Report on Judicial Conduct of

Judge Richard D. Eadie

King County Superior Court

Between Dates of 10/5/2011 and 8/31/2012

In Lane Powell v. Mark DeCoursey & Carol DeCoursey

Case No. 11-2-34596-3 SEA

We filed this complaint in proper form on August 31, 2012.  The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct has refused to take action, responding with the attached letter.

1. Failure to Recuse and Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Judge Richard D. Eadie, when assigned Lane Powell v. Mark DeCoursey and Carol DeCoursey, (Case No. 11-2-34596-3 SEA, “Lane Powell lawsuit”) should have recused himself.  Instead, he remained silent and manifested his prejudice against DeCourseys in a series of illogical, improper, and unjust rulings. He has ensured a jury will not hear the facts: Judge Eadie has effectively destroyed DeCourseys’ case by striking their counterclaims and affirmative defenses.

            The Code of Judicial Conduct: 

CJC Rule 2.11(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: …”

CJC 2.11(A)(2)  The judge knows that the judge, the judge's spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is: … (c) a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; …

CJC 2.11(A)(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. …

CJC 2.11(C) A judge disqualified by the terms of Rule 2.11(A)(2) or Rule 2.11(A)(3) may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the judge's participation, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge's relationship is immaterial or that the judge's economic interest is de minimis, the judge is no longer disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding[1]

Judge Eadie’s Family Background.   Judge Eadie’s wife, Claire Mapes Eadie, is and has been a Windermere real estate agent/broker since 2003, and possibly earlier.  Claire Eadie works out of Windermere Real Estate/GH LLC, 210 5th Ave. S., Suite 102, Edmonds, WA 98020.[2]  Exhibit 1.

According to the papers filed by Judge Eadie with the Public Disclosure Commission (“PDC”), in the years 2003 through 2011, Judge Eadie’s family has received at least $289,000 in Windermere commissions, and possibly twice that much.  Exhibit 2.  The Eadie family has assets in the Windermere Retirement Plan, valued at between $40,000 and $99,999.  Exhibit 3.   Judge Eadie’s statements to the PDC also reveal the existence of the Eadie Family Trust, which is engaged in the “ownership and management of real estate.”  Exhibit 4.  A reasonable person would believe Claire Eadie’s real estate license, her business affiliation with Windermere, and her access to the Multiple Listing Service through Windermere has been an essential element in the Eadies’ selection, acquisition, and marketing of Eadie Family Trust properties. 

Background of Lane Powell Lawsuit:  The Windermere Lawsuit. Prior to the case now before Judge Eadie, Lane Powell represented DeCourseys in a Consumer Protection Act lawsuit against Windermere Real Estate in the King County Superior Court in Seattle (Case No. 06-2-24906-2 SEA, the “Windermere lawsuit”).  That trial was held in 2008, and DeCourseys prevailed.  The case dragged on through the Appeals Court for another three years.

After the appeals process, the case was destined for remand to the Superior Court.  Because Lane Powell had breached its fiduciary duties, violated its contractual obligations and mismanaged the case in other ways, on August 3, 2011, DeCourseys terminated Lane Powell and hired other counsel to prevent further losses.  On that same date, Lane Powell filed an attorney’s lien for $384,881.66 on DeCourseys’ upcoming satisfaction of judgment.  (Lane Powell is claiming a total of $755,000 for its representation of DeCourseys.)

Windermere & Lane Powell Suits Overlap.   Lane Powell filed sued against DeCourseys on October 5, 2011.  (Dkt. 1, 10/5/2011.)

The Windermere lawsuit was remanded to the King County Superior Court (Seattle Courthouse) on October 12, 2011.  Exhibit 5.

Thus when Judge Eadie accepted the Lane Powell lawsuit on October 5, 2011, the Windermere lawsuit was still on-going.  On October 25, DeCourseys counterclaimed against Lane Powell, claiming, among other things, that Lane Powell had committed acts of malpractice that resulted in losses to them and advantages to Windermere.

For these reasons and others explained below, DeCourseys were direct antagonists to an Eadie family employer.

