30489845

 

 

FILED
18 JAN 29 PM 4:24
1
KING COUNTY
2 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

3 CASE NUMBER: 16-1-00154?4 SEA
4
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
7
STATE OF WASHINGTON, 
8 
Plaintiff, No. 16-C-00154-4 SEA
9 
VS. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
10 
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE
11 CHARLES T. PETERS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
OFFICE AND DISMISS THE
12 Defendant. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
13 

14 
15 I. INTRODUCTION
16 The defendant seeks to disqualify the King County?s Prosecuting Attorney?s Office
17 or to dismiss the Information in this Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree
18 prosecution. The defense motion is based on a purported con?ict of interest arising out of
19 efforts by the Prosecutor's Office to change the paradigm around illegal commercial sex to
20
a model addressing the problem created by demand for prostitution. The defense asserts
21
that a con?ict arises out of funding for this effort from Demand Abolition, a private
22

nonpro?t. However the Demand Abolition grant does not fund any prosecutions and has

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 1 $153353? 

 

Seattle, Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

impact on the prosecution of this case. There is no con?ict of interest, violation of the
defendant?s Due Process rights or violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding

publicity. The State asks the court to deny the defendant?s motion.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Addressing the problem of illegal commercial sex by reducing demand

Between 2003 and 2007, Seattle had the fastest growing illegal commercial sex
industry in the country. Richey Dee, 4 and Ex. A (Urban Institute Study at 280). Legislators
responded by passing some of the most comprehensive anti-traf?cking laws in the
country. Richey Dec, ?11 4. However, the region continued to be plagued by this kind of
exploitation and startling cases of sex trafficking. Id.

In early 2013, the King County Prosecutor?s Office began to rethink its approach to
the illegal sex trade to emphasize accountability for sex buyers and alleviation of the harm
that commercial sex has on women. Senior Deputy Val Richey recommended to
Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg and Chief Criminal Deputy Mark Larson that the
Office consider shifting its focus away from prosecuting people in prostitution and instead
focus on the demand for prostitution. Richey Dee, 5 and (Responding to
Prostitution and Demand in King County). The recommendation was based on the
dispIOportionality in arrests of prostituted people versus sex buyers. Id. Mr. Richey
explained that he could not find research indicating that arresting people for prostitution

reduced exploitation or reduced the occurrence of prostitution. Id. On the other hand, he

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T0 Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 2 

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

 

 

did ?nd research indicating that addressing the demand for prostitution could reduce
both the incidence of prostitution and the harmful exploitation that it caused. Id. Mr.
Satterberg supported this analysis and agreed that Chief Deputy Larson and Mr. Richey
should explore effective anti-demand strategies for addressing the problem of commercial
sexual exploitation. Richey Dec., 11 5.

The new approach had a solid foundation in research and national policy
discussions. According to the US. State Department, the demand for prostitution is the
primary root cause of sex trafficking because there were no demand for commercial
sex, sex traf?cking would not exist in the form it does today.? Richey Dec., Ex. (State
Department Publication). As the former ambassador at large for human trafficking, Mark
Lagon, put it bluntly: ?It seems like a no?brainer that reducing demand for commercial sex
will reduce the exploitation of women and girls in the commercial sex industry." Richey
Dec., Ex. (Washington Post Op-Ed).

The reality that demand for commercial sex drives exploitation ?underscores the
need for continued strong efforts to enact policies and promote cultural norms that
disallow paying for sex.? Richey Dec., Ex. (State Department Publication). This is
because pervasive portraying commercial sex trafficking victims as consenting
adults minimize the presence of exploitation. Id.

The primary tool policy makers have at their disposal to shift these cultural norms

is public awareness because first and foremost, ?abolishing sex traf?cking requires placing

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 3 3565:1131: 53$? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

the stigma on the purchaser rather than the cornmodified women and girls they buy.?
Richey Dec., Ex. (Washington Post Op-Ed).

