Ep. 23 WEST v. WA GOP

Ep. 23 WEST v. WA GOP

[AI VO] (0:00 - 0:31)

Before we start, a quick heads up. Some of the voices you'll hear reading documents in this podcast are AI generated, but the words are real. They come straight from public records, produced by real people inside government.

Further, if you're a public employee who's been asked to bend the rules, or if you've seen something that just doesn't sit right, we want to hear from you, confidentially, off the record. Your identity stays with us. You can reach out to us at contact at thepublicrecordsofficer.com.

[Nixon] (0:31 - 0:39)

What you're about to hear is Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese speaking from the bench during Arthur West's August 7th hearing.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (0:39 - 0:43)

The core though of Mr. West's case - again, don't want to put words in his mouth.

[Nixon] (0:44 - 1:02)

Lanese was not talking about the Washington State Republican Party when he said that, which is unfortunate because it would have made what happened next almost too unreal. Here's an AI reading of a statement later published by the Washington State Republican Party and attributed to its chairman, State Representative Jim Walsh.

[AI VO] (1:02 - 1:17)

The most problematic violation of judicial standards that Lanese committed was setting a trap for West, who is not an attorney and was representing himself in his case, that tricked West into stating he was also representing Let's Go Washington's case.

[Nixon] (1:17 - 1:47)

According to Walsh, Lanese tricked open-government activist Arthur West into saying in court that he represented somebody else's case. There's just one big problem with that story. The hearing was on television.

There is video. There is audio. There is a transcript. So we don't have to choose whether to believe Arthur West. You don't have to choose whether to believe Jim Walsh.

You don't even have to believe me. As you know, here at the Public Records Officer Podcast, we believe in checking receipts.

[AI VO] (1:49 - 1:59)

You're listening to the Public Records Officer Podcast, where we fight for your right to know. Now, here's your host, Jamie Nixon.

[Nixon] (2:06 - 3:15)

Hello and welcome. This is the Public Records Officer Podcast. I am your host, Jamie Nixon.

Today, we have a story about a millionaire's tax, 21 words on a ballot, a spectacular courtroom own-goal, a Republican political operation that apparently decided the guy fighting toward basically the same result they wanted was the person they should attack. That person is Arthur West. Which, as strategic decisions go, is certainly one option they had.

Let's start with Initiative 645. The measure seeks to repeal Washington's new tax on annual individual income above $1 million. And this episode isn't really about whether you like that tax.

While Arthur and I correspond with one another from time to time, I'm unsure of his exact position on that tax. His problem is with the process. Washington law requires something called a Public Investment Impact Disclosure, or a PIID, to appear on certain ballot measures that would affect state revenue.

For I-645, the Attorney General's Office wrote this for the PIID.

[AI VO] (3:15 - 3:26)

This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education, including universities and community colleges, and human services, primarily healthcare.

[Nixon] (3:26 - 5:20)

So that language gets attached to the ballot measure, right? But it wasn't part of what people saw when they signed the petitions necessary to put Initiative 645 on the ballot. And Arthur's objection is remarkably easy to understand.

You ask people to sign A, enough people sign A to qualify for the ballot. The ballot ends up saying A+, and, you know, maybe you think the plus is helpful. Maybe you think it gives voters important information.

Arthur's point is that it is not what the people signed. He argues that allowing government to add substantive language after the petition process interferes with the people's constitutional initiative power. Let's Go Washington, the conservative organization behind I-645, also wanted the PIID language changed or gone.

Different legal theories, perhaps different political worldviews, but on this particular Friday morning, Arthur West and Let's Go Washington were basically trying to move the ball toward the same end zone. There aren't going to be many circumstances in life where Arthur West, Brian Heywood, Jim Walsh, and Tim Eyman find themselves pointed in approximately the same direction. Congratulations, Washington, we found one.

Arthur filed his own case; Let's Go Washington and others filed theirs. And they were not consolidated cases, meaning they weren't heard as one case. So Arthur's case went first on August 7th, before Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese.

