Here are a series of emails regarding accuracy and completeness of Renton Municipal COURT DOCKETS, as the Court is "a court of record" by Law. You can simply read them in sequence or link to any specific one using the navigation provided in the following paragraph.

Inez Petersen's original question dated 7/23/2005 3:49 PM
Go directly to RECAP
Judge Jurado's reply dated 7/23/2005 8:28 PM
Inez Petersen's reply dated 7/24/2005 12:03 AM
Judge Jurado's reply dated 7/24/2005 8:12 AM
Inez Petersen to Judge Jurado dated 07/24/2005 12:27 PM
Job Description for Renton Municipal Court Judge
Russ Wilson's reply dated 07/24/2005 9:31 PM
also includes additional side comments from Inez Petersen which indicate to her that
Russ Wilson does not know even basic information about criminal trespass defenses
Judge Jurado's reply dated 07/24/2005 10:07 PM
Inez Petersen to Judge Jurado dated 07/24/2005 11:17 PM
Judge Jurado's reply dated 07/25/2005 9:01 AM
Inez Petersen to Judge Jurado 07/25/2005 12:37 PM

ORIGINAL REQUEST (important questions at end of this note)

Subject: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 3:49 PM
From: Inez Petersen
To: Terry Jurado , Mychal Schwartz , Russ Wilson

Dear Judge Jurado, Mychal, and Russ:

I have another question for you about court dockets as they relate to the Renton Municipal Court being a "court of record."

Background on one COURT DOCKET which may be representative of RMC DOCKETS in general

Here's the background regarding the COURT DOCKET for CR0033767, the alleged theft of a 25-cent newspaper. You can obtain a copy of the COURT DOCKET from the Renton Municipal Court if you wish to verify entries [or lack thereof]. (The pages are attached to my email dated 24 Jul 2005 12:03 AM.) This particular DOCKET is used for "food for thought" as an historical backdrop for my question.

• The alleged newspaper theft covered by CR0033767 was witnessed only by Officer Ferguson and dispositioned by Judge Pro Tem Christie Cufley on 8-9-04, a few weeks after Ferguson was fired for misconduct. I believe Officer Ferguson purposefully used the wrong address on the citation. And I say purposefully because he knew the right address before and after 2/14/04, but he didn't use it on 2/14/04. And the Court had the correct address in its records and did NOT use it TWICE: (1) first, when it sent out the Summons and (2) second, when the Summons was returned as "undeliverable." See attached proof that the Court had the correct address as early as 12/09/03. Thus Aguilar was jailed on an FTA bench warrant issued because the Court made an error in addressing the Summons. Since the mayor knew Aguilar had been jailed due to an error in his address, I believe that Judge Jurado also knew it on 3/18/04, the day Aguilar was arraigned. Aguilar was the last person, not the first person, arraigned by Judge Jurado on 3/18/04. Aguilar not only had to spend a night in jail due to Court error; he had to spend all day in jail the next day too. According to Aguilar, Sasha Alessi denied him a public defender that day, even though every person before him had been assigned a public defender; Alessi told Aguilar he would have to stay in jail a few more days for the City to make arrangements for a PD.
   
• Proof that the Court had the correct address in its database as of 12/09/03 is provided here
   
• In an email to me on 3/04/05, Judge Jurado sidestepped the point that a citizen had been incarcerated due to Court error. This error has the constitutional implication of "denying a person an opportunity for a hearing." If a person doesn't know he has a hearing due to Court error, he sure can't be there at the appointed time and place, can he?
   
• But Judge Jurado skipped this important fact and instead directed attention to his belief that society will go to hell in a hand basket if EVERY crime in Renton regardless of "size-imus" isn't pursued to its judicial end. Judge Jurado's exact words in his email to were:
  "As a side note I feel after our communications that I comment regarding your position regarding the theft of a .25 cent newspaper. Theft is a crime. Irrespective of the value of the property pilfered, it is a crime. I believe that in the grand scheme of things if society, or individuals such as yourself excuses the thief whose crime was deminimis in terms of value it sends a message that it is okay to take property that does not belong to you. This attitude is contrary to maintaining any orderly society." --Judge Jurado
   
