1. What is this lawsuit? What documents are you requesting? What questions are you asking?

Those of us who don't know this info are mystified by your post.

Posted by Bruce at November 18, 2009 02:50 PM

2. Well, Bruce, one would need to actually read the post, particularly the first two paragraphs, to demystify oneself. However, feel free to enjoy your willful mystification.

Posted by katomar at November 18, 2009 03:09 PM

3. Always challenging to balance providing too much information versus not enough.

What is this lawsuit? Secretary Reed sold a for-profit lobbyist the names, signatures, and home addresses of 3.4 million citizens who signed initiative petitions for $1500. Before Secretary Reed turned them over, we filed a lawsuit asking the Court to prevent the sale before the personal information would be used for commercial purposes. The judge agreed to stop the sale.

What documents are you requesting? Documents that illustrate Secretary Reed has been misleading the public and the press on this issue for months.

What questions are you asking? Questions that illustrate Secretary Reed has been misleading the public and the press on this issue for months.

Secretary Reed is telling the Court he doesn't want to disclose the documents or answer the questions under oath.

That's why we're telling citizens about the Secretary's hypocrisy and asking citizens to pressure the Secretary to simply comply with discovery.

If anyone wants to read the questions and the list of requested documents, I'm happy to email them to you.

Please email Secretary Reed and take him to task for his stonewalling: sreed@secstate.wa.gov (cc me at tim_eyman@comcast.net)

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 18, 2009 03:15 PM

4. Katomar, I did read the post but thought that issue had been resolved before the election. I admit I haven't been following this too closely. But I was genuinely confused and I suspect others may be, too.

Tim, thanks for clarifying. Whether Reed is "misleading the public and the press" doesn't seem germane to the question of whether the names should be protected. But I trust the judge to decide whether the information you have requested is germane.

Posted by Bruce at November 18, 2009 03:26 PM

5. Interestingly, Judge Hicks commented on the merits of the issue in his oral ruling on Oct. 20th (here are some excerpts from the transcript from that hearing):

Page 8: We know that the state Constitution grants privacy rights under Article I, Section 7 greater than what the federal constitution grants in the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment ... Let me see if I can say something simply for all the citizens who are monitoring this, and without any notes. In one sense this comes down to the question is why do we have a curtain on the voting booth?

Page 11-13: ... the Secretary of State's office wants everything open and clear, so who can fault them for that? But where they run into problems is what about this constitutional right to privacy? ... The state can show cases ... where the government's been allowed to invade personal privacy ... but always when there is a financial interest. ... But when it's not following the money, when it isn't based on financial considerations, when it is signing a petition outside the grocery store and no money is involved, and the person signing may not even vote for it if it reaches the ballot, then it's very close to a personal vote. ... So if it's like a vote, then my question is back to why do we have curtains on the voting booth if that's the basis of this? ... I think it's a very important issue. I'm glad it's drawn the attention that it has.

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 18, 2009 03:41 PM

6. Sam Reed is no friend of transparency and open elections.

Posted by Jeff B. at November 18, 2009 09:52 PM

7. Timmy,

Meet hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy,

Meet Timmy.

What a douchebag you are.

Posted by Matty at November 18, 2009 10:28 PM

8. @7
I fail to see where the word "Hypocrisy" even falls into this conversation. Please explain.

I think Tim brings a lot to the public debate, and one that I think is sorely needed in this state. If you disagree with his points, disagree with them logically and state your position.

Silly name calling doesn't advance your position and actually strengthens your opponents.

Posted by johnny at November 19, 2009 04:47 AM

9. THANK YOU MATTY for once again proving a lib without enough smarts to discuss the issues will go to name calling every time!!

Posted by PC at November 19, 2009 07:06 AM

10. Not only will a lib go name calling every time, but has anyone noticed how they always use perjoratives that are extremely demeaning to women? As a female, I'v heard more than enough of that nonsense. I thought they were the party of diversity, women's equality, etc. ad nauseum. I would call that the real hypocrisy, Matty. Of course, it's easy for you to do in a more or less anonymous forum, but I would bet you don't have the courage to use that kind of language face to face with a strong female, conservative or liberal. Mostly like, you'd get decked.

Posted by katomar at November 19, 2009 07:49 AM

11. Sorry, that should have been "most likely" you'd get decked. Typo.

Posted by katomar at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM

12. SR was party to and acquiesced all his blessings on to 2004 counting 'challenges' and is a key reason of this state wide conversion to Vote by Mail. I never know if my ballot has made it and been counted anymore. Additionally there are thousand of ballots floating around that are collected and voted en mass depending on the race. Impossible before with polls (they just cheated on the counting side).
Remember vote for the person and not the party. Sam Reed is no friend of Liberty and Tim's discussion of Sam's actions in this continue his pattern of a friend of darkness rather than servant of the people.