Let's Go Washington had another hearing scheduled for 1:30 that afternoon. And that's when everything kind of went sideways. So Arthur argued his case, the State responded, and near the end of the State's argument, the State's own lawyer pointed out that another hearing was coming later that afternoon.

[State's Attorney] (5:21 - 5:47)

Just one final note, Your Honor, and that's that there is another hearing this afternoon on the wording of the public investment impact disclosure. So in our proposed order, we're just asking this court to deny Mr. West's request for a preliminary injunction. We're not asking this court to affirm the Attorney General's public investment impact disclosure; we're asking this court to leave that for the afternoon hearing, because we can't have two different public investment impact disclosures.

[Nixon] (5:47 - 5:57)

This is important. The State itself suggested Lanese leave the specific wording issue for the later proceeding. Lanese then turned to Arthur.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (5:57 - 6:06)

Mr. West, do you still want me to review the language? Are you withdrawing that request and allowing that to float to 1:30 this afternoon?

[Arthur West] (6:06 - 6:16)

I would ask this court to review the language or, in the alternate, delay its ruling till 1:30 - yeah, after 1:30 this afternoon.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (6:17 - 6:24)

Okay, I'm not going to do the second. So we have a plaintiff who wants relief, and we have a non-consolidated case...

[Nixon] (6:24 - 6:40)

That's the moment there, right? Arthur has a request for relief in his own case. Lanese asks whether he is withdrawing it.

Arthur says no. Alternatively, Arthur suggests waiting until 1:30. Later, Lanese explains why he's going to go ahead.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (6:40 - 6:59)

Okay, the court's ready to rule at this time. So we have two different issues, really, before the court. And I'll just note, I'm going to be ruling on the language because I think I need...

Mr. West has not withdrawn his request, and this wasn't consolidated.

[Nixon] (7:00 - 8:36)

One more time. Arthur requested relief. Arthur didn't withdraw it.

The cases were not consolidated, and the judge ruled. Arthur lost. Lanese upheld the PIID language and rejected Arthur's constitutional injunction request.

Then came the surprise. Let's Go Washington's separate challenge never got the substantive hearing its lawyers expected. Lanese's ruling effectively preempted it.

The reporting on this described the other fight as abruptly ending after the morning decision. And let me say this clearly: if you're Let's Go Washington, that sucks. Right?

You've hired lawyers. You've briefed your case. You prepped a hearing.

You show up to the courthouse, and before you get to make your argument, another case has produced a ruling that blows up yours. Brian Heywood was furious. I get it.

They had a legitimate grievance. They wanted it heard. And faced with this extraordinary outcome, the political coalition that had just watched Arthur West independently spend his own time fighting the same ballot language they were fighting had several possible responses available to them.

They could blame the statute, the procedural posture. They could ask why the cases weren't consolidated. They could even criticize Lanese.

They could note that Arthur had been independently carrying a broader constitutional argument that they themselves had not. Or, and stick with me here. They could simply portray Arthur as a vulnerable non-lawyer who got tricked into fucking up everybody else's case.

Guess which one they chose?

This is an AI-generated reading of a Facebook post by state GOP chair Jim Walsh saying that Lanese had

[AI VO] (8:44 - 9:03)

Tricked a non-lawyer into making procedural errors that killed the substantive challenges to the PIID made by several organizations. Trickery and exploitation of vulnerable people.

[Nixon] (9:03 - 11:04)

Now, Arthur understood himself to be the vulnerable person in that sentence. And I have to tell you, vulnerable? Arthur West?

Oh, you dumb bastards. Because Arthur West is absolutely a non-lawyer, right? I mean, he doesn't have a bar card.

He doesn't have a JD. But if you're using non-lawyer to mean a guy who doesn't know what he's doing in court and you're referring to Arthur West, that's almost comically stupid. Let's do a quick speed round.

West v. Thurston County. Published Court of Appeals decision. Arthur, pro se, got the dismissal of his Public Records Act claim reversed.

West v. Port of Olympia. A published appellate decision. Arthur wins an important issue involving the deliberative-process exemption.