Windermere Lawsuit Finalized.  With the help of replacement counsel, DeCourseys eventually received a judgment award of approx. $1.2 million in the Windermere lawsuit.  The Superior Court recorded an Amended Final Judgment on November 3, 2011 (Exhibit 6), a First Partial Satisfaction of Judgment on November 4, 2011 (Exhibit 7), and a Full Satisfaction of Judgment on November 10, 2011.  Exhibit 8.

Judge Eadie Silent About His Windermere Connection.  DeCourseys did not learn of Judge Eadie’s Windermere connection until the week of August 6, 2012, whereupon they immediately filed a motion for Judge Eadie to recuse himself.  (Dkt. 196, 8/9/2012.)  As of this writing, Judge Eadie still has not recused himself or acknowledged his conflict of interest.

DeCourseys’ Political Activities.  During the course of the Windermere lawsuit, DeCourseys discovered that Windermere habitually violated Washington’s real estate and consumer protection laws, and that the Department of Licensing gave Windermere competitive advantage by routinely ignoring its infractions while sanctioning competitors.  DeCourseys also learned that the Attorney General’s Office was complicit in this preferential enforcement of Washington law.

DeCourseys found other people who had been similarly victimized by Windermere.  DeCourseys put the information of the earlier cases and Windermere’s abuses on a webpage,[3], and engaged in a vigorous lobbying and public information campaign advocating for equal enforcement of Washington’s real estate and consumer protection laws.  See one of DeCourseys’ informational fliers, “Legalizing Crime in Washington: The Windermere Prototype.” Exhibit 9.  See also Seattle Weekly, May 1, 2009, “Boats and Bridges and Protests, Oh, My!”  Exhibit 10.

Windermere agents and brokers have routinely held a majority of positions on the Washington Real Estate Commission, though at this writing they hold only two, possibly as a result of DeCourseys’ reform efforts.

Thus DeCourseys, by lobbying for enforcement of state laws (and equal enforcement of state laws), were engaged in activities that threatened Windermere’s competitive advantage and its economic interests.

Much of this information was included in DeCourseys answer and counterclaim to Lane Powell.  (Dkt. 8, 10/25/2011).  Supplementary information was included in DeCourseys’ motions in November 2011 (see below).  Judge Eadie was fully informed of the threat DeCourseys posed to his wife’s employer.  But while Judge Eadie grew more informed, he stayed silent on his own Windermere connection and his own economic interest in the proceeding and the parties. 

Clear and Present Danger to Judge Eadie’s Economic Interests. DeCourseys’ first motion in the Lane Powell case informed Judge Eadie that DeCourseys – in present time – were engaged in lobbying and public information activities that were adverse to Windermere’s marketing image (and thus Judge Eadie’s) economic interests.  (Dkt. 11, 11/3/2011, Pages 15, 16).  DeCourseys cited their webpage,, a storehouse of documents and information.  DeCourseys revealed to Judge Eadie their opposition to Windermere’s friends and supporters in government, including the staff in the Department of Licensing (DOL) and the Office of the Attorney General (AGO).  (Exhibit 9, which appeared as an exhibit for Dkt. 16, 11/ 9/2011, Page 3, Lines 8-17).  DeCourseys informed Judge Eadie that they and other Windermere victims had sparked a State Auditor’s investigation into the DOL and AGO. (Dkt. 24, 11/21/2011, Page 4, Lines 13-19).

In their pleadings before Judge Eadie’s court, DeCourseys submitted evidence of the close ties between Grant Degginger of Lane Powell (who was directly responsible for Lane Powell’s conduct during the Windermere lawsuit) and the Attorney General’s office.  (Dkt. 24, 11/21/2011, Page 4. Lines  20-26.)

The Heart Follows the Purse.  Windermere has been a benefactor to the Eadie family for almost a decade.  In an extension of self-interest, many people become sympathetic to their employers and the employers of their spouses.  It is understandable that Judge Eadie would want DeCourseys disadvantaged, given their continued opposition to, and activism against, the Windermere nexus.  A reasonable person, aware of the above facts, would believe that Judge Eadie had a predisposition to see that the contested money from the Windermere lawsuit was taken from DeCourseys.

