Washington Courts

Judge Williams’ decision comes as a surprise, and not as a surprise.  See the Spokesman - Review piece by John Stucke, Judge Orders Diocese to Pay.

It is a surprise because Diocese attorney Greg Arpin did not do, or say, anything which could be said to be contempt of court.

It was not a surprise because it seemed the court was going to lean over backwards to find for the proponent of the contempt claim, the Plan Trustee and her attorney David Kerruish, and not so tacitly, the other attorney at the table with them, Dillon Jackson, the attorney for nine of the new claimants. To me it seemed Mr. Jackson had courtroom rights to a certain informality with Judge Williams. He acted a bit like a bright little boy who knew he was liked and could say what he liked and could instruct the judge. This was all the more troublesome because he is tied to Kosnoff and Company.

I wondered, “what is this contempt motion really all about?” Greg Arpin had a right to say what he said. What he said was the truth. And, he has a first amendment right to speak, he had a right not to have his speech censured just because it might offend. The law does not subject a person to contempt just because another person in the court proceedings might take offense.

Offense, that is what the contempt motion was about. Ms. Nagler was offended. She then raised her offended state to a “federal case.” I suspect she was being a bit opportunistic.

I think what was happening was that Ms. Nagler (and Dillon Jackson and Kosnoff and Company?) wanted to scare Mr. Arpin and the Catholic Diocese away from raising future objections to the payment of the new claims of sex abuse, which have been filed in the final hour of the bankruptcy proceedings. These claims may be quite suspect, yet they may be approved. They may be approved despite the fact they fall outside of the claims which can be approved under the plan. If they are outside of the plan, they might be ultra vires and if so Ms. Nagler may have liability if she pays them.

Obviously, she does not want to be questioned. Obviously, Dillon Jackson does not want to have her questioned. Obviously, Kosnoff and Company do not want to have her questioned.

Dillon Jackson rather supercharged the proceedings on Monday by saying the Diocese should not have been discharged. It was surprising to hear this. It was completely improper and calculated, I thought, to play on some sympathies the court may have. He said it as if he was saying “we both know, don’t we judge, that the Diocese should be punished more for what has happened.”

It seems there is an ongoing effort to make the Spokane Diocese and the people who make up the Diocese into some vast evil essence. How absurd, and how very out of line.  It may be time for a bit of truth here. 

One trusts the contempt decision will be appealed.

Tomorrow, Monday, February 22, 2010, at 1:30 pm Spokane Diocese attorney Greg Arpin will go before Judge Patricia Williams. He has been ordered to come to court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. What did he do? He sent an email message to Gloria Nagler, the Plan Trustee of the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy. This is the bankruptcy wherein Kosnoff and Company are making millions in contingent fees in the processing of sex abuse claims. Some of the claims have just recently come in, and some of these have been approved.

Ms. Nagler has a duty to be certain that claims which are ultra vires are not paid out. She has professional liability if an ultra vires claim is paid. If a wrongful claim is paid the claims of those who are legitimately making claims will be paid less.  Mr. Arpin advised her of her responsibility.  She responds by getting the court to order Mr. Arpin to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and fined $10,000 (I think that was the amount.)

Kosnoff and Company make lots of money on claims paid out of the plan.

The attorney for Gloria Nagler is a Seattle attorney by the name of David S. Kerruish. I have been told by a reputable source that Mr. Kerruish may have represented a member of Kosnoff and Company on a real estate matter, his name is Michael Pfau.

It is possible that the Plan Trustee is using the same lawyer who advises a person who gains great benefit from the plan? Maybe we should all naively and hopefully say “isn’t it a small world.” But maybe we should all say a bit more. How does this sort of closeness portray the legal system in the state of Washington? It does not engender trust and respect for the system.

Of the 25,000 plus lawyers in the state could it be considered reasonable that Mr. Kerruish would be the one who would represent the Plan Trustee and also have some relationship with one of the men gaining enormous benefits from the plan and the distributions of the Plan Trustee?  One’s credulity has to be a bit overtaxed on this one.