West v. Department of Natural Resources. Published PRA opinion. Arthur wins on the five-business-day response issue.

West v. City of Tacoma. Published appellate decision involving police surveillance technology and an inadequate public-records search. 

West v. Walla Walla City Council, 2025. Published Open Public Meetings Act decision. Arthur gets major portions of the case reversed. Has Arthur also lost cases?

Of course. He's litigated enough of them to have lost plenty. I'm not trying to turn the man into Perry Mason or anything.

But describing Arthur West as a helpless courtroom doofus because he isn't licensed to practice law is kind of like calling Eddie Van Halen a guy that never went to music school. I mean, it's technically true, but I mean, it's kind of missing the point. And the funniest evidence may come at the end of the very hearing where Arthur supposedly demonstrated his procedural incompetence.

So Arthur loses, right? But then immediately starts thinking about properly preserving the appellate record.

[Arthur West] (11:04 - 11:13)

I'd ask that since the court has already ruled on the merits of the entire suit, that the court issue one clear order dismissing it, make the issues on appeal a lot easier.

[Nixon] (11:14 - 12:48)

So this Arthur West, this vulnerable simpleton, has been tricked so badly that he is now asking the trial judge to structure the final disposition so the appellate issues will be cleaner. I mean, come on. That is not the move of some naive courtroom gadfly.

Arthur's original correction demand later said that the suggestion that he was a, quote, 'vulnerable simpleton unfamiliar with court procedure,' unquote, attacked a reputation he says he spent approximately 30 years building. And there's another important part of this. Arthur wasn't their enemy that morning.

He wasn't in court defending the PIID. He was trying to knock it out. He just had a broader reason for doing it.

Heywood's immediate complaint was essentially: Arthur does not represent us. He had his own case. His case went first.

And somehow the ruling in his case shut us out. That's basically the factual situation. Heywood later described what happened as, quote, 'sort of a trap,' unquote.

Fine. That's an opinion. And we all get to have one.

But on August 11th, the official Washington State Republican Party Facebook page published what it called a, quote, 'Call to Action,' unquote. It attacked Lanese's conduct and urged voters to file complaints with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

And then the post attributed this statement to Walsh.

[AI VO] (12:48 - 12:58)

Lanese set a trap for West that tricked West into stating he was also representing Let's Go Washington's case - which he was not. 

[Nixon] (12:58 - 13:57)

Wait, what? I mean, where do y'all get that? We've now crossed an important line. 'Lanese set a trap' is interpretation.

'Arthur was inexperienced' is a characterization. However, 'Arthur stated that he represented Let's Go Washington's case' - that's a factual assertion about something Arthur supposedly said in open court.

Okay, show me. What timestamp did this occur at? What words were used?

Because when I listened to the relevant exchange, Arthur maintains his own request. Lanese expressly calls these non-consolidated cases and later says he ruled because Arthur did not withdraw Arthur's request. I cannot find Arthur saying that he represents Let's Go Washington anywhere in that recording.

And this increasingly elaborate version of events had consequences. One commenter below the GOP's post wrote.

[AI VO] (13:58 - 14:03)

Sounds like Arthur West was a set up or a plant to make sure the case wasn't heard.

[Nixon] (14:04 - 16:18)

Excellent. Now we've traveled from Arthur independently challenged the same law to Arthur got tricked to Arthur supposedly claimed to represent Let's Go Washington. And now maybe Arthur was actually some sort of plant sent to sabotage the Republicans.

We've reached covert operative levels here. The Republican Party did not write that particular comment, right? And Arthur doesn't claim that they did.

But he does now cite it as an example of how at least one member of the public interpreted the story being told about him. And this is where one might just stop finding that story amusing. On August 21st, Arthur served Walsh with a formal request for correction under Washington's defamation statute.

He denied being tricked. He denied making a procedural error. And he pointed out the obvious fact we've already heard on tape: he specifically asked Lanese, in the alternative, to delay his ruling until the afternoon hearing.

And on August 25th, Arthur simply stopped threatening to sue. He sued. Arthur filed a defamation case in Thurston County Superior Court naming Jim Walsh and the Washington State Republican Party, among others.