• I'd like to add that falsifying a police report is a crime too. And when I took the 911 report along with Officer Ferguson's report and the pictures he took, the story he told just didn't add up. For example, at the first recorded stop on 2/14/04, the alleged day of the crime, he parked his car 15 feet away from where he later said he found the stolen newspaper. And his car was about 30 feet away from the garbage can that supposedly held the bright blue plastic newspaper wrapper all nicely fanned out and visible. He could have easily seen both of these items IF they were really there when he first stopped Aguilar. And if he really saw Aguilar steal the paper as he said, this would have happened right before he parked his car, so there is no reason why he would not notice the "stolen goods" on his first stop, but this did not happen. The only explanation I can come up with is that he falsified the report and didn't get all his "facts" straight. And I believe Aguilar when he says that he did not steal the newspaper.

So now to my comments/opinion regarding the COURT DOCKET:

• On 3/01/04, Aguilar missed his arraignment because he didn't know there was one. Judge Pro Tem Christie Cufley went ahead and issued a bench warrant. The DOCKET indicates that the "city was not present." I guess Cufley is so good that she can play all the parts herself. Since the city was not present, where was the required affidavit or sworn testimony as required by CrRLJ RULE 2.2(a)(2)? The COURT DOCKET doesn't tell and there is no reference to a tape number.
   
• On 3/17/04 and 3/18/04, no entries were made denoting that there had been a Court error in the address used on the Summons. This was, however, mentioned in the arraignment on 3/18/04. I'd say this was a very important omission from the COURT DOCKET.
   
• On 3/18/04, an entry denotes that Aguilar appeared pro se but not why. He wasn't going to stay in jail "a few more days so that the City could make arrangements for a PD." No mention is made in the COURT DOCKET that he was denied a public defender, and any innocent citizen charged with such a petty crime would want one right away. If Alessi did what Aguilar says he did, then Alessi violated CrRLJ RULE 3.1, so perhaps there is a purpose in not documenting such actions in the COURT DOCKET.
   
• On 3/22/04, Rusnak made a request to track CR0033523 and CR0033767 together, and the City did not object. Just what does "track" mean? Does it mean "combine"? If so, this appears to violate CrRLJ RULE 4.3 (a) Subparagraphs (1) and (2) and CrRLJ RULE 4.3.1. The two cases, the first St. Anthony's trespass and the 25-cent newspaper case, were not of the same character or same conduct; the only thing they had in common was the defendant's name.
   
• On 6/30/04, the COURT DOCKET showed "Charge 1 dismissed W/O prejudice" and Rusnak motioned to "withdraw" and it was granted. Judge Jurado was presiding and this is recorded on Tape No. 3:45. This was done in a way that afforded Aguilar no knowledge even though he was in court that day. Were these motions done before the hearing actually started? Another irregularity not noted on the COURT DOCKET was the offer from the city prosecutor to drop the 25-cent newspaper case if Aguilar would plead guilty to criminal trespass when he was attending an adult Bible study class (and NEVER return to St. Anthony's Church again! How constitutional was that?). Don't COURT RULES require that such proposals/agreements be made part of the court record?
   
• On 6/30/04, after Rusnak withdrew, there are additional motions on the COURT DOCKET from both sides, indicating that the case over the 25-cent newspaper charge had NOT been dismissed after all. So the question is: WHO was representing Aguilar after Rusnak withdrew? Rusnak had already made a motion to withdraw and it was granted by Judge Jurado.
   
• On 7/01/04, there is a COURT DOCKET entry showing Rusnak was "removed" from the case. This confirms in my mind that Aguilar did not have a legally appointed public defender during the previous day's hearing AFTER Rusnak had withdrawn. BUT there are several entires in the COURT DOCKET for 07/01/04 indicating that Aguilar did require an attorney; i.e., the motion indicating the case disposition was changed to OPEN. It looks like Judge Jurado was in charge, but Aguilar did not have hearing that day and was not in court that day.
   
• On 8/11/04, the COURT DOCKET shows that Rusnak was "removed" again. But when was he reinstated, if in fact he ever was reinstated? This begs the question about who was legally representing Aguilar on 8/9/04 in the final hearing on this citation where Judge Pro Tem Christie Cufley presided.
   
