Neighbor to Neighbor Black Diamond are once again on the streets of the City of Black Diamond gathering signatures in the recall effort filed against Councilmember Patricia Pepper while she seeks the Washington State Supreme Court for a stay as well as responds to an expedited review of her case.
In an opening comment of the newest legal brief document, Pepper requested, that “signature gathering may not continue until the appeal court proceedings are complete.” A few sentences later she requested “relief from expedited review of the captioned matter.”
Continuing in the brief, Pepper acknowledged that she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding her recall and that a letter from the Supreme Court was issued on June 1, 2017, setting the court schedule. The brief acknowledged that Robbin Taylor, who brought the recall effort to the court system, had filed a motion the following day asking for permission to restart the gathering of signatures on the recall petition, or as an alternate – to expedite the review of the case.
After pointing out that she did not have a lawyer at the time, Pepper admitted that she did not respond to Taylor’s June 2nd motion. Following is a brief timeline of actions as they were happening regarding the recall efforts:
May 10 – King County Superior Court issues order for recall from findings that four of the charges brought by Taylor were “factually and legally sufficient for the recall of Appellant…”
May 25 – Pepper files appeal to the State Supreme Court regarding Superior Court order
May 26 – Signature gathering starts/stops following Pepper filing for a Supreme Court appeal of the Superior Court
June 1 – Supreme Court issues letter to set forth a case schedule
June 2 – Taylor requests restart of signatures gathering, or to expedite the case review
June 5 – Email sent from Court regarding schedule for response of June 2 Motion from Taylor
June 12 – Supreme Court grants expedited review of the case. Additionally, as no, “stay” had been filed by Pepper regarding restart of signature gathering, it was allowed to begin again.
June 14 – Pepper calls Court Clerk and learns that the Court had sent an email on June 5th. Pepper claimed that she never received the information and that she checked a new email address set up for the case, but nothing was there
June 21 – Court acknowledged previous problems transmitting messages through Pepper’s new email
June 27 – new deadline for Pepper to comment on expedited review and court schedule
The brief went on to state that Taylor (referred to as the Respondent) had attempted to change Pepper’s Council votes/decisions. Additionally, there were references to Taylor’s husband and another former Councilmember along with his wife for disagreeing with Pepper’s votes on Council. As part of those comments came the following, “An expedited schedule in this case would set an example that could deter people from running for office and encourage political opponents to harass them.”
Other comments made within the document centered on Pepper’s “need to work on and provide information for this Appeal. More importantly, Ms. Pepper does need significant time to put forward City Council Business.” At that point, Pepper pointed out all her obligations as a Councilmember and that, “It often takes extra time because the Mayor provides little information to Council and obstructs their work at Council meetings.”
Pepper’s brief stated, “While we intend to prove that none of the charges are valid grounds for recall…” It is interesting to note that throughout the document, there was no evidence/proof cited to back up Pepper’s claims/accusations, only promises of proof to come. As stated in Taylor’s brief, “…the Appellant (Pepper) submitted a brief filled with ‘facts’ unsupported by the record before the Court. The ‘facts’, unsupported by any record, also include speculation, argument and farcical theories, and should be ignored by this Court.”
Pepper’s brief stated that she needed to work on the appeal and how it consumed her time even though she had retained a lawyer. Taylor’s brief counterpointed that, “Since Appellant is not permitted to introduce new evidence at this stage in the proceedings, it is unclear how this appeal will take so much of Appellant’s (rather that her attorney’s) time.”
In her brief, Pepper also appealed to the Court that due to a bond being required of her to continue her appeal at the Supreme Court level, she asked the Court to consider that there be no bond requirement. “Any bond would be an insurmountable burden on Ms. Pepper who has put forth retirement savings to retain counsel which she can ill afford in this matter.”
However, Taylor’s brief cited that the “Court may authorize a party to post reasonable security other than a bond or cash, but only upon a motion from the party seeking the stay.” It was further pointed out in Taylor’s brief that Pepper had not filed a motion for alternative security.