Lane Powell has argued in opposition to DeCourseys’ recent motion to recuse Judge Eadie that Lane Powell was as antagonistic to Windermere as DeCourseys.  (Dkt. 218, 8/15/2012, Page 4, Lines 5, 6.)  This is not true—see below, “Lane Powell’s Malpractice Benefited Windermere.”  But it is also irrelevant.  Judge Eadie’s a conflict of interest would disqualify him regardless of the number of parties in the suit who were antagonistic to Windermere.  The Rules do not provide for an exception where the judge is equally prejudiced against all parties. 

Moreover, Lane Powell’s nominal antagonism to Windermere ceased with the termination of the Windermere lawsuit.  DeCourseys’ opposition to Windermere’s network of corruption continues into present time.

Thus Judge Eadie was not only prejudiced against DeCourseys personally – he had a personal interest in seeing the DeCourseys lost their struggle with Lane Powell.   Windermere has not announced reform of its business practices and DeCourseys’ opposition to the complicit government agencies is still active and on-going.  It is axiomatic that, to the extent DeCourseys are stripped of their Windermere awards, DeCourseys will be less able to draw public attention to the wrongdoing of the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Licensing, and their preferential treatment of Windermere.

            Any reasonable person would believe that Judge Eadie had an undisclosed conflict of interest and should have recused himself.  At the very least, he should have disclosed his connection to Windermere as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

Partiality and Prejudice

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires:

Rule 1.2.  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.[4]

Rule 1.3. Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office.  A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

Rule 2.2.  Impartiality and Fairness.  A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.[5]

Rule 2.3.  Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment. (A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice. (B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so. (C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.[6]

Manifest Prejudice:  Dismissal of DeCourseys’ Counterclaims.  Judge Eadie is familiar with DeCourseys’ claims and documentation showing that Lane Powell betrayed its fiduciary duty, violated its contract with DeCourseys, and committed acts of malpractice to Windermere’s benefit.  (For example, Dkt. 8, 10/25/2011; Dkt. 21, 11/15/2011; Dkt. 54, 12/19/2011, Pages 6-7; Dkt. 67, 1/3/2012, Pages 2-4; Dkt. 158, 7/3/2012, Pages 5, 6; Dkt. 173, 7/13/2012, Page 4.)[7]

Yet on July 6, 2012 (Dkt. 162), Judge Eadie dismissed DeCourseys’ counterclaims and affirmative defenses on what surely are contrived grounds.  See below.

Attorney Client Privilege. From the date of filing the lawsuit (October, 5, 2011), Lane Powell has attacked DeCourseys’ attorney-client privilege.  On October 5, 2011, Lane Powell served a set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.  Dkt. 1a.  Had DeCourseys answered those requests, they would have waived their attorney client privilege.  Instead, DeCourseys waived privilege only on specific subjects relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties pursuant to ER 502, and reserved all other privileged material and information in pursuant to CR 26(b), ER 502, and Pappas v. Holloway. 

In its subsequent pleadings, Lane Powell insisted DeCourseys had waived privileges, but Judge Eadie’s orders contained no such ruling.  

·         On December 6, 2011, DeCourseys filed a motion requesting Judge Eadie announce his position on DeCourseys’ alleged waiver of privilege for all to see (Dkt. 38, 12/6/2011.  Attached as Exhibit 11.  

·         On December 16, 2011, Judge Eadie denied that motion, giving no explanation. (Dkt. 53, 12/16/2011, Exhibit 12)  Why would any judge refuse to clarify his orders?

·         On December 12, 2011, Judge Eadie ordered, in part:

 … and therefore the case schedule and civil rules will govern discovery. (Dkt. 44, 12/12/2011, Exhibit 13).

·         On February 3, 2012, Judge Eadie ordered DeCourseys to provide “full and complete responses” to Lane Powell’s discovery requests, but did not address CR 26(b), ER 502, and Pappas v. Holloway.  He did not rule DeCourseys’ privilege had been waived.  (Dkt. 93, 2/3/2012).

·         On February 13, 2012 DeCourseys asked Judge Eadie for clarification of his position on DeCourseys’ privilege, choosing language designed to elicit Judge Eadie’s  specific response to the issue of privilege. (Dkt. 97, 2/13/2012).   