• On 7/20/04, the DOCKET shows that Rusnak was added as a "participant." Was this an "ooops" entry to cover up the fact that Aguilar did not have a legally assigned public defender during the period 6/30/04 through 7/20/04? No comment required.
   
• On 8/9/04, the COURT DOCKET shows that court proceedings were held, Judge Pro Tem Christie Cufley presiding. If the COURT DOCKET is correct, may I ask who was defending Aguilar on 8/9/04 since Rusnak had withdrawn according to the 7/01/04 COURT DOCKET entry? The answer depends on the definition of "Participant" from the COURT DOCKET entry made on 7/01/04.
   
• On 8/9/04 Judge Pro Tem Christie Cufley dismissed the newspaper charge WITHOUT prejudice. No mention was made in the COURT DOCKET about Aguilar spending time in jail, nor did Cufley mention this fact in court that day. CrRLJ RULE 7.2 indicates that generally the court shall state the precise terms of the sentence, which shall include credit for all time spent in custody in connection with the offense. Certainly Aguilar's "time served" should have been taken into account regarding Cufley's determination to dismiss the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, which allowed the charge to be reinstated at the whim of the city prosecutor. Isn't 24 hours in jail due to Court error enough penalty for a 25-cent newspaper Aguilar did not steal--enough to warrant a complete dismissal? No comment required.

I look to Cr RLJ Rule 1.2 where court proceedings, including COURT RULES, are intended "to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding." COURT RULES, the same as the hearings, should be construed "to secure simplicity in procedures, fairness in administration, effective justice, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay."
 

If you are elected to the position of Renton Municipal Court Judge,

• Do you believe that improvements can be made in the accuracy and completeness of COURT DOCKETS?
   
• And if so, how do you plan to effect these improvements?
   
• Do you believe that training court personal, including judges pro tem, regarding COURT RULES would be helpful?

Sincerely,
Inez Somerville Petersen

Subject: RE: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 8:28 PM
From: Terry Jurado
To: webgirl@seanet.com

Ms. Petersen:

Not only do you continually impugn the integrity of the Renton Municipal Court, and me as the judge, you now impugn the integrity of the clerks who work very hard to insure that dockets properly reflect the proceedings of the court. You have now included the court clerks in your persistent conspiracy theories. This conduct not only does a disservice to hard working servants of the City of Renton, but erodes your credibility as a community advocate.

Terry Jurado, Judge

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:03 AM
From: Inez Petersen
To: Terry Jurado

Backup documents [it's is hard to diminish what happened when the proof is staring you in the face!]
Proper Notice of Hearing Requires - news article
Citation which was the basis for the COURT DOCKET being discussed
Officer purposely used wrong address on the Citation
Proof of Address which the Court did NOT use in issung the Summons
Page 1 of COURT DOCKET in question
Page 2 of COURT DOCKET in question
Page 3 of COURT DOCKET in question
Page 4 of COURT DOCKET in question

In reference to my email of the same subject dated Sat, 23 Jul 2005 3:49 PM, I seem to have hit your hot button. But just what did I say that wasn't true or wasn't an appropriate question to ask? Your use of the word "impugn" is inappropriate. The employees in your department may be working hard, but does that mean that they don't leadership which will help them improve the judicial process?

Why don't you speak to the real issues which have nothing to do with me? I'll attach the COURT DOCKET for CR0033767 (the 25-cent newspaper case), this was the court docket I used as an example in my earlier email.

A man was jailed on a FTA bench warrant because YOU issued a Summons with the wrong address on it, when you had the correct address in your court database. Rather than missing his arraignment hearing, I believe the man was denied an opportunity for a hearing. That is quite a different and much more serious matter. See attached related news article regarding the constitutional implications of denying a person the opportunity for a hearing.

I called the mayor at 4:30 pm on 3/17/04 as soon as I learned Aguilar had been jailed on a FTA bench warrant. And by 5:30 pm, Detective Frazier (who was purporting himself to be the acting police chief) had confirmed that the wrong address was used on the citation and the summons. The City of Renton made an error which caused a man to be falsely incarcerated, and the City could have released him as soon as this error was discovered, but that didn't happen. He was kept in jail all night and all day. I believe you knew of the address error on the morning of 3/18/04, the recording of the hearing can confirm this (if the recording is audible); yet you arraigned Aguilar last, not first. And his option was to appear pro se or to stay in jail for several more days while arrangments were made for a PD--not an appropriate choice considering the circumstances! I don't think my credibility is in question here. It is more a case of exposing circumstances that you would rather not acknowledge or discuss. It certainly is no "conspiracy theory."

