Posted by BainbridgeClearCut on July 27, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Dalton and Mr. Wall both are accepting troubling contributions from fellow Kitsap attorney who in all likelihood be before them on the bench. This to my mind is a clear conflict of interest even though the Bar Association, the so-called watch dog, gives the practice a blind eye.

Yes, Ms. Dalton has done pro-tem work but my Danielson has done over 50 aribtration cases involving complex civil matters up to $50,0000. This experience is closer to Kitsap County Superior Court work than local district court.

I want to see the insular club atmosphere broken up by the election of a talented, intelligent and independent voice and that is why the only person meeting that criteria is Bruce Danielson. Mr. Danielson is a refreshing voice for judicial restraint and integrity.

Go to Google and enter Elect Bruce Danielson and hear Mr. Danielson give some glaring examples of judicial compromise here in Kitsap.

Posted by Elliott on July 27, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And yet, if you look at the Public Disclosure Commission filings, you'll donations to Danielson from locals realtors and developers and other who ARE likely to appear before him in court. You'll also find donations from lawyers, something he supposedly eschewed.

Posted by justintime on July 27, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually according to this Jefferson Co. list, Dalton is not listed as a Judge Pro Tem., only as an attorney who practices in Jefferson Co. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/supcour...

Posted by scubadiver on July 29, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Justintime: All you need to have done was to contact the court. Ms. Dalton is in fact a judge pro tem in Jefferson County. She was on the bench a week and a half ago and sitting again as a judge on the bench today.

At a recent SK republican women's forum, she invited members there to come to the court today to watch her on the bench.

I believe it shows how good a judge she really is that the court STAFF there all like her and have endorsed her, as has the elected prosecuting attorney. If she was not a good judge, she would not have received those endorsements from the people that work for the court and from the elected prosecutor.

Posted by BainbridgeClearCut on July 30, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Danielson lays out quite effectively his concern with judicial independence on an independent production about him. Google: elect Bruce Danielson. www.google.com. The discussion is 10 minutes long and I saw it on BITV and BKAT public-access stations. I thank Mr D for using technology to get his word out.

As previously stated, Mr. Danielson is my clear choice for judge here in Kitsap County, I wish Ms. Dalton continued success with her private practice and Mr. Wall good luck with his trials.

Posted by ARM on July 30, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with BainbridgeClearCut. Although Ms. Dalton and Mr. wall have a whole lot of money coming in it looks pretty unkosher to me. Mr Danielsons attorney contributation is from the other side of the mountains. Not an issue in my thoughts since that contributor is unlikley to practice in Kitsap. Are Mr Wall and Ms Dalton going to recuse themselves from all cases that involve a contributing attorney or prosecutor? The cases in Kitsap would be slim pickings if they did. Mr Danielson exceeds the experience and integrity needed for a judge. Hes got my vote!

Posted by path2089 on July 31, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to come down to dollars and cents for me. This position pays over $130,000 a year (I can't tell for certain becuase there are a few different numbers out there but we taxpayers are paying it).

61 attorneys think Mr. Wall is qualified. 51 think Ms. Dalton is. 38 think Mr. Danielson is not qualified.

As I understand it, an attorney can ask to have any judge removed one time for any case. (An attorney would probably know this better then me).

If all these attorneys think Mr. Danielson is not qualified, then they would probably ask to have him removed. So we taxpayers would be paying this guy $130,000 a year to sit in his office?

Now I could care less if attorneys like or don't like someone. But if I'm stuck paying for one of these three, I might as well pay for one that will be allowed to do the job.

Posted by NSR on August 1, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find all three candidates to be very impressive in their qualifications. But I'm voting for Bruce Danielson as I have stated before. He appears to be the most levelheaded of the three. Also he has taken an approach to this election that sets him apart that is easy to see. Where the other two candidates have spent large amounts of their own personal funds, he has not. It almost makes me think that they are more desperate to win their races?

I would think that if I was an attorney, I would not want to donate to a particular judges race to prevent the possibility of having a case overturned in the future? Just seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Posted by Clancy on August 1, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, OK, OK, Dalton!
Kitsap Sun... Move on!