Posted by Col. Hogan at November 19, 2009 07:56 AM

13. Why won't Timmy go on the stand? His skeletons far eclipse any Reed could even have a nightmare about. Timmy's credibility is shot in this state as self-appointed purveyor of truth.

Leadership by adding value is the hardest thing in the world and Reed's road is the most noble.

Timmy's just a muckraker hack in it for a buck and wants to just tear things down. That's the worst form of leadership.

By the way, I'm a moderate Republican...not a liberal...and I call Timmy as I see him. He's even a failure as douchebag.

Posted by Matty at November 19, 2009 08:44 AM

14. Moderate Republican? Code for liberal. As a conservative female, I am not surprised you repeat the smear, just for shock effect. No guts, no glory. Oh, well....

Posted by katomar at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM

15. Dear Matty, grow up.

"Timmy's just a muckraker hack"... you sure offer a convincing, evidence filled argument with this assertion. Seriously, did you wake up late and realize that you were late for high school when you made this post?

Posted by boxxerace at November 19, 2009 09:14 AM

16. Matty,

meet moron.

Moron,

meet Matty.

What a douchebag you are.

Posted by hinton at November 19, 2009 09:43 AM

17. @14

Claiming a moderate R is code for liberal...is actually code for wingnuts purging their own party of the people that aren't quite wingnutty enough for them.

And it's the reason we lost big in 2008. Call me a defector if you must...but I call our party lost right now. Until we can reembrace fiscal conservatives that are socially moderate again..it will continue to fail.

And if it doesn't return to the idea of limited government over no government like Timmy the Anarchist espouses....his initiative machine will keep failing.

Posted by Matty at November 19, 2009 09:51 AM

18. Tim Eyman, you've lost.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 09:55 AM

19. Mr. Eyman still hasn't told us what documents he is seeking. Which documents, exactly? Answer the question, Tim. Then, we can form our own opinions, thank you.

Posted by fred at November 19, 2009 10:01 AM

20. fred, it's DOCUMENTS about Sam Reed LYING! Don't you understand how substantive and professional Mr. Eyman is? Do not challenge him.

DO NOT CHALLENGE HIM.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 10:05 AM

21. In Re #3:
There is another facet to this as well. Mr. Eyman says that Reed sold the 3.4 million addresses for 1500 bucks. That's a mere fraction of a penny each (.0004). On top of why are they selling them at all, whcih is enough to raise the hairs on my neck, why is the state selling these addresses so dirt cheap? What does Reed have to gain by virtually giving these addresses away? Who is he supporting with this give-away? What favor is being paid off here?

Time to come clean Mr. Reed. This whole thing smells like week old fish.

Posted by G Jiggy at November 19, 2009 10:05 AM

22. fred, it's DOCUMENTS about Sam Reed LYING! Don't you understand how substantive and professional Mr. Eyman is? Do not challenge him.

DO NOT CHALLENGE HIM.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 10:07 AM

23. Oh please, G Jiggy, don't buy Eyman's BS. Almost certainly the cost of those records was for copying them -- i.e. paying for the paper and time spent by state employees to get access to the records.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 10:26 AM

24. to: fred at #19
from: tim eyman

you said I hadn't provided a list of the documents that we're asking for. As I wrote in response #3: if anyone wants to read the questions and the list of requested documents, I'm happy to email them to you.

fred, if you want them, what's your email address and I'll send them. Same goes for anyone else.

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 19, 2009 10:31 AM

25. Say good-nite Tim, I'm afraid it's over for you pal. You fought a good fight, but henceforth you will be forever discounted. :)

Posted by Duffman at November 19, 2009 11:56 AM

26. What's with the personal attacks? The law is blind to the identity of the claimant. Tim's personal details are outside the scope of what the judge should be considering.
Thank you Tim for staying aware of what was about to happen and standing up to stop it.
I'd hesitate to sign petitions in front of the grocery store if I knew that my information was to be easily obtained by a PAC for the opposite side of the issue. As the judge said, there's a reason for the curtain on the voting booth.

Posted by Greg M. at November 19, 2009 12:21 PM

27. Signing a petition and having that be kept private is a "basic constitutional right," Tim? Which right is that? Which Constitution is that?

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 12:26 PM

28. Have I said lately how much I enjoy watching liberals (like Matty) get their panties in a bunch about a watch salesman?

Everytime his name comes up they work extra hard to tell him how over he is and show their hate. (They were doing this after his first initiative loss, but that doesn't seem to have stopped him.)

It kind of reminds me of what they are doing to Palin. She's an out of work grandma from Alaska but mention her name in print and every left wing wacko available rush to try to disagree and destroy her.

If Tim and Sarah are that gone why all the fuss?