Compounding the need for public awareness to change cultural norms and deter
buyers are the inherent limitations of enforcement of sex buying laws to address the size
and scope of the problem. A leading study estimates that 14% of adult men will buy sex at
some point in their life. Richey Dec., Ex. (Monto and Milrod Study). According to US.
Census data, that would translate to more than 100,000 adult men in King County who
buy sex at some point in their life. However, between 2012 and 2016, only 196 men on
average were charged annually with buying sex in King County. Richey Dec., 7. Law
enforcement efforts alone cannot solve the problem of commercial sexual exploitation.
Increased public awareness is a crucial addition to enforcement.

In light of these challenges, the Office turned to national experts, like Michael
Shively on reducing the demand for prostitution. Richey Dec., Ex E?mail of
1/ 31 13). In exploring the problem, Mr. Richey had come across Mr. Shively?s National
Overview of Demand Reduction Efforts. Id. In January 2013, he contacted Mr. Shively
and invited him to discuss the demand reduction approach with members of the
Prosecutor?s Office. Id. As Mr. Richey explained in a subsequent e-mail, law enforcement
was having tremendous success with sex buyer stings Where detectives posed online as 15
year old girls. Richey Dec., Ex. (E-mail of 3/15/13). These stings caught a different
demographic of individuals attempting to exploit children for sex than the street stings

that targeted men buying sex from adults. Both types of stings furthered the goal of

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel_Satterbet-g. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 4 ?313 Semi: Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

reducing the demand for commercial sex through deterrence. Id. Mr. Richey arranged for
Mr. Shively to make a presentation to members of the Prosecutor?s Office and to the
Sheriff?s Office on April 26th, 2013. Richey Dec., 11 10. Mr. Shively recommended a focus
on demand as the best strategy to reduce the harm caused by prostitution. Id. Managers
in the Prosecutor's Office were very interested in this approach and directed Mr. Richey to
start the move towards the demand model across King County?s law enforcement
community. Id.

The Seattle City Attorney and Seattle Police were making this shift to puISuing
demand at the same time. Id. And by early 2013, the Prosecutor?s Office was receiving so
many Attempted Commercial Sexual Abuse of a Minor cases from the Seattle
Police that the Office developed a policy for them. Richey Dec., 11.1 This policy, issued
on June 19, 2013, provides negotiation and sentencing standards for Attempted CSAM
cases. Richey Dec., Ex. (Att. Commercial Sexual Abuse of a Minor). Under the policy,
the Office would consider reduction to the combined crimes of Communicating with
Minor for Immoral Purposes and Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree. The
policy?s accepted sentencing ranges included the $5,000 statutory fine, registration, and
attendance at John School. This policy, consistent with the demand approach the Office
embraced in January 2013, is based on a desire to alleviate the harm done to CSAM
victims. Richey Dec., ?11 11. The policy is designed to deter sex buyers and to educate them

in required classes to reduce recidivism. Id.

 

1 In 2013 36 of 41 CSAM charges filed by the Office were the result of Seattle Police
referrals. Richey Dec., Ex. I (CSE Statistics Spreadsheet).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DanieISatterherg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 5 325ali<r?li?g?ly Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845



the same time, the Office began searching for additional law enforcement
partners to join in the focus on demand as a means of reducing the harm to the victims of
prostitution. Richey Dec., 12. A child exploitation training was held on June 17?18, 2013
at the Criminal Justice Training Commission facility in Des Moines. Id. Mr. Richey,
Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, Sheriff John Urquhart and Detective Mike Garske made
presentations to the more than 100 assembled law enforcement representatives from across
Washington State. Id. The training agenda was two full days covering traf?cking issues,
including a component on addressing the problem of buyers. Id.

