.pdf>>
> The form that the order was prepared on is a Superior Court Order form
> from 4/2001. When this was pointed out to the City of Kenmore
> Prosecutor by both the KCSO Detective at the time it was issued as
> well
> as by my DV Desk Data Technician this morning both received the same
> response. “That’s the only form we have.” My Data Technician asked if
> they had access to the internet and when he received an affirmative he
> directed them to the pattern forms website for future orders and
> requested a corrected order as soon as possible.
>
> The other issues with this pre-trial order are the terms of what
> constitutes no contact; there are no limits on the distance that the
> respondent must stay away from the protected parties, nor does it
> prohibit stalking or harassing as the current orders do. There is no
> reference to the current RCW’s and it was issued out of a district
> court
> even though it’s on a Superior Court Form. Nor is there any LEIS or
> other information on the respondent. (My Data Tech and I have spent
> about an hour working on this one so far to get it entered and to
> try to
> get corrected information.)
>
> I can just imagine the respondent sitting in a car in front of the
> petitioner’s house claiming she’s not contacting the person so it’s
> not
> a violation of the order or the respondent following the petitioner
> in a
> vehicle with another car in between so that again the respondent can
> claim three was no contact. This makes it very difficult for law
> enforcement to try to enforce the order.
>
> I’m also not sure of the legality of an order being issued from one
> court with the other court’s information on it. Luckily, my DV Desk
> Data Technician recognized the case number as belonging to a city
> court
> and checked District Court Records first.
>
>
> Kathryn Pompeo
> Supervisor-Data Control Unit
> King County Sheriff’s Office
> Office: (206) 296-7588
> Cell: (206)255-4954
> Fax: (206) 296-0160
> MS: KCC-SO-0100
_____________________________________________
From: Bathum, Richard
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:49 PM
To: Martin, David
Subject: RE: DV Court Study
I would be honored! And yes, we tightened up the time frame considerably. I am pleased with how the system is working right now. That was a fun meeting this morning.
_____________________________________________
From: Martin, David
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:55 AM
To: Bathum, Richard
Subject: DV Court Study
Judge Bathum,
It was great to hear your comments this morning about DV court. It is amazing how efficiently the court is operating (did you really say 45 days to disposition?) I was wondering if you had a few minutes to sit down and talk about the DV Court study with Jim and I.
Sincerely,
David Martin
________________________________________________________________________
David D. Martin | Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Chair | Domestic Violence Unit | King County Prosecuting Attorney
W554 King County Courthouse | 516 Third Avenue |Seattle, WA 98104
Work: (206) 296-9503 | Cell: (206) 898-9416 | Fax: (206) 205-6104
email: david.martin@kingcounty.gov
3 responses so far ↓
1 The Geezer // Apr 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Huh? This makes no sense.
So the pros talks to the judge.
BFD, happens every day
2 THEJKH // Apr 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm
It still doesnt make it right, I cant go talk to a judge!! my lawyer cant have a meeting with a judge to decide ways in wich court will be handled!! this is only the begining of what you’ll find!!
3 jlukas // Apr 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Regardless of the debatable points brought forward here, this is much more about bias in the system. The judge is simply part of this. The document presented was the main point here. I am surprised that both of you missed reading the study which shows that federal dollars are being used to further a gender-biased study as VAWO funds were being used to fund this study. This grant was listed at the bottom of Page 1.
WADVPress
Leave a Comment