1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

9
10

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 16-C-00154-4 SEA
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
CHARLES T. PETERS,
Defendant.

14

[AMENDED]
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY THE KING COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
AND DISMISS THE CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT

15
16
RELIEF REQUESTED

17
18

Mr. Peters seeks an order disqualifying the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

19

(KCPAO) from taking action in his case and further, to dismiss the complaint filed in this matter.

20

This motion is based on the financial arrangement between the KCPAO and Demand Abolition,

21

an out-of-state special interest group, and the conflict of interest resulting from the relationship.

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 1 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
ISSUES PRESENTED

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

1.

The King County Prosecutor obtained a financial grant from Demand Abolition, an

out-of-state special interest group that advocates for changes in the way buyers of sex are
prosecuted and punished. The money from Demand Abolition came with strings attached. The
prosecutor had to agree to increase arrests and prosecutions of buyers and also had to agree to seek
more significant punishments. Not long after accepting the grant money, the King County
Prosecutor filed what they called “unprecedented felony charges” against customers of adult
prostitutes. They charged the buyers with promoting prostitution based on online reviews written
by the men describing the sex workers they had seen. Is recusal appropriate, when the prosecutor’s
actions are a result of a divided loyalty?
2.

The Demand Abolition grant required the prosecutor to actively publicize arrests,

prosecution and sentencing of sex buyers. Demand Abolition hired top shelf media consultants to
work with a deputy prosecutor on the most effective way to circulate the story. This included using
emotion packed words like “trafficking” and “coerced.” Pursuant to the grant agreement, the
prosecutor and Demand Abolition contacted media outlets to arrange interviews. They infused the
media interviews with emotional claims that had little to do with the case and would not be
admissible in court. RCP 3.6, 3.8(5) and 8.4 all require a prosecutor to limit press statements to
those that are necessary. Did the grant’s requirement to “publicize” create a conflict with these
rules of professional conduct?

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 2 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE MOTION IS BASED

3

The factual basis for this motion is contained in the court file and exhibits attached to the

4
5

declaration of Jennifer Cannon-Unione.
SUMMARY OF FACTS

6

A Budgetary Shortfall in the Prosecutor’s Office

7

The KCPAO is in the midst of a budgetary crisis. Speaking before the County Council,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Dan Satterberg reported that over the last nine years his office has lost 60 of its full-time employee
positions.1 He described how with each budget cut, he has to make more decisions about which
cases to prosecute and which cases to defer. Mr. Satterberg explained that although there are now
40% fewer cases, it takes his office 45% longer to process them due to a shortage of deputy
prosecutors as a result of insufficient funding. His office will now only prosecute “solid, serious
public safety matters.”
Mr. Satterberg described how the budgetary constraints required his office to get creative:

15

There is a saying that necessity is the mother of invention and it did require us to
be creative and we did a lot of that through diversion and prosecutorial discretion,
but there is a limit to that. At a certain point necessity just makes you needy, and
that is where we are now. 2

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1
2

See Declaration of Jennifer Cannon-Unione (JCU)
Id.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 3 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
Prosecutor Seeks Grants to Supplement an Inadequate Budget

3

One of the KCPAO creative solutions has been to win government grants. Although

4
5
6

there is no official policy encouraging deputies to find grants, Mr. Satterberg refers to those
prosecutors who successfully procure them as “rainmakers.” 3
Many of these grants are designed to provide assistance for particular types of cases or

7
8
9
10
11

particular activities. For instance, a grant from the government funded Child Advocacy Center of
Washington allows the prosecutor to hire two child interviewers. Similarly, the Government
Department of Financial Institutions provides funding for prosecuting mortgage lending fraud and
securities fraud.4
Even with these funds, however, there remained a budget shortfall. In seeking grants

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

beyond government aid, the King County Prosecutor found Demand Abolition, an out-of-state
special interest group. This lobbying group wished to see fundamental changes in the way
prostitution was viewed and prosecuted. Demand Abolition made it clear that the application
process was competitive, but that they were ready to work with, and pay for, prosecutors willing
to embrace their core values and who would agree to more aggressively pursue arrests and
prosecutions for sex buyers, as well as seeking greater penalties for those convicted. This was the
King County Prosecutor’s first non-profit, special interest grant.

20
21
22

3
4

See Dan Satterberg email on November 10, 2014, bates no. 011208, attached to JCU declaration.
See table produced by Dan Satterberg of grants received by his office, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 4 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
Application Process and Grant Award

3

Unlike other grants applications, this one required a prosecutor to partner with non-lawyers

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

and to split the grant with them. At the suggestion of a Demand Abolition associate, Peter
Qualliotine, of Organization for Prostitution Survivors (“OPS”), reached out to the prosecutor’s
office. Together they made a joint request for $80,000, where Mr. Richey would receive $50,000
and Mr. Qualliotine, $30,000. Demand Abolition awarded the grant to Mr. Richey and Mr.
Qualliotine in February of 2014. With the money from Demand Abolition, Mr. Qualliotine, a high
school graduate, spent the following year developing a 10-week educational course for sex buyers
to address male toxicity and accountability. As part of the grant, it was agreed that Mr. Richey
would encourage other prosecutors and judges to send convicted sex buyers to Mr. Qualliotine’s
program.5
In support of his grant application, Mr. Richey pointed to Washington’s “progressive laws