Never mind that Obama has gone around like a dog with his tail between his legs whenever he's been with anothe world leader, the whole of the national democratic party is shaking in their boots about a unemployed grandma from the boonies.

It's kind of pathetic really. And it's backfiring bigtime.

The "gotta work overtime to attack a watch salesman from the sticks" attitude of the state democratic party is every bit as pathetic.

Posted by johnny at November 19, 2009 01:16 PM

29. johnny, Sarah Palin just released a book. She it keeping herself in the limelight long after quitting her job as Alaskan Governor. She appears regularly on TV and gets paid to give speeches. She's hardly "out of work" or some docile grandma.

Eyman's a joke. His name hurts the credibility of any initiative he proposes.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 01:50 PM

30. Matt C. Watkins (aka Matty) and J.J. both need to take their meds to deal with EDS (Eyman Derangement Syndrome).

The lowlifes trying to get these names have only retaliatory motives. Thanks, Tim, for protecting us from these scumbags.

Posted by yaddacubed at November 19, 2009 02:03 PM

31. Eyman's a joke and you're a scumbag. I guess it all evens out in the end, eh, Jensen?

Posted by Hinton at November 19, 2009 02:28 PM

32. What has Tim done to protect you from me, screaming infant? Launched failed initiatives?

It doesn't take a political scientist to realize that Eyman's career of pushing initiatives isn't going too well. Apparently his next career is inventing constitutional rights. I don't have to sit here and accept that. He knows as much about the federal Constitution as he does about the state one (see: single-subject).

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 02:29 PM

33. A "scumbag"? Really? Sorry for having different political opinions from you, Hinton.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 02:32 PM

34. Nor does it take a political scientist to understand that Eyman has done more for the people of this state before he ate his first breakfast than you have in the entirety of your sorry life, you little worm.

Posted by Hinton at November 19, 2009 02:32 PM

35. Hinton, I'm sorry for having different political opinions from you. I hope you can stop calling me names now that I've apologized.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 02:38 PM

36. This issue is about privacy and freedom from intimidation in exercising your democratic rights as a citizen. Statist/SEIU/ACORN thugs who support card check are happy with Reed's approach. Reed has cast a chill on people standing up to arrogant government.

Posted by JC at November 19, 2009 03:27 PM

37. JC, one does not just invent Constitutional rights. If you feel that petition signatures should be private, then the State should create legislation to fix it. That is what Democracy about. Appealing to courts in the hope that new rights or laws will be created for your case is a function of activist judges.

Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 05:24 PM

38. John Jensen:

You have been dodging the question in the last htread where you defended terorist Hassan for slaughtering our soldiers.

Now ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Did you ever serve?

Posted by pbj at November 19, 2009 07:09 PM

39. @37 John the terrorist defender wrote:

"JC, one does not just invent Constitutional rights. "

One can only invent a constitutional right if they are liberals. See abortion, see health care.

Posted by pbj at November 19, 2009 07:11 PM

40. "Appealing to courts in the hope that new rights or laws will be created for your case is a function of activist judges."

e.g. liberal judges.

Posted by pbj at November 19, 2009 07:13 PM

41. pbj, that's a really great point about liberal judges especially when conservatives here are hoping that judges create new laws and new rights for them.

Actually, it was a stupid point. Please stop commenting when adults are talking.

Posted by John Jensen at November 20, 2009 10:29 AM

42. From: Tim Eyman

Two weeks ago, Judge Hicks agreed with our request and ordered Secretary Reed to not sell 3.4 million names, signatures and home addresses on petitions for $1500 to a for-profit lobbyist for commercial purposes.

Earlier today, however, Judge Hicks agreed with the Secretary of State that discovery can be put on hold while this issue is being considered for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, we believe the public and the press would be better served if Secretary Reed answered the questions sooner rather than later.

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 20, 2009 01:27 PM

43. Thanks, Tim, for serving as a watchdog for public interests. Too bad our remedial voters can't elect a legislature and governor who would govern in a responsible manner, as then we wouldn't have to rely on a private citizen to inject some common sense into the mixture.

Also, the lunacy of SP's leftist trolls never ceases to amaze me. A more stupid lot I've never encountered.

Posted by Saltherring at November 21, 2009 07:33 AM

44. Traitor John Jensen :

ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Have you ever served in this nation's military?

Go away traitor and leave the discussions to the patriots.

Posted by pbj at November 22, 2009 06:31 AM

45. Tim - Ignore the local liberal trolls. They are paid political operatives of the DNC here to "monitor" "right wing" blogs e,g, opposition research.

Tim you are doing a wonderful and patriotic service to the tacpayers of this state.

"Never, never, never, never give up." - Churchill

Posted by pbj at November 22, 2009 06:34 AM

46. Hey I heard there was a shooting on Capitol Hill. Has anyone heard from traitor John Jensen lately?

Posted by pbj at November 22, 2009 06:36 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?