My goal is to develop a set of questions by which I can determine which candidate to support. I think I have every right to ask the questions I'm asking, especially since they are based upon my own personal observations and experiences in your court.

I do not view myself as a community advocate. I retired from that role when Aguilar was found not guilty of the second St Anthony's trespass. I do, however, view myself as an inquiring citizen who is very interested in the race for Renton Municipal Court judge. I'm just trying to determine who I think would be the best Renton Municipal Court judge.

Terry Persson, Charles Doyle and myself would like to meet with you to discuss some of our questions. Are you amenable to this?

Sincerely,
Inez Somerville Petersen

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 8:12 AM
From: Terry Jurado
To: webgirl@seanet.com

Briefly, it is a hot button for me when anybody attacks the court clerks. I do not review the dockets that are prepared by these fine employees. To do so would take up most if not all of my day. Instead I trust the information that goes into the docket to be an accurate account of the proceedings. Regarding the "issues" you say I have not responded to, you know that I have answered these "issues" exhaustively. The fact that you do not agree with or accept the fact that the procedures were followed and that I do not have a personal interest in any case that comes before me does not translate into me failing to respond. I fully intend to make all e-mails you have sent and that I have responded to public. Clearly, I have responded and to say otherwise is simply not true.

Terry Jurado, Judge

Subject: RE: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 9:31 PM
From: Russell Wilson
Reply-To:
To: 'Inez Petersen'

Dear Ms. Petersen,

I've been observing with interest your debate with judge Jurado over the issues you have raised. I will offer these limited comments. First, and probably the only time, I will agree with Judge Jurado. The clerks in the Renton Municipal Court are among the best, if not the best, I have ever worked with. If a mistake was made it was likely not theirs. As far as the other issues, first most courts have in place a system that verifies the accuracy of the address before a warrant is issued. I am unaware of the system in Judge Jurado's Court so I cannot say whether it was followed or not. I can say that the other judges I have practiced in front of made sure the verification was done, usually by the prosecutor.

Regarding the actual trespass, the law states that a government has the same right to control access to its property as does a private person. I offer no opinion on the facts of Mr. Aguilar's case. but if you as a private person believe you should have been able to trespass Mr. Aguilar, apply your rights to that of Renton.

Russ

OOOPS! Russ, the subject of the example COURT DOCKET was not criminal trespass. CR0033767 concerns the alleged theft of a 25-cent newspaper by a Christian homeless friend of mine, a "crime" witnessed only the police officer who was fired for misconduct a few weeks before the last hearing on this citation.

Here are some additional comments for Russ, and if Russ wants to discuss criminal trespass along with COURT DOCKETS, Inez can do that too.

I don't disagree with anyone regarding Renton Municipal Court clerks being great employees. But I think I made a strong argument that some leadership and training in the area of COURT DOCKET preparation might be a consideration. Accuracy and completeness of COURT DOCKETS are a responsibility which falls at the feet of the Renton Municipal Court judge, as does the responsibility for accurate and complete audio recordings of hearings. Ensuring that the RMC is truly a "court of record" should not be approached lightly or abrogated by "being too busy." Judge Jurado earns over $9,000 a MONTH for his services.

There can be no debate regarding whether the Court had Aguilar's correct mailing address on 2/14/04, the enclosed COURT DOCKET proves this fact. Imprisoning a man because the Court didn't use the correct address on a Summons when it had the correct address in its database is a terrible thing; and responsibility for this error falls at the feet of the Renton Municipal Court judge. Instead of owning up to this error and sharing his plan to preclude such errors in the future, Judge Jurado has consistently avoided any comment and diverted the focus to me by indicating that he has repeatedly answered my inquiries and I'm just not listening.

General comments about criminal trespass from church services

If we are talking in general terms about a criminal trespass from a church, Article 1, Section11 of the State Constitution guarantees absolute freedom religion. The following indicates to me that no one can be trespassed from a church service or church activity like a Bible study class, or in other words molested or disturbed in person, unless that person has a record of being a pervert.