14
15
16
17

that enable prosecutors to impose serious penalties on buyers of prostitution.”6 In addition to
agreeing to reduce demand “by 20% in 24 months,” Mr. Richey promised to “increase the number
of arrests and prosecutions of buyers by 50%.” 7
Further, Mr. Richey promised to “increase the number of arrests and prosecutions of buyers

18
19
20
21

across King County.”8 He pledged to “increase publicity on arrests, prosecution and penalties in
King County through traditional media to create a credible and demonstrated threat of arrest and

5

See Val Richey email on October 30, 2014, bates no.010517, attached to JCU declaration,
See Demand Abolition application page 1, attached to JCU declaration.
7
Id. at 20 & 21
8
Id. at 13 & 14
6

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 5 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5

prosecution.”9 And he vowed to “[i]ncorporate into criminal justice responses additional deterrents
such as car impound, increased monetary fines, community service and sex offender registry to
increase effectiveness of sentences.” 10
In February of 2014, Demand Abolition awarded a grant of $80,000 per year to the

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

prosecutor and OPS. However, pursuant to the contract, this money was not provided in one lump
sum; rather it was to be distributed in installments once certain conditions were met. For example,
the grant required the King County Prosecutor’s Office to, “develop and implement an annual
demand reduction strategy, to be updated quarterly. This strategy should include a robust
combination of direct buyer disruption tactics designed to achieve 20 percent demand reduction
by January 31, 2017 and the disruption targets. Based on the agreed upon geographic region and
the aforementioned 20 percent goal, KCPAO is expected to attempt to achieve a total of 14,800
direct buyer disruptions by January 31, 2017, including at least l,l00 high frequency buyers.”
(emphasis added).11
Per Demand Abolition’s terms, “grant payments will be released upon receipt of

16
17
18
19
20

satisfactory quarterly updates and results.” Further terms included, “by accepting this grant,
KCPAO agrees to shared values and assumptions guiding this initiative, including: 1. The illegal
commercial sex industry is inherently harmful; 2. Demand is fueling the problem and reducing
demand is a fundamental strategy to combating the harms of prostitution; 3. Holding buyers

21
9

22

Id. at 14
Id. at 14
11
Demand Abolition Appendix A and Grant Terms Page 13, attached to JCU declaration.
10

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 6 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

accountable is essential to shift cultural behavior and norms; and 4. Demand reduction tactics must
be informed by survivor leaders to ensure a victim-centric approach.” (emphasis added) 12.
The grant calls for Val Richey and Peter Qualliotine, as co-coordinators of the pilot, to

5
6
7
8
9

share responsibility for the managing and collection of data, promptly responding to requests from
Demand Abolition, and “timely completion of deliverables as outlined by quarterly work plans.” 13
In addition, the prosecutor’s office had to agree to open up all of their files, records, accounts,
personnel and client information for inspection by Demand Abolition. 14
The grant spelled out a warning that the money could be stopped and a partial or full refund

10
11
12

required if “in the Foundation’s sole discretion” the Foundation determines that the prosecutor or
OPS has not complied with the conditions of the grant.
The Publicity Component of the Demand Abolition Grant

13

Under the terms of the grant, Mr. Richey agreed to publicize the arrests and prosecutions

14
15
16
17
18
19

of sex buyers. Mr. Richey understood that this went well beyond what he would normally be
expected to do as a prosecutor. As Mr. Richey explained at an interview, Demand Abolition wasn’t
going to pay him for work he would have done regardless of the grant. 15 In order to better present
Demand Abolition’s message, the organization paid for a media consultant to work with Mr.
Richey.16 One of the reasons for doing so was to learn how to use emotion laden terms that would

20
21
22

12

Id. at Page 8
Id. at Page 9
14
Id. at Page 10
15
Excerpt from Richey Interview at page 59, attached to JCU declaration
16
See Val Richey email on March 24, 2015, bates no.018796, attached to JCU declaration
13

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 7 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

more likely provoke a response from the public. Demand Abolition also arranged for a photo shoot
of Mr. Richey to be used in the media. 17
In order to assist Mr. Richey with media promotion and the messaging component of the

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

grant, Demand Abolition hired expensive political and media consultants such as Frank Luntz of
Luntz Global. According to his website, Mr. Luntz is an “expert communication strategist.” He
“combines market research with language creation to deliver winning messaging.” 18 Mr. Luntz has
provided messaging strategies for some of the largest corporations in the world – Paramount, Walt
Disney, Transamerica, Hilton, Pfizer, HBO, AARP and NASCAR. Mr. Luntz did an analysis of
the end buyer demand project and provided a report recommending “10 Phrases for 2015.” One of
these phrases was, “trafficking and prostitution are inextricably linked.”19 His report also contained
a section entitled recommended message/language to be used when discussing prostitution. For
instance, he recommended saying “forced prostitution” instead of just “prostitution.” He advised
emphasizing the sex trade’s ties to other criminal activities, such as drug use and gang activity. 20
Demand Abolition also hired Sydney Asbury to help with messaging. She is an expert

16
17
18
19
20
21

political strategist who at the time was the Senior Vice President of Northwind Strategies in
Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Asbury assisted Mr. Richey numerous times with messaging for the
“end buyer demand” campaign. She, along with Demand Abolition, repeatedly recommended that
Mr. Richey conflate prostitution with trafficking.