·         On March 2, 2012, Judge Eadie ordered:

… That DeCourseys must respond to discovery requests in full with evidence and materials in accordance with this court’s order of 2/3/2012 in accordance with CR 26(b) and ER 502.  (Dkt. 98, 3/2/2012, Exhibit 14; the signature is dated February 29, 2012).   

Thus, Judge Eadie confirmed DeCourseys’ privilege. 

·         On March 14, DeCourseys submitted to Judge Eadie a 146-page brief detailing, with attachments, DeCourseys discovery responses to date – more than 12,000 pages of responsive documents.  (Dkt. 103, 3/14/2012.)

·         On April 27, 2012, Judge Eadie ordered for the first time,

… those [discovery] answers shall be made on the basis that that the attorney-client privilege between Plaintiff and Defendants has been waived …  (Dkt. 106A, 4/27/2012, Exhibit 15; the signature is dated April 25, 2012).

(Note use of past tense “has been waived,” as if the waiver happened in the past.  But no orders had been issued between March 2 and April 27.)  Judge Eadie also held DeCourseys in contempt and sanctioned them for not having surrendered the privileged documents earlier.

·         On July 6, 2012, after DeCourseys had appealed the April 27 ruling to the Court of Appeals, Judge Eadie issued an order and wrote: 

The discovery violations by Defendants are substantial and have been repeated despite this court’s orders to compel . . . After considerable reflection on this case, the Court is unable to conceive of any lesser action than striking Defendants’ counterclaims and affirmative defenses that has any reasonable prospect of permitting plaintiff to proceed to trial on the merits of its claim.  (Dkt. 164, 7/6/2012.)

Note:  Judge Eadie expressed no interest in the merits of DeCourseys’ claims or the more than 12,000 pages of responsive documents DeCourseys had produced.  In point of fact, Judge Eadie had no knowledge of the truth of Lane Powell’s complaints of discovery violations, and had never appointed a master to review the controversy or the documents involved.

Thus, prior to April 27, Judge Eadie both refused and avoided answering questions on whether he had waived DeCourseys’ privilege.  Instead, he subtly encouraged DeCourseys to assert privilege by referring to and citing the rules on privilege.   Then on April 27 he reversed himself.  Finally, on July 6, Judge Eadie dismissed DeCourseys’ counterclaims “on the basis” of his non sequitur April 27 ruling.

Again, Judge Eadie was familiar with DeCourseys’ documented claims that Lane Powell violated its contract, breached its fiduciary duty, and committed malpractice that advantaged Windermere.  A reasonable person, trying to find some rationality in Judge Eadie’s rulings on privilege and knowing his conflict of interest, might suspect that he planned a discovery “trap” for the DeCourseys from the beginning -- as a mechanism for ultimately dismissing DeCourseys’ counterclaims.

Lane Powell Threatens to Abuse Process (Extortion).  On October 6, 2011, one day after filing suit, Lane Powell counsel, Robert Sulkin, phoned Paul Fogarty, Esq. who had been representing DeCourseys in negotiations with Lane Powell.  In that 10/6/2011 call, Sulkin threatened that Lane Powell “would pay $800,000 in fees in this suit to recover $300,000.”  That is, Sulkin threatened to “harass” and “needlessly increase the costs of litigation” (as prohibited by CR 11) to induce DeCourseys to pay Lane Powell’s demands.  DeCourseys regarded this as extortion and reported the threat to Judge Eadie with supporting documentation.  On at least six occasions, DeCourseys presented this documentation to Judge Eadie.  (Dkt. 54, Exh. 8, 12/19/201; Dkt. 103, Exh. L, 3/14/2012; Dkt. 135, Exh. R, 6/13/2012; Dkt. 152, 6/29/2011; Dkt. 158, Exh. BB, 7/3/2012; Dkt. 165, Exh. 6, 7/9/2012; Dkt. 176, Exh. F, 7/16/2012.)  But Judge Eadie apparently found no fault with Lane Powell’s threat: he neither commented nor took action.  DeCourseys consider Judge Eadie’s tacit approval of Lane Powell’s threat is more evidence of his prejudice against DeCourseys.

