Scott Wilson, sheriff’s spokesman, put out a new release Thursday night. You can read it below.

Long story short: there’s not any new information outside of what we reported. But sheriff’s detectives would like to recirculate a call for tips if anyone does know anything about the killing.

“Sheriff’s detectives are pursuing all investigative leads,” Wilson said in the release.

Looks like any help they can get would be greatly appreciated.

Port Orchard, Wash. –  The investigation continues, by sheriff’s detectives, into the death of a woman found inside of her destroyed residence, Saturday morning, in the Illahee Shores Mobile Home Park.  The investigation was classified as a homicide upon conclusion of an autopsy Sunday afternoon.

Earlier this week the Kitsap County Coroner confirmed the identity of the victim as Paymela Faye Long, age 58.

The fire originated in a rear bedroom of Paymela’s pre-manufactured mobile home.  Her body was discovered in that bedroom by firefighters from Central Kitsap Fire & Rescue. Autopsy results indicate that Paymela died, by violent means, prior to the start of the fire.  How the fire started is still under investigation by the Kitsap County Fire Marshal and sheriff’s arson detectives.

Sheriff’s detectives are pursuing all investigative leads:

Detectives continue to gather forensic evidence and analyze that evidence.

Investigators are interviewing contacts.

The Sheriff’s Office is coordinating its investigative actions with the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office and the Kitsap County Coroner.

Persons with information about the fire or the victim are asked to contact Detective Lissa Gundrum at (360) 337-5669.

Those who want to remain anonymous may call Crime Stoppers of Puget Sound at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The two candidates for Bremerton Municipal Court judge are facing new challenges less than a week before the votes are counted.

At some point during this month, signs for attorney Ed Wolfe, who is challenging incumbent judge James Docter, began appearing with small placards that say “RATED Highly Qualified” (see photo that was emailed to me by a Docter supporter).

In a letter to the editor in our paper today, Kevin “Andy” Anderson (a lawyer who works as a county prosecutor) contends that the Kitsap County Bar Association poll results fly in the face of that placard. I’ll let you decide: the results, as published to votingforjudges.org, are thus:

Of 63 attorneys, Ed Wolfe was rated:

“Highly Qualified” by 15 lawyers;

“Qualified” by 17 lawyers;

“Not Qualified” by 26 lawyers;

And five abstained.

UPDATE: I spoke with Wolfe today (Monday) about the signs. He said he was “disappointed,” by my blog post, and that with the bar association poll results, “I feel comfortable saying I’m highly qualified based on that representation.”

He said that the poll was still taken by only 63 lawyers, even though there are hundreds of attorneys in the county.

Meanwhile, Port Orchard resident Stephen P. Miller has filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) against incumbent James Docter. His allegation: that Docter stated, during a Bremerton Kiwanis candidate forum Oct. 8, he, nor his clerks, had found evidence that Wolfe had handled a criminal trial in Bremerton Municipal Court. Miller believes that a “reasonable person” would conclude Docter was using city paid clerks to help with his campaign.

I called Docter about the allegation, and he said he felt it was “completely baseless.” He said he’d asked a clerk at lunch one day if she could recall anytime Wolfe had in fact handled a criminal trial in order to double check his own memory.

I also checked with Theresa Ewing, Bremerton Municipal Court administrator. Ewing said she must remain neutral in elections: “We serve whoever wears the robe.”

She explained she was in the court’s break room at lunch one day when Docter and a clerk discussed if Wolfe had handled any such trials. But she was adamant that such discussions did not happen while on the city’s paid time.

The complaint won’t be followed up by the PDC until after election day.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

City officials are currently studying the Kitsap Bank location at Sixth Street and Park Avenue, Lubovich said.

But it’s not yet time to slam the gavel down on a project long in the works. Kitsap Bank President and CEO James Carmichael told me Tuesday that despite having also having two other locations on Sixth Street (including the former West Sound Bank at Sixth and Pacific, which was once a candidate itself for the courthouse), his company is still getting good use out of the Park Avenue location.