In late 2013 Mr. Richey was introduced to Demand Abolition because of the pilot
projects they were proposing to fund to focus on the problem of demand. Richey Dec, 
13. Following that conversation, Demand Abolition provided an overview of their
Locality Initiative, which would provide grant money for localities to create models of
combatting demand for illegal commercial sex. Richey Dec., Ex. I (11 6/ 13 E-mail with
Locality Initiative Overview). The pilot projects would test two promising tactics related
to sex buyer education. Id. The pilot would also emphasize data collection and
measurement to ?define the scope of the problem in [the local] area and to assess whether
[the local] efforts are having the desired impact of reducing demand." Id. The Overview
emphasized that there would be local control over the pilot projects. Id. This meant that
while the projects in each city would test two buyer education strategies, the pilot would
?encourage local adaptation of those tactics and hope that new approaches [would]

emerge as a result of local collaboration.? Id. Thus, while Demand Abolition would

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel'Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 6 3565;111:33 331111;? Cou?house

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

provide infrastructure for the initiative, the strategy development and implementation
would be driven by local stakeholders. Id.

Mr. Richey recommended that the Office consider participating in this grant. Id.
This project was a good fit for the Of?ce and for the region. According to a national study,
the Seattle area experienced a boom in the commercial sex trade from 2003 to 2007. Richey
Dec., ?11 14 (Urban Institute Study). There was broad political support in the community
for demand reduction. Richey Dec., '11 14. Buyer stings were already taking place in
Seattle and Kent, and the City Attorney in Seattle had previously committed to the same
strategy. Id. The King County Prosecutor had also earlier made a decision to focus on
demand reduction. Id. Moreover, leadership of the prostitution survivor community was
engaged with law enforcement on this issue and had encouraged a focus on demand. Id.
Finally, there were ongoing data collection efforts led by Mr. Richey. Id. This combination
of a growing problem, an existing group of stakeholders committed to the demand
solution, and funding from an organization committed to local control made Seattle a
good candidate to participate in this pilot.

Mr. Richey had an ongoing relationship with the Organization for Prostitution
Survivors a local group dedicated to advocating for survivors of exploitation of
the commercial sex trade. Richey Dec., ?11 15. Mr. Richey and OPS decided to submit a
pr0posal to Demand Abolition for a collaboration between the Prosecutor's Of?ce and
OPS to lead Seattle?s effort to reduce the demand for prostitution. Richey Dec., Ex. K, p. 2

(Grant Proposal). The proposal outlined the components for a successful pilot and

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Satterherg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 7 325%! 15:3 53:23? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

introduced Peter Qualliotine from OPS and Val Richey as the potential local coordinators
for a Seattle pilot. Id., at pp. 4-5. Mr. Qualliotine had been teaching the only buyer
intervention program (known as a ?John School?) in the region which was run by the City
of Seattle for defendants charged in Seattle Municipal Court. Richey Dec., 15. And he
had been developing a new curriculum for an expanded buyer class that was designed to
be a more effective tool for education and deterrence. Id. Mr. Richey and Mr. Qualliotine
brought together core team of survivor representatives, law enforcement participants, an
academic, philanthrOpists and a representative of the business community to participate in
the pilot. Richey Dec., Ex. K, p. 5.

Demand Abolition's pilot required only that two demand reduction strategies be
tested: a sex buyer education program and a public awareness campaign. The grant
specifically provided that, "additional tactics are not a requirement." Richey Dec., Ex. L, p.
13 (emphasis in original) (Formal Application). Washington law already required one
kind of buyer intervention program for buyers of adult and child commercial sex. RCW
9A.88.130 and RCW 9.68A.100. But only the City of Seattle had such a program in place
Mr. Qualliotine?s class). Richey Dec., 16. The core team?s proposal was to revise the
City of Seattle program to change the learning methods, dedicate more time to the class,
and introduce individualized components. Richey Dec., Ex. L, p. 14 (Formal Application).
Much of the work on this curriculum had already been completed by Mr. Qualliotine. Id.
The other required component was to coordinate a public awareness campaign targeted

directly at buyers on websites where prostitution is advertised or accessible. Id., p. 13

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterherg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 8 325;; 1:313 Egg? Counhousc

Washington 98104
(206) 296.9000

 

30489845

(Formal Application). Mr. Richey had been researching the contours of such a program for
the Seattle region as part of the Office?s switch to a focus on demand in 2012 and 2013.
Richey Decemail). The proposal included a broader campaign of
male accountability messaging and bystander engagement (educating the business
commrmity, young men and the general public about the problems of sexual exploitation
associated with commercial sex). Richey Dec.,. Ex. L, p. 14 Formal Application).