Posted by TomRosendale on August 3, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems someone keeps E-mailing this item so the headline "Dalton Most Qualified for Judge" keeps appearing on the right side of the Sun's home page of "most E-mailed".

Maybe that's clever and cheap campaign publicity, but it seems a bit sneaky or cheap for someone running to be a judge. It also seems odd or hypocritical that the Sun would allow this implication of the Sun's endorsement while having a TV ad pulled because another candidate used the Sun's logo while also referring to a letter to the editor.

Posted by TomRosendale on August 5, 2008 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It appears that the Dalton campaign person (I suspect the Dalton's themselves) are E-mailing this to E-mail addresses that no one reads or maybe even spamming e-mails.

Who would continue to e-mail this knowing someone would read these negative comments.....unless they knew no one would be reading them. There may be another side to this, but it seems the cats out of the bag.

Posted by michael on August 5, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I rarely agree with BainbridgeClearCut, but I've spent a couple of hours on all three candidates' web sites reading what they have to say for themselves. (Judicial candidates are the hardest to figure out, at least for me) I have to say that Danielson clearly has the most wide-ranging amount of experience of any of the candidates in all phases of law. He also is the only candidate who even addresses the issues of judicial restraint in that he seems to have a sensible view of the role of the judiciary. I'm not seeing that breadth of experience in the other candidates--though they do all have lots of experience. I suspect the other lawyers are scared of him and that's why they gave him a lower rating. Sorry, but I think that is a good thing.

I think Mr. Wall is probably the safest candidate for lawyers and that is reflected in his ranking amongst lawyers. He won't rock the boat and this is a natural progression for his career. He would likely make a good, steady judge.

Ms. Dalton has some judicial experience as a pro tem, which is certainly valuable, but her primary focus appears to be defending DUIs. See her web site: http://www.kingstondefense.com/ to see what I mean. It's not that I don't think any citizen isn't entitled to defense, but I don't think that speaks well for a superior court judge to bill yourself as an 'aggressive' defender of DUIs. I don't see that as a qualification for a judgeship myself.

In sum, I would like to see some change in the judicial process and orientation, and I think Danielson is best able to accomplish that.

Posted by justintime on August 6, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It sure seems like someone is e mailing these out especially the one that says Dalton has it all... with the comment thread removed. Other than the comments that created the terrible harrassment of the people involved there were some good comments on that thread. Why did the Sun remove all of the comments instead of the few that caused the problem? I'm sure the Dalton's were pleased with the decision to remove all of them.

Posted by Hunter on August 6, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Justintime,
You are right, there were some very good comments about Dalton on the closed thread. However, the very fact that they had to close a thread that was originally pro-Dalton should tell you something about what the public thinks about her fitness as a Superior Court Judge. I was especially disappointed that in the State Voters Pamphlet Ms. Dalton stated that she is supported by law enforcement and "regular folks". In reality I don't believe that she has the endorsement of any law enforcement labor union or guild in the county. Is she counting the blanket term of "law enforcement" as a small handfull of individual cops? Her "regular folks" comment is just another elitist slap in the face. I sent in my ballot and I can tell you that there was no line connecting the arrow on Ms. Dalton's name.

Posted by familien1 on August 6, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only comment I have is to the professional and attractive signs plastered everywhere... Vote for Dalton ...they look very expensive...
Sharon O'Hara

Posted by TomRosendale on August 6, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharon,
I just ran downstairs to catch a phone call, repeat my name and say hello three times to 10 seconds of silence followed by a recording to vote for Judge Robin Hunt. The voice sounded professional and the telephone solicitors were probably expensive, but I'm on the "do not call" nationwide list and I thought it was illegal to call and also to play recordings in random solicitations.

Looking and sounding professional doesn't mean they are. Doing that and sneaky use of E-mailing to dupe the public while running for a judgeship shows the respect they have for citizens. It's called disdain of the dumb masses.