The property is not for sale, but Carmichael said they’re getting a building appraisal. The city is having an appraisal completed as well on the approximately 12,000 square foot building, Lubovich said.

I’ll have a full story in Wednesday’s edition.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It’s official: King County will send inmates to Kitsap if the Green River floods sometime this year or in 2010.

The Associated Press confirmed today that the King County Council has approved an agreement to bring up to 114 to Kitsap if the Green River floods the Regional Justice Center in Kent.

I spoke with Ned Newlin, Kitsap County’s chief of corrections, today about the logistics. He said King County will get space in an unused, older portion of the jail and inside the soon-to-be closed work release facility. King County will pay $28 per day, per inmate for such use, and will provide its own corrections staff (hence why they’re not paying the regular $80 per inmate per day that cities like Port Orchard pay).

King County is bracing for possible Green River flooding because of a weakened abutment at the Howard Hanson Dam.

(Photo of King County’s Regional Justice Center from King County’s web site.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Reporters Barney Burke and Allison Arthur wrote Oct. 7 that the hunters, using muzzleloaders (an antique style firearm) were on private property in Brinnon between Highway 101 and the Hood Canal, and had permission from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to hunt elk.

But the officers thought the men were hunting illegally — and took out their own guns in investigating. The hunters were handcuffed two hours.

The misunderstanding was eventually cleared up, but left the hunters “upset and angry,” the story says.

I spoke with Karl Gilje, chief of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Department of Public Safety, this morning. He said that the investigating officers in the case were under the tribe’s department of natural resources, and not under his public safety department. They do sometimes assist one another at times, Gilje said, but not during the incident Oct. 3.

A full investigation is underway in the case by the state department of fish and wildlife and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, according to the Peninsula Daily News.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

According to CBC, Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden said Sunday that charges his department is recommending include conspiracy, making a false report to authorities, attempting to influence a public servant and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Some of those are felonies.

And what about federal charges? The Federal Aviation Administration is also conducting an investigation.

The Denver Post says the couple who allegedly orchestrated such a hoax faces up to six years in prison and a “seven figure fine.”

What makes this most interesting in my mind is how the couple will be prosecuted. Why? Because never before has an attorney in Colorado (let alone anywhere) been greeted with such a fact pattern.

All cases are unique. But somewhere in Colorado’s (and the United States’) criminal code, they’ll have to pick and choose laws they believe were violated (there is no “Pretending my kid’s in a UFO-like balloon so I’ll get the reality TV show I’ve always wanted” statute).

Constitutionally, they’ll have to find laws passed by lawmakers who could’ve never dreamed up what took flight over Colorado last week. And they’ll do it under the intense lens of the media. That, in my book, is a challenge.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Washington was the first state to create a sex offender registry so the community would know when such offenders would be released from prison. I’ve often wondered if there are other serious crimes that our lawmakers might require offenders to register for upon their release from prison.

Turns out there already is one: Arson.

According to the Associated Press, California, Illinois and Montana already maintain a database of convicted arsonists that helps law enforcement keep track of them. Not quite a community notification system, but a definite clampdown on those convicted of a specific crime nonetheless.

Following some devastating California fires, the state’s senators are proposing a federal registry to keep an eye on serial arsonists.

“It’s not going to solve every arson-related thing. It’s not meant to do that,” William Soqui, chief of the fire department in Cathedral City, Calif. told the Associated Press. “It’s meant to give investigators another tool, to help them narrow down the list of suspects and to keep track of these people who have been convicted of a crime.”

Photo by Larry Steagall of the Kitsap Sun. (No, it’s not an arson fire.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Such a debate just wouldn’t be “lawyerly” if it didn’t involve some case law.

Bremerton attorney Stan Glisson, in responding to Templeton’s accusation that Bremerton Municipal Court was a venue for “dog bites and traffic infractions,” invoked the legendary case Marbury v. Madison. The case opinion by John Marshall in 1803 was the first time the US Supreme Court declared something unconstitutional, establishing the idea that the courts could keep in check the executive and legislative branches of government.