In conjunction with the above section of the State Constitution, we must consider Subparagraph (2) from RCW 9A.52.090, Criminal Trespass Defenses: "The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises . . . " So if a citizen is attending a church service or a Bible study class open to the public, and he is following the same rules of behavior as those members of the public worshiping beside him, and if he has no criminal history of licentiousness, then he can't be criminally trespassed from church. He has absolute freedom of worship.

General comments about criminal trespass from public property

If a person is to be criminally trespassed from public property, the same defense referenced in the previous paragraph applies: "The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises . . . " If the person is not misbehaving, regardless of whether he is homeless or not, it would be discriminatory to trespass that person from public property.

Certainly you must look with a jaundice eye at any criminal trespass initiated by a Parks Department employee for the life of the "offender" which involves no due process whatsoever. I've always expected that the Municipal Court Judge would uphold the US and State Constitutions in all cases.

The Parks Department Suspension Form also requires a person to sign a self-incriminating statement. And if long-term banishment's are being imposed, I would expect the Municipal Court Judge to take a stand on the constitutionality of this Parks Department practice.

I look forward to meeting you in person. Let me know when you have about 30-40 minutes to meet with myself, Terry Persson, and Charles Doyle. Don't listen to any negative statements people like Dan Clawson might make about me; he calls me the "Inquisitor of Renton." I think I am more informed than the average Renton resident, but I'm no inquisitor.

By the way, I notice that your signs are now being "enhanced" by notices that you are supported by Renton firefighters and policemen. I've always looked at such endorsements as a "kiss of death," because people wonder what you will owe these groups after you are elected.

Sincerely,
Inez Petersen

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:27 PM
From: Inez Petersen
To: Terry Jurado
CC: Mychal Schwartz , Russ Wilson

Dear Judge Jurado:

My recent emails to the three judicial candidates are my means of determining which candidate to support. And I think I'm asking relevant questions. Answer them or not, think about them or not . . . the choice belongs to you and to the other two candidates.

It is not my intent to attack you or your staff. I based my statements upon court hearings where I was in attendance or from public court records. And based upon these experiences and documents from the past, I posed questions regarding how the court will operate in the future. I think voters, if they had the same information at their disposal, would be asking the same questions.

Making my emails public is fine; that's not a threat to me. You can use my Renton Political Action Network if you like. Anyone can post information there simply by addressing an email to Renton-Political-Action-Network@yahoogroups.com

In May 2004, I obtained from the city clerk a copy of the job description for the Renton Municipal Court Judge. I have copied the job description after your last email message below. Granted this applied to the judgeship when it was an appointed position, but isn't the job description essentially the same today?

I'm sure your employees are "fine employees." That court clerk who sits at the first window on the left has been most helpful every time I've been to the third floor, and Joe McGuire has been very helpful too. But it isn't a question about the caliber of employees, it's a question about the Municipal Court Judge's internal procedures governing the creation of accurate and complete COURT DOCKETS. Thus, I asked the following questions, none of which violate CANON 7 of the CJC:

If you are elected to the position of Renton Municipal Court Judge,

• Do you believe that improvements can be made in the accuracy and completeness of COURT DOCKETS?
• And if so, how do you plan to effect these improvements?
• Do you believe that training court personal, including judges pro tem, regarding COURT RULES would be helpful?

Are you willing to meet with Terry, Charles, and myself? If so, please give me several choices for date and time, and I will coordinate with the others.

Sincerely,
Inez Somerville Petersen

Job Description for Municipal Court Judge obtained from City Clerk CITY OF RENTON
CLASS TITLE: MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE (JL-1020)
asterisk DENOTES ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS

BASIC FUNCTION:
Preside over and adjudicate a variety of hearings and trials related to criminal and civil cases in accordance with established legal procedures as prescribed in Washington State law; impose appropriate sentences and penalties as prescribed by law; communicate with other City, County and State criminal justice agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:

• *Direct and control the proceedings and personnel involved in court hearings and trials including prosecuting and defense attorneys, defendants, witnesses, court clerks and others; preside over a variety of Municipal Court hearings and trials in criminal and civil cases in accordance with Washington State law.
• *Preside over and adjudicate court and jury trials, pretrials, arraignments, post-conviction reviews and other hearings.
• *Review and sign warrants and other documents; research legal issues and maintain current knowledge of legislative changes impacting Municipal Court procedures.
• *Hear, try and adjudicate a variety of misdemeanor cases related to criminal, traffic and parking violations including mitigation and contested hearings.
• *Hear and make appropriate determinations in response to civil petitions for protection in domestic violence cases.
• *Hear and weigh testimony and evidence presented to determine appropriate verdict of guilty or not guilty; impose just sentences and penalties as prescribed by law; utilize remedial and community service programs as appropriate.
• *Communicate with a variety of City departments including legal, police, fire, public works and others regarding court cases, complaints and other issues.
• *Communicate with various community agencies and County offices regarding probation, specific referrals, driving records, domestic violence cases, common defendants and treatment programs available for mental health and alcohol problems.
• Direct the preparation and maintenance of court dockets and support documents; assure proper collection, disbursement and accounting for fines and other monies paid to the County.
  NOTE that this is not listed as an essential responsibility, but it is responsibility nonetheless. By Law, the Renton Municipal Court is "a court of record," so why wouldn't preparation of court documents which are part of "the RECORD" be an essential function?"
• Speak to community groups and preside at ceremonial functions as requested;
• *Administer oaths of office and other duties prescribed by law.
• Perform related duties as assigned.

KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:

KNOWLEDGE OF:

• * United States and Washington State constitutions and judicial systems.
• * Municipal Court rules, procedures, conduct and Rules of Evidence and laws of arrest.
• * State laws and City ordinances pertinent to civil, traffic and criminal cases.
• * Remedial and community service and treatment programs available.
• * Oral and written communication skills.
• * Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
• * City organization, operations, policies and objectives.

ABILITY TO:

• * Preside over a variety of misdemeanor trials and civil hearings.
• * Hear and weigh testimony and evidence.
• * Impose appropriate sentences and penalties in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
• * Communicate effectively both orally and in writing.
• * Read, interpret, apply and explain codes, rules, regulations, policies and procedures.
• * Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with others.
• * Analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of action.
• * Work independently with little direction.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Any combination equivalent to: consistent with requirements set by Washington State law.

WORKING CONDITIONS:

Work is iperformed in a court room and office environment

September 1993

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:07 PM
From: Terry Jurado
To: webgirl@seanet.com

Ms Petersen:

I did not view your last mail to me as making the inquiry contained in your most recent mail. Instead I saw it as the rehashing of matters that I have explained on more than one occasion. Those explanations were based on the law, procedure, and rules. Perhaps I am a little over sensitive when it comes to the people who work in the municipal court. I view each and every one of the clerks as professionals in every sense of the word. If you went to them and asked, you would find that a top priority of mine since my first staff meeting was to insure dockets of the court are accurate. That was not to say that they were not when I assumed the duties of the judge, but over the years I was frustrated by the incomplete dockets in the various courts I was appointed a pro tem judge. That having been said I will respond to your questions as they are not questions that go to issues that may come before me.

First, with regard to improving docketing; yes to say there cannot be improvement is to suggest that there is perfection. The greater question is first, whether there is a problem, and second if so how it can be resolved. Answering the first question is difficult. It is difficult because in the 6 years that I have been judge of the Renton Municipal Court you are the only person that has suggested there is a problem with docketing. You must understand that our dockets are reviewed not hundreds but thousands of times per year. The vast majority of those reviews are by other courts and probation departments who need and rely on information found in our court's dockets. I have heard no criticism from other judges, clerks, or probation departments regarding our dockets. Further, I have not heard any complaints from defendants regarding docketing errors. Is that to say there are no mistakes or errors? No. I just have not heard any. In fact what I have heard by several judges is how easy to read and complete our dockets are. Off the top of my head Judge Chow from the Seattle District Court, Judge Burns from the Auburn Municipal Court, and Judge Portnoy from the Lake Forrest Park Municipal Court.