The team also proposed its own concept of coordinating an expansion of criminal
justice efforts through web-based reverse sting operations. Id., p. 14-15 (Strategy 1 of
Formal Application). This locally controlled effort would expand training for police
agencies on buyer stings, which would result in an increase in the arrests and prosecutions
of buyers across the multitude of police agencies and municipal prosecutors in King
County. Id., p. 14 (Formal Application). Local authorities would also be educated to
incorporate the deterrents that existed in Washington law such as car impound, monetary
fines, community service and sex offender registration. See, e.g. RCW Ch. 9A.88, and
RCW Ch. 9.68A. 1d,, p. 15 (Formal Application). This proposal also included a public
education component to make potential buyers aware of the threat of arrest, prosecution
and penalties for contributing to the problem created by their demand for commercial sex.
Richey Dec., Ex. K, p. 8 (Proposal). One of the impacts of a uniform imposition of ?nes
across jurisdictions in King County would be an increase in the amount of money
available for prevention and rehabilitation services - because 50% of those fines are

directed towards those services under the statutes. RCW 9A.88.120 and RCW 

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel'Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 9 gzs?fgifg??)? Cou?housc

Seattle. Washington 98 I04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Internally, the core group developed benchmarks for each strategy. For the law
enforcement strategy, this included law enforcement trainings, pilot stings, and testing of
online deterrents. Richey Dec., Ex. L, p. 17 (Formal Application). For the buyer education
program, the benchmarks included convening a developer team, completing drafts of
specific modules, drafting bystander messaging and identifying partners to work with
male allies. Id.

The goals for outcomes from these strategies included an increase in police agencies
trained and conducting reverse stings, an increase in arrests and prosecutions of buyers by
50% across King County jurisdictions, and a reduction in buyer traffic on websites of 20%.
Id. The goals for the education strategy included an increase of buyer intervention
participation by 30%, a report on recidivism for two years and a report on the number of
bystanders reached. Id., p. 21.

The Seattle core team was awarded a grant by Demand Abolition in February 2014.
This included $50,000 to fund a portion2 of Mr. Richey?s salary and benefit costs for work
on the pilot. Richey Dec., ?11 18. This money was not paid directly to Mr. Richey, but was
directed to the Prosecutor?s Office $65 million 2014 budget.3 Neither Mr. Richey?s salary
level nor the ability to pay his salary was dependent upon on receipt of the Demand
Abolition funds. His position was fully funded by King County regardless of the award of

the grant. Id.

 

2 The actual cost of Mr. Richey's salary and benefits for 2014 was $151,694.23. Richey Dec.,
11 18. Thus, the grant funded less than one third of Mr. Richey?s position.

3http: media Council documents Budget 2013 Ordinance17
at Page 23.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Setterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 10 3565:? 1:313 53:11:)! Courthouse

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

The grant award identifies a one year project to reduce demand for illegal
commercial sex, including testing and evaluating innovative approaches to reduce
demand. Richey Dec., Ex. (2014 Grant Award). Consistent with the notion of local
control advertised by Demand Abolition, no strategies were identi?ed or required and no
targets of any kind were established in the grant. Id. The Scope of Work simply required
quarterly work plans, weekly calls with coordinators of the various city pilots, 
calls with the core teams from the various city pilots, core team member meetings
and reports on overall progress. Id.

The grant was renewed in 2015 for $41,667. Richey Dec., Ex. (2015 Grant Award).
The 2015 grant added an agreement to shared values and assumptions regarding the
illegal commercial sex industry. Id. These included that the industry is inherently
harmful, demand is fueling the harm, reducing demand is an important strategy to combat
the harm, holding buyers accountable is essential to shift actual behavior and norms, and
that demand reduction must be informed by survivors. Id. These were values that the
Office had embraced well before this grant came along. Richey Dec., ?11 19. Additional
minimum criteria were set, including developing and implementing a strategy to reduce
demand 20% in two years and establishing a stakeholder leadership team. Richey Dec.,
Ex. (2015 Grant Award). Again, there was no requirement that any specific strategy be
implemented or contain any specific element. The scope of work simply required work
plans and a report on progress including shifts in the strategy and work plans adopted by

the core team. Id.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 11 3565;111:5333? ?mm?