The heart of the case was a last minute appointment by President John Adams of a justice of the peace, among many “midnight” appointments Adams made in an effort to fill the judiciary with federalists on the eve of Thomas Jefferson’s presidency.

“In 1803, few people probably cared whether William Marbury won a commission as a local justice of the peace,” Glisson wrote. “But Marbury v. Madison established our current concept of judicial review, without which the separation of powers and our concept of government is effectively meaningless.”

In Templeton’s response, he used the same case to make his point — that challenger Ed Wolfe, who’s facing incumbent Judge James Docter this fall for the municipal court seat, isn’t unqualified to serve as judge. James Madison and William Marbury, the men involved in the case, had little in the way of judicial experience, Templeton wrote.

“Both Marbury and Marshall were well-respected for their intellect,” he wrote. “However, under the ‘experience’ test enumerated by some of our colleagues today, neither Marbury or Marshall would be judged ‘qualified’ to fill the judicial positions to which they were appointed.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

First, here’s Ron Templeton’s:
September 18, 2009

Dear Colleagues,

For as long as I can remember judicial candidates often allowed how the
local Bar Preference Poll was the kiss of death for the candidate with the
most “First Choice Votes”.

While I suspect that was merely an urban legend, the latest poll results for
the Bremerton Municipal Court position suggests the utter inanity of the
Preference Poll.  To the 26 lawyers who rated Ed Wolfe as “Not Qualified”,
are you seriously suggesting that a person who held a high level position in
the State Department, has practiced in State and Federal Courts, including
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has served as Judge Pro Tem for the past
few years and has built a successful practice in our community is not
qualified to serve as a Judge of a Court whose historical antecedents are
rooted in dog bite and traffic infraction matters?

The Poll reminds me of the type of adolescent popularity poll I thought we
grew out of, if not by the 9th grade, then at least during our 12th grade
year after the yearbook staff asked high school seniors to select the
students with the prettiest eyes and hair.  (Having said that, I can’t help
but observe that it is an undeniable fact that because Ed Wolfe’s wardrobe
is superior to that of James Docter, he would handily win the “Best Dressed”
candidate.)

Ron Templeton

*****************************************************************

Stan Glisson’s letter:

Dear members of the Kitsap County Bar:

A respected colleague has expressed his lack of confidence in the vote of our membership in the Bremerton Municipal court preference poll. He has suggested that some of our membership shirked their obligation to express honest and candid opinions, and instead engaged in an “adolescent popularity poll”.

It is remarkably arrogant to presume that because their opinion differs from ours, that a percentage of our membership discarded their integrity in such a manner. We have no grounds upon which to question the experiences that led our membership to vote the way it did. This is a professional organization comprised of good, honest attorneys. We must have confidence that their votes are likewise honest; cast based on personal experience and a legitimate desire to inform the public and carry out the duty of every lawyer expressed in RPC 8.2. Many of us were surprised by the outcome of the vote; that does not give any one of us the right, legally or morally, to question the sense of honor with which the members of the bar discharged that duty.

Our colleague is further dismissive of the very office sought by the candidates, suggesting that the Court is no more important than “dog bite and traffic infraction matters”.  We as attorneys are sometimes tempted to forget the significance of ‘minor’ cases. Seductive as it is, this is a temptation to which we must never succumb. We have all handled serious cases in our careers. But we must never forget that every legal case is important to the parties involved. Every plaintiff, defendant, respondent, appellant, is in court because something dramatic has occurred in their lives, and will maybe never be forgotten. It is our privilege to have our counsel sought in these trying times; and it is intolerable to make light of the significance of these matters to the parties. I hardly need remind our colleague that law schools still teach the 1805 decision Pierson v. Post, a case over the ownership of a dead fox and hardly seeming more important that a dog bite. In 1803, few people probably cared whether William Marbury won a commission as a local justice of the peace. But Marbury v. Madison established our current concept of judicial review, without which the separation of powers and our concept of government is effectively meaningless. The historical importance of the court system in our country, and this court specifically, comes not only from the subject matter of the litigation. It comes from how cases are handled, both the serious and the not so. It comes from the dignity of the bench; it comes from the professionalism of the attorneys; it comes from all of us remembering that people’s lives are impacted permanently every day in our workplace. Any judge in any criminal court impacts lives in a very real, often permanent way every single day. It is not an obligation to be undertaken lightly. We owe it to the public we serve to remember that. It is an embarrassment to us all when any one of us dishonors that obligation.