So when the GOP's attorney, Joel Ard, entered the chat telling Arthur, 'No, please sue me,' it seems Arthur took that less as sarcasm and more as a scheduling suggestion. But we're getting just a little ahead of ourselves here.

Because before Arthur filed, the correspondence between him and Ard got really, really weird. Ard responded initially with an actual statutory mechanism. Washington law lets the recipient of a correction demand request reasonably available information material to whether the statement is false.

Ard asked Arthur for communications involving the PIID litigation, Tim Eyman, Let's Go Washington, and Arthur's litigation plans. Arthur thought that was wildly overbroad. And he essentially said: You want discovery?

Fine, we'll do discovery. Then Arthur demanded that Ard make sure his own clients preserve their records.

[AI VO] (16:18 - 16:25)

Please place a litigation hold on all of your clients' relevant records and communications, and I will do the same.

[Nixon] (16:25 - 16:35)

At this point, an experienced lawyer representing a major state political party might decide the room could stand to cool down a little bit. Joel Ard chose a different path.

[AI VO] (16:35 - 16:44)

Vomiting back at me via ChatGPT plus Tim Eyman, whatever I send you, does not alter or inform my client's obligations.

[Nixon] (16:44 - 16:46)

Okay. Ard continued.

[AI VO] (16:47 - 17:02)

I expect that you have already begun deleting relevant records and have already alerted Mr. Eyman to do the same. In short order, the courts will know that you are not preserving, are instead deleting, and that your co-conspirators are doing the same.

[Nixon] (17:02 - 17:36)

I see no evidence identified in that email establishing that Arthur was deleting records or telling Eyman to delete records. Arthur objected and asked Ard to retract. Ard's response?

No, please sue me. Arthur then suggested maybe the Washington State Bar Association was a better venue for discussing Ard's conduct. Ard sent Arthur his own bar number and the grievance link, saying, 'Please file this as promptly as possible.'

So, you know, this was going well. Arthur replied that Ard's chicanery didn't work on him, and he said he had bigger fish to fry.

[AI VO] (17:37 - 17:56)

Ard returned a couple hours later, saying: Could you possibly explain that to me in short words? You seem to be avoiding any acknowledgment of your preservation obligations while tossing out random phrases that appear to comply with bare rules of grammar. You and your co-conspirator Eyman must preserve records.

[Nixon] (17:56 - 18:44)

What a professional Ard is, right? Such a tough guy. Ard is one of those lawyers who gives decent lawyers a bad name.

One of the reasons many people bristle at the idea of lawyers in general is that they've been on the receiving end of this kind of legal bullying. It's not necessary. It's not tough.

It's not good lawyering. You're not some badass with a law license. You're an officer of the court, and you really ought to conduct yourself like one.

Then after that, somehow the story got even more Arthur. Remember Ard's interest in Arthur's communication with Tim Eyman? Well, Arthur decided to accommodate him.

Arthur sent Tim Eyman an email about Ard. The subject line read… 

[AI VO] (18:44 - 18:50)

It is hysterical. That giant cunt Ard is going wookie.

[Nixon] (18:52 - 18:54)

We are through the looking glass now. Arthur continued…

[AI VO] (18:55 - 19:15)

Oh my God. Joel Ard is really a Giant Cunt and an Arsehole. And then - and this is the important part - Arthur adds: My opinion and Hyperbole a la Afroman, he really isn't in real life and no reasonable person would believe it.

[Nixon] (19:15 - 20:26)

That parenthetical is spectacular. Arthur is apparently capable of calling opposing counsel a giant... Yeah.

And then immediately adding a miniature First Amendment disclaimer. And if you're wondering why Arthur wrote 'a la Afroman,' of course Arthur West was involved in the Afroman case. Why wouldn't he be?

Quick recap on the Afroman case. After Ohio sheriff's deputies raided rapper Afroman's home and later sued him over videos and merchandise mocking that raid, Arthur tried to intervene in the resulting litigation. The Ohio court denied his attempt to become a party, but allowed Arthur to file an amicus brief alongside the ACLU.