17

See Val Richey November 16, 2016 email, bates no. 067438-067439, attached to JCU declaration.
See screen capture of Mr. Luntz Webpage, attached to JCU declaration,
19
See Luntz Report, attached to JCU declaration.
20
Id.
18

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 8 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
For example, in April of 2015, in emails obtained through a PRA to the prosecutor’s office,

3
4
5
6
7
8

Ms. Asbury and other employees at Northwind Strategies drafted the initial press release for the
KCPAO. It was entitled, “King County is Changing the Game in Sex Trafficking.” They also
including additional trafficking language which led Mr. Richey and Mr. Qualliotine to comment
that they preferred to use the term “commercial sexual exploitation” instead of “trafficking.” Ms.
Asbury responded with the following email to Mr. Richey on May 11, 2015:

11

“While I understand Peter's concerns, I am worried that removing all references to
sex trafficking will hurt our ability to grab reporters’ attention. In recent weeks,
there has been a great deal of national attention on sex trafficking. To that end, if
we describe our work as fighting "commercial sexual exploitation" we run the risk
of confusing reporters who are not as plugged into the nuances of these issues as
we are.” 21

12

Despite his reservations, Mr. Richey deferred to the wishes of Demand Abolition’s political

13

strategists and allowed trafficking language to be included in the final official KCPAO’s Press

14

Release, which was provided to Sarah Jean Green at the Seattle Times. Much of this language,

15

including the references to trafficking, made it into the Seattle Times Editorial Board Article on

16

May 20, 2015, titled, “King County Takes a Promising Lead on Sex-Trafficking Enforcement.”22

9
10

17

The Review Board (“TRB”) Investigation

18

The Review Board (TRB) is an on-line webpage where sex buyers could write reviews

19

about prostitutes they have seen and sex workers could post advertisements. TRB was not a well-

20

hidden secret. There were local newspaper stories about it back in 2008. In that same year, the

21
22

21
22

See Sydney Asbury email on May 11, 2015 bates no.021108, attached to JCU declaration.
See Seattle Times Editorial Article, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 9 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

King County Sheriff acknowledged that he was aware of its use, but did not consider it a high
priority. Around that same time, law enforcement began to monitor the traffic on the board.
In addition to the regular TRB members, there was a smaller group of men called the Loeg,

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

that had their own password protected private website where more candid reviews could be shared.
The men also created a code of conduct towards the sex workers and would expel any customer
who failed to adhere to those standards. None of the members received any money or discounts as
a result of their reviews. In fact, it was a violation of their code of conduct to accept a discount.
New members were invited into the Loeg based on the reviews they had written on TRB and other
review sites. Detective Luke Hillman, working undercover for the Bellevue Police Department,
was invited and became a member of the Loeg. Through evidence gathered by Mr. Hillman, the
Loeg members were arrested on January 5th.
Although Mr. Richey initially claimed at an interview that Demand Abolition did not

14
15
16
17
18
19

know about this investigation until after the arrest 23, the evidence reveals otherwise. For instance,
more than a month before the arrest in this case, Ziba Cranmer of Demand Abolition emailed Mr.
Richey and introduced him to an FBI agent who was running a somewhat similar operation in
California. In that case, the members of a commercial website called myRedBook posted reviews
of prostitutes, similar to TRB. Mr. Richey responded directly to Mr. Marty Parker, the FBI agent,

20
21
22
23

See excerpts from Richey interview at 69, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 10 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

asking if they can speak over the phone regarding a “unique operation.” 24 Additionally, as
discussed below, Sydney Asbury was involved in drafting the press release prior to the arrest.
Maximizing the Publicity of the TRB Case

5

Under the terms of the Demand Abolition grant, the KCPAO was required to increase

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

publicity on arrests, prosecution and penalties. With that in mind, Mr. Richey began working with
Sydney Asbury on media messaging prior to any arrests. On December 20, 2015, Val Richey
drafted an initial draft press release about the TRB case. 25 Three days prior to the arrests of 12
defendants, on January 5, 2016, Ms. Asbury sent an email to Val Richey with her edits along with
a list of all the reporters who covered the backpage/credit card story to, “help with national
coverage” of the TRB arrests. 26
From the start, the King County Prosecutor knew that this case did not involve trafficking

13
14
15
16
17
18

or sex slavery. As King County Prosecutor Gary Ernsdorff would later explain at a sentence
hearing that the State had no evidence of trafficking, abuse or forced behavior in these cases.
Specifically, “Trafficking requires some sort of coercive behavior, usually physical coercive
behavior. And believe me, we looked hard at whether we had facts or not to file trafficking and it
did not meet the standard. There's also this coercive behavior that would go into a Promoting 1,

19
20
21
22

See Val Richey’s emails on December 8, 2015 & December 22, 2015, bates no.037442,038607, attached to JCU
declaration.
25
See Val Richey’s initial draft Press Release, bates no.038570, attached to JCU declaration.
26
See Ms. Asbury’s edits of draft Press Release, attached to JCU declaration.
24

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 11 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

and that simply we did not have the evidence in this case to file promoting or trafficking, Promoting
1 or trafficking.”27
But even knowing these buyers were not trafficking, the title to their final press release

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

boldly proclaimed: “Historic Raid Dismantles National Sex Trafficking Website, Shuts Down
Brothels, and Charges Multiple Suspects with Unprecedented Felony Charges”. Consistent
with the media messaging of Demand Abolition, the text of the press release contained language
portraying these buyers as traffickers. Dan Satterberg wrote, "Because they had money, these men
gained access to sexually abuse these vulnerable young women, then put their energies toward a
campaign to encourage many more men to do the same. This is what human trafficking looks
like." Former King County Sheriff John Urquhart stated, "The Sheriff's Office is committed to
holding accountable those who prosper from the crime of human trafficking, and to freeing
the victims of that crime to live a better life." And Bellevue Chief of Police Steve Mylett said,
"This investigation highlights the fact that human trafficking and sexual exploitation in all its
forms, including crimes involving force, fraud, and coercion are happening in communities
throughout this nation every day.” 28
At the press conference On January 7, 2016, Dan Satterberg told the press that these women

18
19
20

were brought here from Korea “against their will,” and had been trafficked, abused, and
commercially raped.