Thus far the candidates have conducted themselves with great decorum and professionalism. Both are clearly passionate in their belief that they are the better person for this position. We all have our opinions, but I hope that we will continue to conduct ourselves as the candidates have. Like any judicial election, this is not a popularity contest. It is a question of who will make the decisions that will every day impact the lives of people in our community. For those of us who voted, your opinion has been heard. For those who would chill the voting process with personal attacks to your character, shame on them.

*****************************************************************

Here’s Kevin “Andy” Anderson’s letter:

As one of the 26 attorneys who rated Mr. Wolfe as being “not qualified” for
the position of Bremerton Municipal Court judge I was amused by your letter
of September 18th. While the logic of your argument was obscure it
certainly managed to disparage, in your eyes at least, the importance of the
Bremerton Municipal Court.

I do, seriously, believe that a lawyer who has served in the State
Department, and who has practiced in State and Federal Courts, including the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals can be unqualified for a judgeship in Bremerton
Municipal Court, particularly when that same person tells me during his Bar
debate that he himself has never handled a criminal case in his entire
career, has never done a criminal jury trial, and that the closest he has
come to a criminal case is having had an associate in his law firm do a
criminal matter. To use your school analogy, while someone might be an
eminently qualified student body president, that does not really mean he is
qualified to quarterback the school football team. They take different
talents, skills and experience.

I myself have only been practicing criminal law for twenty-two years, have
only done eleven jury trials in Bremerton Municipal Court, and over two
hundred felony jury trials (including capital murder), but it has not
escaped my notice that the cases that routinely occur in Bremerton Municipal
Court, and others like it, are significantly more complicated than dog bites
and traffic infractions. Domestic violence assaults and DUI’s are trivial
only in the minds of those who don’t have to talk to the victims, do the
motions or litigate the trials. I would not want someone sitting on the
bench who could not understand and distinguish the serious differences
between a non-criminal traffic infraction, and a domestic violence assault.

I would be very curious to know your own personal experience with this
court, and these types of legal matters. I can tell you I was unimpressed
with a person who wants to be a judge who presides over these types of
matters yet never took enough professional interest to ever handle the types
of cases in his own legal practice. He failed to explain what it was he
learned by having an associate in his firm do the work.

Obviously you feel that if a lawyer has done good work in one area of
practice he is “qualified” to be a judge, even if that expertise is
completely divorced from the subject matter of the court. In my experience
it is often a disaster when lawyers attempt to go outside their area of
expertise without diligent preparation and practice. For example, I myself
would be reluctant to take on a medical malpractice case as lead counsel
based on my own professional background, even though my license to practice
might technically make me qualified.

In summary, having practiced in Bremerton Municipal Court, and having been
involved in criminal law for most of my career, I have the quaint notion
that the judge who presides over a criminal court should have some criminal
experience. A good judge will have cared enough about the type of cases
that occur in that courtroom to have experience in that field of law. I
don’t see that background with Mr. Wolfe, and if he has it he has been very
shy in describing it. He may well be a good lawyer. He might be good
diplomat. He probably handled the traffic infraction calendar well. But he
has provided no reason to think he would understand and capably preside over
the 8 AM arraignment calendar, the omnibus calendar, or a jury trial.

Maybe you can fill in those blanks.

*****************************************************************

And finally, Templeton’s rebuttal:

September 23, 2009

Members of the Kitsap County Bar Association

Dear Colleagues:

In my failed attempt to interject satire into an otherwise honest effort to inspire debate regarding the Bar’s Judicial Preference Polls, it never occurred to me that my intemperate remarks about the historical roots of the Bremerton Municipal Court would cause offense to anyone other than candidates Docter and Wolfe.  I hasten to point out that I am not the first to make this kind of politically incorrect gaffe.  When a young lawyer once commented about the apparent esteem in which said lawyer held the Bremerton Municipal Court, Judge Kruse exclaimed, “That’s not a court; it’s a cash register!”