Posted by justintime on August 6, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yesterday was an eggs and issues at the Cloverleaf where all 3 candidates answered questions. I was impressed with Bruce Danielson the most. I want a judge with a poker face at trial no matter what the issue and a judge who is of course knowlegeabe on ALL matters that will come before them. When Wall or Danielson spoke to something that Dalton did not agree with she shook her head, frowned, pierced her lips etc. She got her turn to talk, she didn't need to make a scene as it did not come off as being very professional. Wall said that he has very little criminal expiereince and sees not much of a difference between criminal and civil law and kept referring over and over that Russ Hauge supports him and he has defended some case involving a sinking ship - how nice. In my opinion Bruce Danielson conducted himself like a judge. He gets my vote. Also Robin Hunt showed up at the same time as Dalton (really with her as they got out of their cars and hugged) with her own campaingn signs and literature. This wasn't about Robin Hunt. She is a big supporter of Dalton but this forum was not hers. She interrupted a conversation I was having with another person to shove her campaign stuff at us. It was very rude. She won't be getting my vote or the person's I was talking to. There are other reasons I won't vote for her but this tipped the scale. Also a woman who was there did not want to take one of Dalton's biographies that her husband (her para legal) was handing out so Mr Jeanette Dalton SLAMMED it on the table! I will be voting for Bruce Danielson but please Kitsap voters, Don't put Jeantte Dalton on the bench.

Posted by familien1 on August 6, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom...My post was a joke. Apparently on me.
Luckily I was able to restrain myself from voting for the signs. Too bad. They would have looked good in the courtroom. Not the candidate, the signs.
And...if I needed professional looking signs designed I would sure want to talk to the company who did those - very nice ...my opinion.
Sharon O'Hara

Posted by TomRosendale on August 6, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Sharon,
You always lighten me up a bit. I hate those phone calls from machines especially when I drop everything and head to the phone. I really didn't expect one from someone that professes to be judge material.

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Darn! I just got another recorded phone solicitation, but this time it was from Robin Hunt's opponent.

Are these attorneys so disconnected with the public they don't know how much we hate unsolicited calls, much less recordings! What kind of judges are they or will they be?

Posted by jbrody on August 7, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Justintime, hunter:
If you check the editor's note we placed on the other letter, you would find that we, too, felt there were some very worthwhile comments on that comment thread. Unfortunately, the only way to make sure that the offending comments did not return to the thread was to take down the entire thread.
The suggestion that we took down all comments in some effort to remove the ones you liked doesn't hold up considering that we have allowed comments to remain on this letter. Had we wanted to censor comments on this race, you wouldn't be able to comment here, either.
Jeff Brody
Kitsap Sun

Posted by michael on August 7, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've continued to worry this issue (I don't want to claim I studied hard) and it's interesting. The King County Bar does an extensive questionnaire, interviews, and background checks on all candidates. They even call opposing counsel! Then they put out their recommendations as 'Highly Qualified' etc.

The Kitsap Bar conducts a poll on what their attorneys think about candidates and put out the same words, such as 'Not Qualified.' All this amounts to is an opinion poll, a popularity contest. There is no analysis at all. Here it is: http://www.kitsapbar.org/misc/2008pre.... Notice all the abstentions. Also, this is only 60 some odd people out of 200 some odd who are in the Kitsap Bar. It's less than a third of the membership. So what you have here is a terribly skewed poll. Why all the abstentions? I suspect some people don't want to get into a fight. There's more to this poll than meets the eye. (We need to go through the discovery process!!)

I figure, if lawyers don't like you, you must be doing something right.

Posted by Hunter on August 7, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff,
I thank you for taking the time to read what I posted. However, I don't think you will find anywhere in my comments above that suggested you or your staff closed the thread due to unreasonable motivations. My comments were towards the blogging public and the public's responses via postings of not-flattering thoughts about Ms. Dalton's potential as a Superior Court judge, on what was originally a pro-Dalton letter. I found that very interesting and telling.

Posted by justintime on August 7, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jbrody I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question. I don't think Hunter suggested anything either. I'm sorry if I offended anyone at the Sun or was misunderstood. It's your paper and your decision. Maybe you should read TomRosendales before ours.