21
22

27
28

Exceprt from Rinehart sentencing transcript, attached to JCU declaration.
KCPAO Final press release, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 12 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

As discussed in argument two below, since the time of the initial news conference, Mr.
Richey and Demand Abolition have actively sought out national and local news media outlets
where they could tell the TRB story. Although there were two co-defendants who did not plead
guilty, those men’s pictures were routinely displayed in the media. In almost every instance, the
story that was told was one of trafficking and the abuse of these women. Even the title of the
shows that Mr. Richey appeared on, such as NPR’s “Against Their Will” gave a false impression
of what the case was about. Consistent with the media messaging approach advocated by
Demand Abolition, the prosecutor’s office would often include unrelated stories about violence
against women when describing the TRB case. With the help of Demand Abolition, the
prosecutor would search through the police records to find statements most likely to produce an
emotional response in the public. The prosecutor’s office was certainly aware that much of the
evidence they were supplying was inadmissible and irrelevant to the issues in the pending
criminal case. Only after the defense began sending over PRA requests for communications with
the media and Demand Abolition, did the prosecutor’s office begin to show restraint in the
publicizing of this case in the media.

18
LEGAL ARGUMENT

19
20
21

In soliciting grant money from Demand Abolition and agreeing to their
conditions, the King County Prosecutor created a conflict of interest.
Disqualification and dismissal of the complaint is required.
1.

22

The King County Prosecutor must be disqualified as the Demand Abolition grant
unduly influences charging decisions and methods of prosecution.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 13 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion in filing charges. 29 Such discretion recognizes the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

criminal justice system cannot support charges in every instance, and that charging decisions
must take into account the strength of the case and specific competing needs of the community.
As noted in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, a prosecutor’s freedom of action is
“justified by a parallel freedom from influence. The prosecutor is trusted to balance competing
private interests in society because she is not dependent upon any discrete private or
governmental interest.” 30 However, when a prosecutor becomes beholden to a special interest
group, particularly one holding the purse strings, that freedom from influence is jeopardized.
While courts are hesitant to second guess individual charging decisions, they are willing

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

to investigate the integrity of the process. Specifically, courts will look to see whether an outside
influence had an actual impact on the prosecutor’s decision-making process.31 As noted in Young
v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton, 481 U.S. 787, 804, 811 (1987), justice requires a “disinterested”
prosecutor. The inquiry is whether the prosecutor is “subject to influences that undermine
confidence that a prosecution can be conducted in disinterested fashion.” 32 Dismissal is required
when a prosecutor’s disinterested role has been compromised. 33

18
19
20
21
22

29

State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294, 299 (1990).
Joseph E. Kennedy, Private Financing of Criminal Prosecutions and the Differing Protections of Liberty and
Equality in the Criminal Justice System, 24 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 665, at 679 (1997)
31
Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton, 481 U.S. 787, 804 (1987).
32
Id.at 811
33
Id.
30

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 14 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
The United States Supreme Court in Marshall v. Jerrico 446 U.S. 238, 249-50 (1980)

3
4
5
6
7

recognized that injecting “a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement
process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some
contexts raise serious constitutional questions.” The Washington Legislature reached a similar
conclusion when it enacted RCW 36.27.050, which provides:
No prosecuting attorney shall receive any fee or reward from any person, on behalf
of any prosecution, or for any of his or her official services, except as provided in
this title, nor shall he or she be engaged as attorney or counsel for any party in any
action depending upon the same facts involved in any criminal proceeding.

8
9
10

Division One has explained, “The purpose of RCW 36.27.050 is to prevent outside influences

11

on an attorney working for the State.” 34
These concerns are present when a prosecutor’s office receives private funding with

12
13

strings attached, as in the present case. The Demand Abolition grant dictates how its money may

14

be used and requires prosecution quotas for continued funding.

15

The danger is somewhat minimized with a government grant, which itself is often an end

16

product of compromise through a democratic process. But those safeguards are missing in cases

17

such as ours, when the purse holder is a private special interest group with its own agenda on

18

charging decisions, sentencing and press coverage of the case. A similar situation confronted the

19

court in State v Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309 (Tenn. 2004).

20
21

In Culbreath, a group of concerned citizens in Tennessee contacted Mr. Parrish, a former
assistant U.S. Attorney, about investigating and prosecuting “sexually oriented” businesses. A

22
34

State v. Weston, 66 Wash. App. 140, 146 (1992)

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 15 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

deal was reached with the county prosecutor’s office whereby Parrish’s salary would be paid by
the citizen group and the prosecutor’s office would supply investigators. Parrish was eventually
appointed as a “special assistant district attorney,” with the citizen group continuing to pay
Parrish’s salary. Following a 19-month investigation, criminal charges and civil complaints were
filed against multiple defendants. 35 The trial court found the private payment by the citizen
group created a conflict of interest disqualifying Parrish and the rest of the prosecutor’s office.
The judge also concluded that this had been a violation of the defendant’s due process rights and
that dismissal was appropriate. 36
The State Supreme court in Culbreath upheld that decision, finding an actual conflict of

11
12
13
14
15
16

interest: “He was privately compensated by a special interest group and thus owed a duty of
loyalty to that group; at the same time, he was serving in the role of public prosecutor and owed
the duty of loyalty attended to that office.” 37 The court concluded that “the dual role was such
that Parrish could not exercise his independent professional judgment free of ‘compromising
influences and loyalties.’”38
In our case, the entanglements created by the Demand Abolition grant are even greater.