Arthur also pursued public records concerning the raid, and those records later helped shed light on what police had been looking for. The officers' lawsuit against Afroman ultimately failed at trial this year. So Arthur's little 'hyperbole a la Afroman' disclaimer - it's not some random pop-culture reference.

The guy actually had a walk-on role in that First Amendment circus too. Here's my favorite part, though. Arthur then forwarded the email to Ard.

[Nixon] (20:27 - 20:28)

His message.

[AI VO] (20:28 - 20:40)

Mr. Ard, since you seem so interested in my communications with Mr. Eyman, I am, without waiver of 1st Amendment or privacy rights, or any Common Purpose Agreement, sending you a copy of one made today. Enjoy.

[Nixon] (20:40 - 28:12)

This whole ridiculous exchange accidentally illustrates the exact distinction at the center of this episode. Arthur calls Ard an asshole, then explicitly labels the insult an opinion and hyperbole. Nobody reasonably thinks Arthur is alleging Joel Ard is literally a gigantic anatomical structure roaming Kitsap County.

That's rhetoric. But saying someone stated in open court that he represented another litigant? That's a different kind of proposition.

That is a proposition we can check. Now here's where that own-goal becomes just too perfect. Remember, Arthur and Let's Go Washington both wanted relief from this PIID.

They took different routes. Arthur's morning ruling unexpectedly shut down LGW's later challenge. The political response portrayed Arthur as the vulnerable non-lawyer who screwed everything up for everybody.

The Washington State Republican Party published that he had supposedly been tricked into saying he represented Let's Go Washington. Arthur responded with defamation demands. Then everyone started accusing everyone of various forms of skulduggery.

And after all that, guess whose broader constitutional challenge appears to still be alive on appeal? Arthur freaking West. The state Supreme Court commissioner rejected Arthur's emergency effort to keep the PIID off the November ballot.

Arthur lost that round, but the commissioner did not end the broader constitutional appeal. The Supreme Court will determine whether to take the case itself or transfer it to the Court of Appeals. So let's appreciate the situation, right?

The vulnerable non-lawyer whose supposed incompetence allegedly killed everybody else's case is presently the guy still carrying the broader constitutional challenge forward. Guys - Walsh - what the hell are you thinking? 

And while all of this was beginning, like within the day of the original decision by Lanese, I actually said something to Brian Heywood on X about it.

He had amplified another attack on Judge Lanese, to which I replied, quote: “Word to the wise, running down Thurston County Superior Court judges for decisions you don't like maybe isn't smart, given that you will probably want to litigate in front of them again. Just a thought.” Unquote. That wasn't me saying judges can't be criticized.

If you've listened to my show, you've heard me criticize judicial rulings. Hell, I did it just one episode ago in the Grays Harbor matter while being very careful to distinguish what the judge actually decided from what she didn't decide. Respecting courts doesn't require agreeing with them.

It does require getting the facts right. Criticism is absolutely fair. Accuracy is absolutely mandatory.

And here's where this story becomes so perfectly stupid that I swear I'm not making it up. Remember what I wrote to Brian Heywood? Don't spend your time running down Thurston County Superior Court judges when you know you're probably going to have to litigate in front of them again.

Well, Arthur filed his defamation lawsuit. And at 9:39 a.m. on August 25th, the Thurston County Clerk assigned the case to a judge. Guess which judge she assigned it to?

I'll give you a second. Christopher freaking Lanese. I cannot.

This is the judge the Washington State Republican Party called hysterical. The judge it accused of acting like a radical activist. The judge it urged its followers to report to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The judge Walsh says set a trap for Arthur West and tricked him into saying he represented Let's Go Washington. That judge has now been assigned Arthur West's defamation case against Walsh and the Republican Party. Come on, HBO.

Call me. Before anybody gets carried away, I would be very surprised if Lanese ultimately ends up hearing this case. There are procedural mechanisms for getting a different judge.