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

ywas clear to Mr. Richey that the nature of the problem was so enormous that
arrests and buyer stings could not by themselves solve it. Richey Dec., ?il 20 . And
signi?cant numbers of arrests were not necessary to disrupt demand. Id. Although the
core team?s strategy included encouraging local authorities to conduct buyer stings, arrests
and prosecutions to maintain a credible threat of personal risk to buyers, the efforts were
enhanced with buyer disruptions on the internet. The team employed three strategies: (1)
search ads were placed on Google and Bing to appear at the top of a search return when a
potential buyer searched for commercial sex a search for ?escort reviews?); (2)
Facebook ads were sent to the Facebook Newsfeeds of people who fit a pro?le of a
commercial sex buyer; and (3) the team engaged with businesses to educate them and their
employees about the dangers of buying commercial sex. Richey Dec., '11 20.

The grant was again renewed in February 2016 for $50,000. Richey Dec., Ex. 0
(2016 Grant Award). In the 2016 award, Demand Abolition continued to require a strategy
designed to reduce demand by 20%. Id. And it added a target for buyer disruptions,
including 14,800 overall disruptions and 1,100 high frequency buyer disruptions.4 Id.
These disruptions took place almost entirely on the internet or through advertising and
business engagement. Richey Dec., ?11 21. Requirements for quarterly updates of the local

strategy and local progress were also added as well as disruption data. Richey

 

Mr. Peters emphasizes the high frequency buyer disruption tactic specifically to suggest
that the charges in his case were motivated by this element of the grant. Defendant's Brief
at 6. But these disruptions were conducted through internet ads. And in any event, the
element was added in February 2016, after Mr. Peters was charged. Richey Dec., Ex. 0
(2016 Grant).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 12 325:? 2:313 33%! Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98 I 04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Dec., Ex. 0 (2016 Grant). The purpose of this data was to help Demand Abolition
understand what strategies were working so they could be promoted to other localities.
Richey Dec., ?11 21. The 2016 grant also required participants to respond to Demand
Abolition requests for information or to participate in meetings. Richey Dec., Ex. 0 (2016
Grant). This was the same information gathering and sharing at meetings that had been
going on from the beginning of the grant. Richey ?11 21. It certainly did not entail an
agreement to open all of the Office?s files and records to inspection by Demand Abolition
as Mr. Peters has alleged. Richey Ex. 0 (2016 Grant). And no such inspections took
place. Richey Dec., 21.

The 2016 grant also added a requirement for each locality to develop a twelve-
month communication strategy to proactively and reactively leverage media channels to
help shift cultural norms and increase a sense of risk among buyers. Richey Dec., Ex. 0
(2016 Grant). This requirement entailed development of a local strategy but did not
impose any specific strategy or level of effort to achieve it. And it was virtually identical
to the strategy that the team had proposed in 2014 and had been implementing ever since.
Richey Dec., Ex. L, p. 14 (Formal Application). Therefore, the team continued to pursue
the three public education strategies it had been pursuing from the beginning of the
project. Richey Dec., ?]122.