17
18
19

There is no suggestion in Culbreath that the prosecutor’s office agreed to filing quotas in order to
keep the money. There was no obligation for the prosecutor to meet with non-lawyers to determine

20
21

35

Id. at 310-312
Id. at 313
37
Id. at 316.I
38
Id.
36

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 16 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

strategy for the cases, nor was there an obligation to promote the arrest and upcoming trial in the
press.
Most importantly, in Culbreath, the prosecution appears to have filed the usual criminal

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

charges for the behavior at issue. By contrast, after accepting Demand Abolition’s money, the
King County Prosecutor filed what they acknowledged were “unprecedented felony charges”
against these buyers. Charging buyers with felonies was consistent with Demand Abolition’s
requirement that the prosecutor focus upon “high frequency buyers” and the demand side of the
prostitution trade. Prior to this case, the King County Prosecutor had always filed misdemeanor
charges against buyers. The unprecedented felony charges also achieved a secondary goal of
publicizing a win for Demand Abolition. This was prominently displayed on the Demand
Abolition website. 39 Demand Abolition also pays Mr. Richey to fly across the country to meet
with other prosecutors and encourage them to file similar charges. 40
The State may claim there is no conflict because Demand Abolition and the prosecutor’s

15
16
17
18
19
20

office share similar goals to eliminate prostitution by arresting buyers. That same argument,
however, was rejected in State v. Culbreath, supra. The State there argued that there was no
conflict of interest because the prosecutor and the private group that paid his salary both wanted
the same thing—the eradication of sexually oriented business. In response, the Supreme Court
observed, “the prosecutor’s discretion about whom to prosecute and to what extent they should

21
22

39
40

See Demand Abolition screen capture of webpage, Attached to JCU declaration.
See Peter Qualliotine email on May 7, 2014, bates no. 003249, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 17 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6

be prosecuted, however, is vast and to a large degree, not subject to meaningful review.” 41 As
such, “the State’s argument misses the point that the foundation for the exercise of the vast
prosecutorial discretion is freedom from conflict of interest and fidelity to the public interest.” 42
That freedom from conflict is missing in our case as well.
Ultimately, whether the idea of filing these particular felony charges originated with

7
8
9
10
11
12

Demand Abolition or the prosecutor’s office is of no real significance. Demand Abolition paid
the King County prosecutor to be more aggressive against buyers, to publicize a message that
could change the dialogue on prostitution. Either Demand Abolition or the prosecutor found a
way to accomplish that goal. The charges in this case are a result of a private interest group
paying the prosecutor to advance their own social agenda. This is not allowed.
Demand Abolition does not view prostitution as a consensual encounter between adults.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Demand Abolition believes that the act of prostitution is a sexual assault upon the sex worker
and that the buyer bears the blame for this coerced activity. 43 Accordingly, Demand Abolition
has an axe to grind against buyers, which is certainly their right. But it becomes a problem when
they use the prosecutor’s office to more harshly punish those buyers. As stated in Wright v. U.S.,
a prosecutor “is not disinterested if he has, or is under the influence of others who have, an axe to
grind against the defendant.”44

20
21

41

Culbreath at 316 (emphasis added)
Id.
43
See screen capture of Demand Abolition web page, attached to JCU declaration.
44
732 F.2d 1048, 1056 (2d Cir. 1984).
42

22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 18 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Evidence of this “axe to grind” can be found in the pretrial negotiations that led to guilty
pleas by most of the co-defendants. Beyond charging the buyers with felonies for the first time,
the prosecutor threatened to add a sexual motivation enhancement if they didn’t plead. They did
this, despite the fact that it appears this enhancement has never been added to this charge in King
County and had no application in the present case. Prior to Demand Abolition’s financial
involvement in the case, these men would have been facing simple misdemeanors. Suddenly they
were facing multiple years in prison.
“If a prosecutor's interest in a criminal defendant or in the subject matter of the
defendant's case materially limits his or her ability to prosecute a matter impartially, then the
prosecutor is disqualified from litigating the matter, and the prosecutor's staff may be
disqualified as well.” State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wn. App. 749, 751 (1992), abrogated on other
grounds by State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 808–10 (1999) (emphasis added). As noted above,
Demand Abolition’s exclusive focus is on buyers; this is the group of defendants Demand
Abolition paid the King County Prosecutor to more aggressively arrest and prosecute. As a
result, Choi—a female pimp who operated two brothels, had multiple escorts working for her,
drove a 2014 BMW convertible and had over $45,000 dollars in cash at the time of her arrest—
was not a buyer. She was offered misdemeanors. By contrast, the men who were buyers and did
not profit though prostitution, could only plead guilty to the felony of promoting prostitution
with the threat of an enhancement if they did not do so. By punishing buyers more harshly than
defendants engaged in the business of prostitution, the prosecutor turned the statute on its head in

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 19 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

order to satisfy the goals of Demand Abolition. The prosecutor’s decision to treat pimps more
favorably than buyers under the promoting statute reveals a lack of impartiality resulting from
Demand Abolition’s paid-for influence. Indeed, when asked whether Demand Abolition had
anything to do with this case, Mr. Richey responded in an email, “So yes, I think you can say
pretty clearly that the local shift to demand-focused approach (which eventually led to this op)
was heavily influenced by Demand Abolition’s leadership.”45
The King County Prosecutor needed to justify the money from the grant, and ensure that

9
10
11
12
13
14

future funding. With this case, they did so. Demand Abolition has used the “unprecedented
felony charges” as a success story on its webpage, and engages Mr. Richey as a national
spokesperson. Demand Abolition’s undue influence in the charging decisions and the way this
case was presented to the media, subverted the goals of the justice system. The charges should be
dismissed and the King County Prosecutor disqualified from any involvement in this case.
2.