And given that Lanese himself presided over the proceeding at the center of this alleged defamation, there are obvious reasons this assignment may not stick. That's not the point. The point is that the very first thing the Thurston County court system did after Arthur sued these people was hand the case to Judge Lanese.

Remember my tweet? Sometimes I'm just trying to help. 

Okay, let's recap all this.

It's a lot. Arthur West independently challenged ballot language Let's Go Washington also wanted changed or removed.

Arthur went first. His loss unexpectedly blew up their scheduled hearing, right? They responded by portraying Arthur as a vulnerable non-lawyer who had been tricked into making procedural errors.

The Washington State Republican Party then published an even more specific claim, right? Arthur had supposedly been tricked into stating he represented Let's Go Washington's case. A reader concluded that Arthur might have been a plant sent in to sabotage the whole thing.

Arthur served defamation notices. Ard told him, 'No, please sue me.' Arthur sued Ard's clients.

The party's lawyer accused Arthur and Tim Eyman of deleting evidence, called them co-conspirators. Arthur responded by forwarding the lawyer an email in which he called him a giant, you know, with a First Amendment disclaimer at the end. And after all of that, Arthur's broader constitutional appeal is still alive.

And when Arthur's defamation suit hit the courthouse, the Clerk assigned it to Judge Chris Lanese. Now, underneath all the comedy is a remarkably simple point, right? You can call Arthur West an asshole.

As you've just heard, Arthur is perfectly capable of returning that favor. You could say Judge Lanese set a trap or the hearing was a catastrophe. You can say Arthur made a terrible strategic decision by refusing to withdraw his claim.

Those are all arguments. People can have them. But if you tell thousands of people that somebody said something in open court, you should probably be able to roll the tape and prove it.

So far, I can't find it. I think Walsh, the Washington State Republican Party, and Joel Ard should answer one straightforward question. The TVW recording does not appear to show Arthur West stating that he represented Let's Go Washington, right?

What specific statement or portion of the August 7th proceeding does the Washington State Republican Party contend supports its published assertion that West was tricked into stating he was also representing Let's Go Washington's case? Give me the timestamp. Maybe I missed it.

If you show it to me, I'll play it. Until then, again, here's the actual exchange one more time.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (28:12 - 28:20)

Mr. West, are you still wanting me to review the language? Are you withdrawing that request and allowing that to float to 1:30 this afternoon?

[Arthur West] (28:21 - 28:30)

I would ask this court to review the language or, in the alternate, delay its ruling till 1:30 - yeah, after 1:30 this afternoon.

[Judge Chris Lanese] (28:31 - 28:38)

Okay, I'm not going to do the second. So we have a plaintiff who wants relief, and we have a non-consolidated case...

[Nixon] (28:38 - 28:47)

That's what I hear. Maybe somebody from the Washington State Republican Party can show us what they hear. Until then, don't put words in Arthur's mouth.

[AI VO] (28:50 - 30:32)

That's it for this episode of the Public Records Officer Podcast. A quick note before you go. Some of the voices you heard on the show weren't from real people.

Some were totally synthetic - AI-generated to read from public records and legal depositions that are, yep, public. You'll also hear real human voices like live audio from state meetings.

And the occasional passionate rant from the show's gorgeous host. Every episode has a full transcript at thepublicrecordsofficer.com. It breaks down which clips came from humans and which came from our robot friends.

Think of it like liner notes for digital democracy. You'll also find links to the original documents and recordings we talked about. Hosted on Google Drive, free and public.

So if you want to fact-check us, go nuts. That's kind of the point. If this show got you fired up or even just mildly interested, check out the Washington Coalition for Open Government.

They're a nonprofit that fights for transparency and they've got resources if you want to help or just learn more. And hey, if you work for the state and you've seen one too many messages accidentally disappear, we'd love to hear from you. Confidentially.

Unless you want to be famous. The Public Records Officer Podcast is a creation of Nixon and Daughter Productions. Powered by good coffee, better whiskey, a microphone, a legal tab, and the apparently misguided belief that government should actually be accountable to people.

Which is adorable, really. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

And remember, you're not paranoid. They really did delete it.