More Evidence of Prejudice Against DeCourseys.  Judge Eadie has denied every DeCoursey motion but one, and in that motion, sua sponte, struck out a key provision (on preserving the confidentiality of privileged materials produced In discovery) when the motion was unopposed.  (Dkt. 35, 11/30/2011).  Judge Eadie has twice permitted Lane Powell to file untimely oppositions to DeCourseys’ motions (without seeking court permission), ruling in both cases for Lane Powell.  (Dkt. 23, 11/18/2011 and Dkt. 44, 12/12/2011.)  He has refused to levy sanctions against Lane Powell for refusing to confer during discovery (Dkt. 23, 11/18/2011) and for serving improper discovery requests (Dkt. 23, 11/18/2011).  On December 12, 2011, Judge Eadie refused to hold a CR 26(f) court-supervised discovery conference (Dkt. 44, 12/12/2011).  On April 27, 2012, Judge Eadie found DeCourseys in contempt for failing to comply with orders he had not issued, and for failing to comply with an order that was still under reconsideration.  (Dkt. 106A, 4/27/2012).  On May 2, 2012 when he finally ruled ex post facto on the reconsideration, he left in place the order of contempt from a week earlier.  (Dkt. 120, 5/2/2012).

Conversely, Judge Eadie has granted every Lane Powell motion, save one (Dkt. 227,  8/17/2012)), denied only after DeCourseys pointed out his record of never denying a Lane Powell motion (DeCourseys’ statement appears in Motion to Vacate and Recuse of 8/9/2012, Dkt. 196).  Judge Eadie has permitted Lane Powell to lie to the Court about fact, law, and previous court orders, found excuses for the lies, or just plain ignored them.  (Dkt. 161, 7/3/2012; Dkt. 167, 6/29/2012; Dkt. 164, 7/6/2012; Dkt. 185, 7/27/2012; Dkt. 187, 8/2/2012; Dkt. 190A, 8/6/2012.  He has granted a Lane Powell motion (containing proven untruths) for fees and costs that does not meet the Washington standard for fee motions. (Dkt. 155, 6/29/2012.)  

Judge Eadie has even attacked the appeals system, holding DeCourseys in contempt for posting a supersedeas bond and filing for discretionary review with the Court of Appeals. (Dkt. 167, 7/11/2012.)  He also held DeCourseys in contempt in part for requesting accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act.  Dkt. 106A, 4/27/2012.

Prejudice Against Disabled Persons.  The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge not manifest bias or prejudice or engage in harassment (CJC 2.3(B)).  Harassment is defined as “verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex ….disability….” (CJC 2.3, Comment 3).

·         On January 3, 2012, DeCourseys made requests for accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA).

·         On January 18, 2012, having heard nothing from Judge Eadie, DeCourseys asked Judge Eadie’s bailiff to look into the delay.

·         On January 30, 2012, having heard nothing from Judge Eadie, DeCourseys asked the Clerk of the Court to look into the delay.

·         On April 10, 2012, Assistant Presiding Judge Palmer Robinson issued a directive in response to DeCourseys’ ADAAA accommodation requests.[8]  The directive stated:

All court rules, orders, and instructions will be enforced equally. . . Court orders and instructions will be provided in clear unambiguous language . . . There will be no . . . deception . . . of any witness or party by anyone.  (Page 1.)

·         On April 27, 2012, Judge Eadie held DeCourseys in contempt and sanctioned with these words: 

This Court . . . having considered the ADA accommodation request of Defendants, now therefore . . . Defendants refusal to comply with this Court’s Orders referenced above has been without has been without reasonable cause or justification and therefore is willful and deliberate and has prejudiced Plaintiff’s preparation of this case… (Dkt. 106A, 4/27/2012). 

Judge Eadie appended Judge Robinson’s April 10 directive to his April 27 order. In his own language, he made it clear he was sanctioning DeCourseys after “having considered” those ADAAA requests. (Dkt. 106A, 4/27/2012).

NOTE:  When Judge Eadie held DeCourseys in contempt and sanctioned them on April 27 for not having complied with his discovery ruling(s), he did not reference any prior rulings on waiver of privilege – he COULD not reference any such rulings because HE HAD MADE NONE.  Nor did he make any reference to Washington law concerning privilege:  CR 26C, ER 502, or the Pappas v. Holloway precedent. 