15

The “Increase Publicity” requirement of the grant is in conflict with the Rules of
Professional Conduct.

16

In accepting Demand Abolition’s grant money, the prosecutor agreed to “increase publicity

17

on arrests, prosecutions and penalties.” Demand Abolition viewed this as an important component

18

of the grant, supplying Val Richey with media consultants and strategists to help him present the

19

case in a compelling way that would move people to action. He was taught that words like

20

“trafficking” were better than “sexual exploitation” in generating the right response. 46 He learned

21
22

45
46

See Val Richey’s email on Jan 11, 2016, Bates No. 039292, attached to JCU declaration.
See supra

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 20 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5

to associate prostitution with other criminal activity, and to emphasize the dangers these women
face.47 He directed others to search out quotes that would show Mr. Peters in the worst light,
generating public condemnation. 48
All of this would have been fine and good if the speaker was a lobbyist or politician vying

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

for the hearts and minds of the public. But Mr. Satterberg and Mr. Richey are prosecutors talking
about a pending case, and “a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not
simply that of an advocate,”49 The Rules of Professional Conduct place significant restrictions on
what a prosecutor may say to the press, and his actions must never be directed at simply trying to
disparage a defendant who is awaiting trial. 50 Stated simply, the prosecutors’ adherence to the
publicity requirements of the Demand Abolition grant put them in direct conflict with the Code of
Professional Conduct. This deep-rooted conflict requires disqualification of the KCPAO.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, “The theory of our system is that the

14
15
16
17
18

conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court,
and not by any outside influence, whether private talk or public print.” 51 In order to limit what is
said outside the courtroom, the Code of Professional Conduct places limits on all attorneys. RPC
3.8 places additional restrictions on what a prosecutor can say to the media. 52 RPC 3.8(f) provides

19
20
47

21
22

See Frank Luntz Supra
Bob Beiser’s emails, bates no. 047704 & 041261, attached to JCU declaration.
49
RPC 3.8 comment 1
50
See RPC 3.6, 3.8
51
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).
52
RPC 3.8 comment 1
48

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 21 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

that “except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the
prosecutor’s actions and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose,

7

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . refrain from making extrajudicial
comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public
condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent
investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or
associated the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement
that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule. 53

8

Under this rule, King County Prosecutor was required to take reasonable steps to prevent the police

9

from making any statement that the prosecutor could not make.

5
6

10

RPC 3.6 highlights certain danger areas that prosecutors and law enforcement should avoid

11

when speaking to the media. These include statements relating to the character or credibility of a

12

party or witness, and opinions of guilt as to the defendant. 54 It also includes mention of information

13

they should reasonably know will not be admitted at trial which creates a substantial risk of

14

prejudicing an impartial trial.55 As discussed below, the repeated references to trafficking,

15

coercion, abused women, and other criminal activity will play no role in the upcoming trial.

16

At the press conference following Mr. Peters arrest, Mr. Satterberg, King County Sheriff

17

Urquhart, and Police Chief Mylett each proclaimed that the women had been trafficked and abused.

18

Following the press conference, KCPAO continued their efforts to promote the TRB case in the

19

media. On February 5, 2016, Mr. Richey’s circulated an email to his core team. At the top of his

20
21
53

22

RPC 3.8(f) (emphasis added)
RPC 3.6 comment 5.
55
Id.
54

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 22 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6

agenda was creating goals for media outreach on the TRB case. 56 During their meeting, Demand
Abolition and other core team members discussed TRB evidence in the State’s discovery. The
purpose of the press outreach was not for law enforcement; it was determining the best way to use
this case to publicize their issue.
In a follow-up to their meeting, Mr. Beiser sent an email to Val Richey with the subject

7
8
9

“TRB focus on the buyers being not great dudes.” In this email, Mr. Beiser gives Val Richey
recommendations regarding specific TRB evidence which would resonate more with the media:

12

Mr. Beiser wrote, "Hi Val, I have found that in my conversations with people about
TRB, telling them the board quote about the prostituted women being scared and
crying really drove the point home. With this in mind, can we drive the words of
the men themselves front and center as communication on additional charges? That
makes the conversation and coverage firmly about the buyers, not the victims. And
it paints a clear picture that this isn't victimless or meant to help people. 57

13

Consistent with their intent to treat this as a lobbying effort, Demand Abolition was

14

strategic in searching for media journalists who were sympathetic to their view regarding

15

trafficking. For example, they reached out to Sasha Aslanian, a journalist with NPR, who wrote

16

recent stories about: “Visas Available For Victims Of Trafficking, Domestic Violence,” “Study

17

Counts Kids Who Seek Help Under New Sex Trafficking Law,” & “Better Sex Ed Could Have

18

Helped Trafficking Victims Report Says.”