I apologize to all practitioners who so ably toil in those chambers and thank James Docter’s supporters for setting me straight.  I am particularly happy to see that one of those supporters cited Marbury v. Madison to support his criticism of my letter because a review of the historical background of that case illustrates the very point I apparently failed to make.

As many will recall, in the waning days of his Presidency, John Adams and a Federalist controlled Congress attempted to stymie the incoming Republican controlled Congress and administration by creating and filling new judicial positions before the end of Adams’ term.  Adams appointed William Marbury, a prosperous financier and prominent Federalist, to the position of Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.

In order for the appointment to take effect, “commissions” had to be delivered to each appointee.  This was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who was none other than John Marshall.  Marshall had recently been appointed by Adams to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but continued to act as the Secretary of State until his successor could be appointed and confirmed.

Marshall didn’t have time to deliver all the commissions before Thomas Jefferson assumed office and appointed Marshall’s brother, James Madison, to serve as the new Secretary of State.  After Jefferson instructed Madison to withhold the undelivered commissions, Marbury brought an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission.

As I recall, Marbury not only had no judicial experience, but lacked any legal training or experience.  Despite that lack of legal experience, to my memory, no one has ever suggested Marbury was not qualified to serve as a Justice of the Peace.  Certainly not Adams, whose intellect was praised by his contemporaries and historians alike, or the Senate that appointed him.  Nor do I recall that Jefferson, Madison or Marshall thought Marbury unqualified.  In fact, as I recall the case, Justice Marshall believed Marbury was entitled to the commission.[1]

Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, the bulk of John Marshall’s career was devoted to political and diplomatic positions, although, for a brief time, he maintained a successful legal practice, principally defending individuals against their pre-war creditors.

Marshall, having served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 34 years, held the position longer than any other Chief Justice.  Even today, most scholars would agree that his impact on constitutional law is peerless.

Both Marbury and Marshall were well-respected for their intellect.  However, under the “experience” test enumerated by some of our colleagues today, neither Marbury or Marshall would be judged “qualified” to fill the judicial positions to which they were appointed.[2]

While I appreciate the fact that many members of the Bar not only prefer James Docter over Ed Wolfe, but honestly and sincerely believe he is the more qualified candidate, I am convinced that both candidates have the intellect and breadth of experience to make them “qualified”, a point two of Docter’s colleagues miss in their criticism.  Accordingly, I remain resolute in my belief that the latest preference poll is suspect and that the Bar has done a disservice to both the public and to itself through the publication of this particular poll.

Best regards,

RON TEMPLETON

[2] Nor would any number of Kitsap County’s Superior Court Judges have been judged “qualified” at the inception of their tenure.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jefferson County Sheriff’s detectives are still holding out hope that a man found dead in Olympic National Forest in 1975 can be identified.

The man, believed to be between 20 and 25 years old, was found in the Cliff Creek area of the Duckabush River basin, west of Brinnon. He was found with a single gunshot wound to the head, and a .22 caliber rifle was nearby. “The arrangement of the weapon supported by a stick and the remote location strongly suggest suicide,” Detective Joe Nole said.

The man’s body was found about six to nine months after he died, in October of that year. Detectives believe he was wearing new clothes at the time of death, and size 11 1/2 shoes. No identification was found on him.

Dental work to try and determine his identity was conducted, but to no avail. But the sheriff’s office recently enlisted the help of the King County Medical Examiner’s Office’s forensic anthropologist — you’ve probably seen her work before in this story about remains found in Port Orchard — and the photos you’re seeing are recreations they made.

A DNA profile of the man from a leg bone will be logged into a national database. Anyone who might know who the man is may contact Detective Nole, at 360.385.3831, extension 547, or email him at jnole@co.jefferson.wa.us.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post