Violating His Own Court Order.  Judge Eadie also violated Judge Robinson’s April 10 directive, which he himself had included in his order of April 27 (Dkt. 106A).  He does not enforce court rules equally, refused to clarify his orders, allowed deception, and himself adopted and forwarded Lane Powell’s deception.  See below. 

Accepting False Statements.  As motioned above, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to uphold the law and rules of the court (CJC 1.1), and enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct on the lawyers (CJC 2.15(B)).  The latter Rule requires:

CJC 2.15(B) A judge, having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects should inform the appropriate authority.

CJC 2.15(D) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action.

            Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “Candor Toward The Tribunal,” requires:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client unless such disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6; (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, and (c) If the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall promptly disclose this fact to the tribunal unless such disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Demonstration of Prejudice –No Action Against Lane Powell.  Probably the most convincing evidence of this judge’s bias is the fact that he has allowed Lane Powell’s attorneys to repeatedly make false statements to the court despite overwhelming proof that those statements were false, granted the motions based on those false statements, refused to sanction Lane Powell, and then ordered DeCourseys to pay Lane Powell’s attorneys for abusing the courts in this fashion.  DeCourseys carefully documented those false statements for the court.  Dkt. 161, 7/3/2012; Dkt. 164, 7/6/2012; Dkt. 167, 7/11/2012; Dkt. 185, 7/27/2012; Dkt. 187, 8/2/2012; Dkt. 190A, 8/6/2012.  Despite all, Judge Eadie has never warned Lane Powell, admonished it, or sanctioned it for those false statements.

False Statements about Primary Events.  In further perjury, Lane Powell’s attorneys Sulkin, Eaton, & Montgomery state in their  Opposition to DeCourseys’ 8/9/2012 Motion to Vacate and Recuse:  “Lane Powell filed and served an attorneys lien in the Windermere lawsuit after judgment had been entered against Windermere.”  (Dkt. 218, 8/15/2012, Page 4, Lines 12-14)

As “proof,” Lane Powell’s attorneys cite to Lane Powell’s lien, clearly dated August 3, 2011, attached as Exhibit A to the Opposition.  Dkt. 218.  But the Amended Final Judgment was filed on November 3, 2011.  Exhibit 6.  August comes before November.  So no, Lane Powell did not file its lien after judgment had been entered.  Lane Powell filed its lien before judgment had been entered.

Sulkin, Eaton, & Montgomery also state:  “In fact, before this lawsuit had even begun, Windermere was obligated and (eventually did) pay the judgment against it.”  This is another lie.  Lane Powell filed its lawsuit on October 5, 2011.  Dkt. 1.   The First Partial Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on November 4, 2011.  Exhibit 7.  October comes before November.  Thus Windermere did not pay a penny until well after Lane Powell filed this lawsuit.  These facts were presented to Judge Eadie (Dkt. 225) but he ignored them and tolerated Lane Powell’s lies.

Lying to the court is perjury.  RCW 9A.72.  A judge who allows attorneys to lie in his court is aiding and abetting such perjury and denigrates the court system in the eyes of the public.   Yet Judge Eadie has permitted Lane Powell’s lying, granted Lane Powell’s motions based on the lies, and refused to acknowledge the lies when brought to his attention, and ordered DeCourseys to pay Lane Powell’s fees for doing so.  Dkt. 180, 7/26/2012; Dkt. 188, 8/3/2012; Dkt. 190A, 8/6/2012.  This is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Untrue Statement That Lane Powell Was Prejudiced.  On July 6, 2012, Judge Eadie struck DeCourseys’ counterclaims and affirmative defenses on the grounds that DeCourseys would not produce in discovery the privileged documents that Lane Powell requested, and that Lane Powell was thereby prejudiced and “compromise[d]” in its preparation for trial.  (Dkt. 164) Judge Eadie wrote:

The discovery violations by Defendants are substantial and have been repeated despite this court’s orders to compel.  The imposition of further deadlines would not be likely to result in meaningful compliance.  The discovery sought by Plaintiffs is clearly material to its case and to its defense of Defendant’s counter claims and affirmative defenses.  After considerable reflection on this case, the Court is unable to conceive of any lesser sanctions than striking Defendant’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses that has any reasonable prospect permitting Plaintiff to proceed to trial on the merits of its clam in a reasonably timely manner.