10
11

19

Mr. Richey and other core team members were very cautious about speaking with unknown

20

reporters who were not provided by or sympathetic to Demand Abolition causes. When Ms.

21
22

56
57

See Val Richey email, attached to JCU declaration.
See Bob Beiser email on Feb. 8, 2016, bates no. 041261, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 23 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Aslanian sent an email to Bob Beiser indicating she was working on a project about sex trafficking,
Mr. Beiser cautiously sent an email to DA and the core team asking, “Does anyone know the
reporter below, or have a sense of her story? Just want to do my due diligence before I speak with
her. I'll google her and check past stories, but wanted to get any personal experience you have.
Help is appreciated!” To which Ziba Crammer of DA responds, “We referred her to you guys she is NPR, safe to engage :-)” Mr. Richey agreed indicating, “Yes, Peter and I have conversations
scheduled with them next week.”
After the TRB arrests, Ms. Aslanian worked closely with KCPAO and Mr. Richey to create
two stories about the TRB case. On September 10, 2016, her first piece, “Against Their Will”
included a profile about TRB with Mr. Richey and King County Detective Luke Hillman. Six days
later on NPR’s Market Place she published, “The Battle against sex trafficking turns to prostitution
review sites.” The Market Place piece focused on the TRB case and began with the unedited photo
of the defendant Charlie Peters. Ms. Aslanian also included an unedited undercover surveillance
video of Mr. Peters.
These articles unequivocally connect these buyers and the LOEG with sex trafficking. Ms.
Aslanian obtained Mr. Peters photo, video, and other discovery from KCPAO. Because the State’s
discovery on this case is voluminous, Mr. Richey and his core team assisted in picking out
discovery that would be helpful for Ms. Aslanian’s story about trafficking. According to an email

21
22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 24 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4

on July 26, 2016, it appears Mr. Richey helped Ms. Aslanian identify the defendant Charles Peters
and his aka as Peter Rabbit.58
Although the stories created an erroneous link between sex trafficking and the TRB case,

5
6
7

Demand Abolition and KCPAO were thrilled with Ms. Aslanian’s stories. Mr. Richey wrote an
email:
“Hi Sasha and Michael,

8

12

I spoke a bit with Gary and Luke and we all agreed the story was excellent. I've
heard a lot of positive feedback from all over the country already. Two important
points from my perspective: (1) to my knowledge, this is the first story in the
country on the buyer side of the case (which was the whole point all along); (2) this
is one of the first times that I have seen/read/heard a story about this topic that had
zero errors or misstatements. Pretty incredible and not easy given the complexity
of the subject. We appreciate your thoughtfulness and thoroughness, as well as your
patience with our busy schedules. 59

13

Gary Ernsdorf also wrote, “Hear, hear. This was very well done. I am impressed with the

14

depth and accuracy of the story. Thank you for your commitment to the story and the issue. And

15

to make Luke and Mr. Richey sound so good! Well done.”

9
10
11

16

Carol Edgar, who is Demand Abolition’s “Campaign Public Information Officer”, also

17

worked closely with Mr. Richey assisting him in attracting media interest. For example, on July

18

19, 2016, Ms. Edgar sent an email to Mr. Richey where she discussed using her many connections

19

to get large media organizations such as CNN, Newsweek, ABC Nightline, and NPR Marketplace

20

interested in the TRB case. 60

21
See emails from Ms. Aslanian from KCPAO’s Media PRA, attached to JCU declaration.
See Val Richey emails from KCPAO’s media PRA, attached to JCU declaration.
60
See Carol Edgar email on July 19, 2016, from KCPAO’s media PRA, attached to JCU declaration.
58

22

59

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 25 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
In October 2016, Ms. Edgar and Swanee Hunt flew to New York City, personally met with

3
4
5
6
7
8

Juju Chang and successfully pitched the TRB story. As with Ms. Aslanian, Mr. Richey assisted
Jackie Jesko the ABC news producer with obtaining specific discovery on the TRB case that would
be useful to their story. Mr. Richey also connected Ms. Chang with Detective Luke Hillman as
well as Alissa Bernard, who is a part of the core team and works for OPS. KCPAO also allowed
Ms. Chang to use their offices during the video taping of Val Richey.
The following November 30, 2016 email from Mr. Richey to Jackie Jesko at ABC is an

9
10

example illustrating KCPAO’s efforts to frame the messaging of the TRB story:
On December 1, 2016 Mr. Richey wrote to her again:
1) We filed charges against 13 more defendants late yesterday (sorry for the delay
in notifying you--! only just got confirmation that they had been processed
moments ago), Their arraignments will actually be December 14, which may
coincide with your timing.

11
12
13

2) The person you want to talk with about the experience of foreign nationals in
prostitution here in Seattle is Alan Lai at alanl@cisc-seattle.org. He has been
working with Asian victims of sexual assault for years and has done trainings for
the bar association, law enforcement and others on cultural issues and working with
this community. Interestingly, he was the advocate on a case I prosecuted a few
years ago involving a well-known, white lawyer in Seattle who raped numerous
Asian massage parlor employees: http:f/www.seattlepi.com/local/artlcfe/Seattlelawyer-Danford-Grant-sentenced-to-25-5484323.php. That case really emphasizes
the violence inherent to prostitution. Alan should be very helpful.” 61

14
15
16
17
18

With this email, as with his earlier actions, Mr. Richey was following the Demand Abolition game
19
plan of interjecting rape, assault and coercion into the discussion of a pending case and trial that
20
involved none of the above.
21
22
61

See Val Richey emails, from KCPAO’s media PRA, attached to JCU declaration

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 26 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
Another email from Mr. Richey to Jackie Jesko at ABC is reflective of the efforts Mr.