A persistent problem found in docketing, particularly in the King County District Court is lack of completeness, and cryptic abbreviations. A review of dockets produced in our court demonstrate that there are no cryptic abbreviations, and the clerk attempts to docket all decisions and orders in as complete a manner possible. You have to appreciate that the docket is not a transcript. It is a note of proceedings. The true test of docket accuracy is to hold up a recorded transcript to the docket to see if orders, motions, and decisions were properly docketed. So, this all takes me to the second question; is there a problem that needs to be fixed? I am not saying there are no irregularities, but in the hundreds of thousands of words docketed each year and only hearing one complaint, I would say there is no systemic problem that needs to be fixed.

What is stated above is my answer to your second question.

Your third question addresses training of personnel and pro tem judges regarding court rules. First, with regard to training court personnel on court rules; absolutely not. Court staff are not required to know nor can they be expected to know court rules or the application of those rules. Clerks and probation officers may not and should not give any advice regarding court rules. Further, the clerks do not need to know these rules in order to accomplish their duties.

With regard to pro tem judges; inherent in the job description is training. There is not a pro tem judge that presides in the Renton Municipal Court with less than 10 years experience as an attorney. Some have over twenty years experience as an attorney, and several years experience as pro tem judges. Taking Judge Cufley as an example (a judge you have complained about publicly) she has over twenty years experience as an attorney. She has been a pro tem judge for 5 years and has presided in the Renton Municipal Court, Renton District Court, Lake Forrest Park Municipal Court, Auburn Municipal Court, Federal Way Municipal Court, Shoreline District Court. and SeaTac Municipal Court. She is a very busy and competent jurist. If she were not she would not be presiding in any of those courts. She is called on so often to sit as a pro tem that she must decline assignments. You have lodged the only complaint about her that I am aware of.

You must understand that the Renton Municipal Court is a very busy court. It is not a place for on the job training. Attorneys dedicate their time for less than what they may be earning working private cases to provide a service to the City of Renton. I am confident and support the appointments of Frank Davidson, Gary Faul, Donna Tucker, and others who make up the cadre of pro tem judges who serve in our court.

Finally, I am more than willing to meet with you and the others for the purpose of discussing my qualifications to continue to serve the the city of Renton. The question is which candidate has the superior qualifications, the most experience, and greatest dedication to the Renton Municipal Court. I believe I am that candidate. I am dedicated to the rule of law and the people of this community.

As for scheduling, if you could just give either me or Rosemary some dates we should be able to meet. This is an incredibly busy time for us both.

With regards,
Terry Jurado

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:17 PM
From: Inez Petersen
To: Terry Jurado

Dear Judge Jurado:

Thank you for your comments. And talk of cryptic abbreviations, you should take a look at what your Court gives defendants, sample attached.

Thanks for agreeing to meet with myself, Terry Persson, and Charles Doyle. I will check with them and get back to Rosemary to schedule the time. 30-40 minutes max.

Sincerely,
Inez Petersen

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 9:01 AM
From: Terry Jurado
To: webgirl@seanet.com
Ms. Petersen:

In response to the document you attached, that is an example of how the clerk performs their work. This document is called a "work sheet" it is not an order but basically clerk's notes. The clerk takes this work sheet and from it makes docket entries. As the clerk must make notes as the proceedings progress it is necessary to make the cryptic notes. They then take that information and translate it to the docket. It would be impossible for the clerk to actually write down everything that happens without abbreviations. If you stand that worksheet up to the docket you would see that the abbreviations are gone and it is readable.

Subject: Re: Accuracy of Court Dockets in a "Court of Record"
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:37 PM
From: Inez Petersen
To: Terry Jurado

Dear Judge Jurado:

Then why not provide a symbol and abbreviation list along with the "work sheet" so that the defendant can have half a chance at reading and understanding it? I see there are many standard abbreviations and symbols used, so this can't be impossible task; and it would be a one-time effort to prepare. Once prepared, it would be an immense help to defendants. Being "ahead of the curve" applies to the Court too, doesn't it?

I think we have discussed the COURT DOCKET issue sufficiently enough to drop the subject. This has been an interesting and revealing series of emails. And I fall back on the old cliche', "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing well," especially if it applies to an official record of a "Court of Record." [and don't forget, responsibility for Renton Municipal COURT DOCKETS does rest with the Renton Municipal Court Judge.]

Thank you,
Inez

File: rpan/elections/court_docket.html