But several days later, on July 9, 2012, Lane Powell admitted in its Answer to DeCourseys’ Second Motion for Stay of Orders to the Court of Appeals that it already had the documents it claimed it was prejudiced by not having. 

… The DeCourseys, of course, hold the privilege (not Lane Powell) and their continued (albeit improper) assertion of the privilege needlessly complicates Lane Powell’s use of documents in its possession in this litigation ... (Dkt. 173, Page 2, Lines 3-22, Exh. B, emphasis added.)

Thereby, Lane Powell admitted it was not prejudiced for lack of those documents because it already possessed them.

·         On July 13, 2012, in DeCourseys’ Motion to Reconsider Order Denying DeCourseys’ Motion for CR 11 Sanctions  (Dkt. 173, 7/13/2012), Judge Eadie was told about and shown Lane Powell’s statement to the Court of Appeals, and informed of the judicial estoppel of Lane Powell’s arguments.

·         Again, on July 16, 2012, in DeCourseys’ Motion to Reconsider Order Filed July 6, 2012 Striking DeCourseys’ Claims an Offenses (Dkt. 174, 7/16/2012), Judge Eadie was again told about, and shown, Lane Powell’s July 9, 2012 statement to the Court of Appeals, thus:

… The DeCourseys, of course, hold the privilege (not Lane Powell) and their continued (albeit improper) assertion of the privilege needlessly complicates Lane Powell’s use of documents in its possession in this litigation ... (Dkt.174, Page 2 Lines 25-26, Exh. C, emphasis added.)

Question For The Logical Mind.  If Lane Powell (a) already possesses the contested materials, and if (b) in fact and law DeCourseys have already waived ALL privilege,  (c) what prevents Lane Powell from using those materials in any way it deems appropriate?  Why does Lane Powell state that DeCourseys can still “assert[] the privilege”?  Why do Judge Eadie and Lane Powell claim DeCourseys are prejudicing Lane Powell by withhold documents it already possesses, and use that to justify striking DeCourseys counterclaims and defenses?

One obvious consequence of the July 6 order is that the trial will now not be conducted on the merits.  In one stroke, the opponents of Windermere, the Eadie family, and Lane Powell are stripped of a large portion of the Windermere award without the facts coming to light – the triers of fact will never hear the facts.

Judge Eadie Certifies the Lies.  On August 2, 2012, despite after having been exposed twice to Lane Powell’s statement that it already had the contested materials, Judge Eadie wrote: 

Both before and after the entry of the July 6, 2012 Order, this Court has given substantial thought to the incentives that might persuade Defendants to engage in good-faith discovery, but on this record there is apparently nothing that the Court can do that would have that result …

Clearly, on August 2, 2012 Judge Eadie had been told and shown twice that Lane Powell already possessed the documents it claimed it was prejudiced by not having. That is, the alleged “discovery” violations by DeCourseys – refusing to give up privileged information protected by CR 26(b), ER 502, and the Pappas v. Holloway precedent -- did not injure or prejudice Lane Powell.

Judge Eadie has prejudicially assisted Lane Powell by dismissing DeCourseys’ malpractice and breach of contract counterclaims against Lane Powell, which benefited Windermere, Judge Eadie’s wife’s employer, at the cost of truth and justice.

Yet Another Lie Certified by Judge Eadie.  But let’s go earlier.  On July 6, 2012 (Dkt. 164, Page 4, Lines 13-15).  Judge Eadie endorsed as a “finding of fact:”  

19. The DeCourseys were aware of each of the court’s discovery orders including the February 3, 2012 order, within the time to comply and never presented evidence of inability to comply. 