3
4

Richey made in assisting ABC News with specific discovery requests:
“1) I have attached a collection of some quotes from some of the suspects. This was
given out publicly at the time the original charges were filed. We are working on a
better collection for you, but this is just a sample that was given out at the time of
the original charges to give you a sense of what the reviews or posts were like.

5
6
7

2) I believe Kristi has confirmed that you guys have both audio and video of the
undercover meetings.

8
3) I checked on the mug shots. It turns out we actually are not the repository for
those; the King County Jail is. But... I have a contact for you-you can put in a
request to Andrea Williams at andre_a.wllliarns@kingcounty.gov.

9
10

4) I am working on an advocate contact for you. I was reminded today of another
contact who I think would be better than the person I mentioned before. I'll figure
it out shortly.

11
12

5) I have obtained the sentencing audio where the defendant Stephen Jenkins talks
about what a profound impact the class had on his perspective about buying sex.
I'm going to send you a link so that you can download the audio.” 62

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

On June 27, 2017, the ABC Nightline piece with Juju Chang aired on national TV, “Inside
The Fight To Take Down Online Prostitution Review Boards” In introducing this story, the
Nightline Anchor stated, “Many of these women were trapped in this lurid world of sex trafficking
by debt and fear. Tonight we will explore the struggle to protect them from exploitation by holding
the buyers accountable.” The piece begins with Mr. Richey talking about the TRB case, and then
includes another undercover surveillance video of Charlie Peters. Also included in this story were
headlines from other media article titles such as: “USA: 12 Korean Women Freed From Sex

21
22
62

See Val Richey emails, attached to JCU declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 27 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5

Trafficking Ring, 13 Men Charged For Their Involvement,” “Sheriff, Korean Women Freed After
Bust Of Seattle Area Sex Trafficking Ring” & “Twelve Women Rescued In Puget Sound Human
Trafficking Bust.” 63
On February 28, 2017, Mr. Richey appeared on KIRO’s the Ron and Don Show. The story

6
7
8
9
10
11

began with a discussion about the TRB case and trafficking. The anchor said, “Sex trafficking
going on over in Bellevue” “You prosecuted the League case and I think it’s kind of a microcosm
of what’s been going on in Bellevue; there’s 20 arrests; 18 people plead guilty; these are women
that are brought in internationally; they are brought into high rises; they are basically sex slaves
and….”64
Rather than correcting the hosts that the TRB case did not involve trafficking or sex slaves,

12
13

Mr. Richey continued with the sex trafficking conversation:
Thanks for having me guys the international sex trafficking is incredibly complex.
The way it works is that women from foreign countries are recruited, sometimes
knowingly, sometimes not and brought into the US often under some fake story,
like you’ll make 1,000s of dollars being a masseuse and then they get here and they
find out that being a masseuse means having sex with a bunch of strange guys all
day everyday; when they arrive they get farmed out to some strange place some
city across the country they usually LA or Flushing NY and they end up in a brothel
and brothels are run out of residences, usually apartments in the kind of buildings
you just described, and businesses are set up and guys start coming in as soon as
their add goes up on a website and most of these women don’t have any real contact
with the outside world. All of the dates are scheduled through a booker who is in
LA. The booker tells the woman that a guy is coming. She has no idea who it is.
She often doesn’t speak English. A lot of the dates and a lot of the conversations
with the dates are through a translator on the phone. And the guy comes in, has sex

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

63
64

See JCU declaration
See JCU Declaration.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 28 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3

with her, pays her and leaves; and the next one and the next one, all day 6, 7 days
a week. 65

4

As the above examples demonstrate, the Demand Abolition requirement of publicizing the

5

case to advance their policy goals which was completely inconsistent with the restraint required

6

by the Rules of Professional Conduct. This was not the “inform the public of the necessary

7

information” contemplated by RPC 3.6. Rather, it was an effective lobbying effort by Demand

8

Abolition that significantly compromised Mr. Peters’ right to a fair trial. Indeed, Demand

9

Abolition’s approach to the media contemplated by the grant agreement also violates RPC 8.4(d),

10

which prohibits “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The grant’s

11

requirement to increase publicity is in direct conflict with the prosecutor’s obligations under the

12

Rules of Professional Conduct. The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office should be

13

disqualified.

14
15

CONCLUSION

16

For the reasons set forth above, the defense asks this Court to disqualify the King County

17

Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and vacate the charging document. Further, because the State has

18

mismanaged the case, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of unnecessary work relating

19

to the grant, and has made false or misleading statements regarding trafficking thereby making a

20
21
22
65

Id.

23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 29 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247

 1
2
3
4
5

fair trial less likely, a dismissal of charges with prejudice is appropriate for mismanagement under
CrR 8.3. Finally, in the event that any of the facts are disputed, a fact-finding hearing is required.

DATED:

January 9, 2018

6

s/ James R. Dixon
State Bar Number 18014
Dixon & Cannon, Ltd.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-2247
E-mail: james@dixoncannon.com

7
8
9
10

s/ Jennifer Cannon-Unione
State Bar Number 27008
Dixon & Cannon, Ltd.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-2247
E-mail: jennifer@dixoncannon.com

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Amended Motion to Disqualify
PAGE 30 OF 30

25
26
27

DIXON & CANNON, LTD.
601 Union Street, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 957-2247