As already shown in this complaint, there are many things wrong with that statement.  But a new untruth is of particular interest.  DeCourseys wrote in their Response to the Motion for which this order was issued the following text (Dkt. 158, 7/3/2012, Page 7, Lines 10-16):

On November 3, 2011, DeCourseys filed a motion for discovery protection under CR 26(c). In that motion, DeCourseys provided this Court with documentation and explanation of the insurmountable difficulties of producing that volume of material. Dkt. 11. LP has since pretended on multiple occasions that DeCourseys “never presented evidence of the inability to comply.” For example, Exhibit V, “Finding of Fact” #19. The facts are quite the opposite, and that is only one of LP’s many misrepresentation to this Court.

The DeCourseys’ cited motion can be found at Dkt. 11, 11/3/2011.   Obviously Judge Eadie did not care or did not care to read DeCourseys’ pleading – or did not care about the truth or “factuality” of his own orders. 


Judge Eadie should have recused himself from Lane Powell PC vs. Mark DeCoursey and Carol DeCoursey.  As a result of his predisposition and prejudice against DeCourseys, he has demonstrated clear and unambiguous partiality to Lane Powell and prejudice against DeCourseys (1) who are pro se (2) who are disabled (3) who are opposed to the economic interests of his wife’s employer.  He has issued orders that are illogical and unjust and has abused his position of public trust.  His conduct brings disrepute to the Washington court system.

As of this date, August 31, 2012, Judge Eadie still has not recused himself nor even addressed the motion for recusal, noted for August 13, 2012.





[1] CJC 2.11 Comment [1] “Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply. In many jurisdictions in Washington, the term ‘recusal’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘disqualification.’”

   CJC 2.11 Comment [2] “A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed …”

   CJC 2.11 Comment [5] “A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.”

   CJC 2.11 Comment [6] “‘Economic interest,’ as set forth in the Terminology section, means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest. …”

[2] DeCourseys note the coincidence of having Lane Powell’s suit assigned to Judge Eadie, given his wife’s employment at Windermere.  DeCourseys question the method used in making this assignment.  There are approx. 30 judges on the bench in the Superior Court.  The chance of Judge Eadie being randomly assigned to Lane Powell v. DeCourseys is approx. 30-1.

[3] User ID: lemmesee | Password: Sg86{}

[4] Comment [3] states: “Conduct that compromises the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.”

Comment [5] states:  “Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.”

[5] Comment 1 states: [1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and openminded.  Comment [4] states:  It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

[6] Comment [1]states:  A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

[7] DeCourseys showed Judge Eadie that:  (1) Lane Powell attempted to negate DeCourseys pretrial advantage by insisting Windermere’s experts be admitted to their home after close of discovery.  DeCourseys refused – with the result that Windermere had no expert witnesses to present to the jury.  (2) On the eve the announcement of the jury verdict, Lane Powell recommended DeCourseys surrender and accept $250,000 from Windermere – a sum that would not even cover Lane Powell’s legal fees.  DeCourseys refused, and thus were awarded the $1.2 million victory – a victory Lane Powell claims was the result of its efforts.  (3) When DeCourseys spoke with Lane Powell’s Grant Degginger after the trial victory, Degginger told DeCourseys that the victory was “not good” for Lane Powell.   Obviously Lane Powell must not have wanted a victory that was not “good” for it.  (4) The trial judge ordered Windermere to pay 12% post judgment interest, but Lane Powell, without DeCourseys’ knowledge or consent, made an agreement with Windermere to accept 3.49% post judgment interest.  (5) When DeCourseys wanted Lane Powell to petition the Supreme Court and present evidence about the way in which Windermere was routinely flouting real estate and consumer protection laws with the complicity of the Department of Licensing and the Attorney General’s Office, was conducting scorched earth litigation and abusing court process – and thus gaining advantage over its competitors -- Lane Powell refused to so petition the Supreme Court.  Lane Powell’s Grant Degginger, then City Councilman/Mayor of Bellevue, shamelessly lied to DeCourseys, telling them that the Supreme Court had “no discretion” and pretended he didn’t know court precedents effectively “made” law.  (6) When DeCourseys fired Lane Powell on August 3, 2011, Lane Powell was still trying to give away more of the post-judgment interest due to DeCourseys.

[8] On May 24, 2012, DeCourseys asked Judge McDermott to properly enter DeCourseys’ ADAAA requests into the docket (Dkt. 127), and on June 5, 2012, the requests were entered under seal (Dkt. 129).