Finally, the 2016 Grant provided for quarterly evaluations of local progress and
results by Demand Abolition and notification that if the number of disruptions was not

sufficient, they might withdraw the grant. Richey Dec, Ex. 0 (2016 Grant Award). Mr.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 13 Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

 

 

 

 

pRichey never received any of the proposed evaluations from Demand Abolition and there
was never any indication that the number of disruptions was an issue. Richey Dec., 1123.
Nor did Demand Abolition ever require that arrests, prosecutions, or any other specific
type of disruption be included in meeting the goals. The defendant?s repeated assertion
that the grant required prosecution quotas is patently false. Not only were they not
required under the grant, but arrests and prosecutions were not even a significant
component of the disruptions reported by the Seattle team. According to Demand
Abolition?s compilation of the reported data, the Seattle team reported 1.67 million
disruptions between November 2014 and April 2016. Of this number, only 334 of these
data points were prosecutions. Richey Dec., Ex. (Intervention Reach Calculations
[attached to 5/5/16 

In January 2015, the Office also received a STOP grant from the Washington State
Department of Commerce. Richey Dec., ?11 24. The grant supported prosecuting cases
involving youth victims of sexual assault and abuse and was for $49,752. Richey Dec., ?11
24. In its proposal, the Office offered to dedicate .43 towards the prosecution of
attempted CSAM cases. Richey Dec., Ex. (Proposed Activities Section of STOP Grant
proposal). The STOP grant proposal outlined the key elements of the Demand Abolition
trial project: ?expanding training of police agencies to conduct sting operations on sex
buyers; increasing the number of agencies conducting stings to address increased demand
online; increasing publicity of arrests, prosecutions and penalties; ensuring imposition of

fines to support victim services; and coordinating a public awareness and deterrence

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T0 Daniel'Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 14 3213353? Courthouse

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

campaign targeted towards internet sex buyers." Id. The request for the STOP grant was
to ?coordinate investigative activities, review law enforcement referrals for ?ling, make
charging decisions and handle all aspects of prosecution, including trials.? Id. 0 similar
language is included in the Demand Abolition grant application or any of the agreements.

This was an intentional distinction drawn between Mr. Richey?s activities under the
Demand Abolition grant and the activities proposed under the STOP grant. Richey Dec., ?11
24. In fact, when the person assigned to draft the STOP grant proposal mistakenly
con?ated the roles, Mr. Richey corrected her, writing, don?t want to imply that the
[Demand Abolition] grant is devoted to increasing prosecutions, because although that is
the goal, the money in the [Demand Abolition] grant is not actually used for prosecutions
or individual investigations.? Richey Dec., Ex. (Draft Proposed Activities Section of
STOP Grant proposal). There was always a clear distinction between Mr. Richey?s work
on the pilot project to change the law enforcement paradigm around illegal commercial
sex and the actual prosecution of cases. Richey Dec., 24.

No prosecution was ever contemplated, initiated, pursued, negotiated or taken to
trial as part of the Demand Abolition trial project. Richey Dec., 25. The prosecution of
individual cases was never included as part of any Demand Abolition Grant proposal or
indicated in any Demand Abolition grant document. On the contrary, the purpose of the
Demand Abolition grant was to free Mr. Richey from his prosecution duties to focus on
coordinating a change in the law enforcement paradigm around demand. Other than

providing factual information about cases, no individual charging, case strategy or

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 15 gis?fr?liff?ely Cou?housc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

resolution decision was ever discussed with Demand Abolition or the Core Team and no
one associated with Demand Abolition or the Core Team ever had any input into any
decision to initiate, pursue, negotiate or try a criminal case contemplated or brought by the
Office. Id. There is no evidence suggesting anything to the contrary.

B. The Review Board Investigation

In early summer of 2015, Mr. Richey and Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Gary
Ernsdorff were approached by King County Sheriff?s Detectives Michael Garske and Luke
Hillman. Richey Dec, 11 26. The detectives reported that they had been monitoring a
website where sex buyers posted reviews and recommendations for prostituted persons
they had visited. Id. The website was called The Review Board See Docket NO.
1, p. 1 (Peters Cert). As the detectives spent more time looking into the activities of the
site, they concluded the website was dedicated to the promotion and facilitation of
prostitution activities in this region. Id. TRB allowed buyers of sex to share information
about how to access specific prostituted persons and to review their sexual encounters
with the prostituted people. Id. These ads directly affected the popularity and amount of
business for an individual prostituted person and her agency. Id. The self-described
purpose of TRB, and its reviews and posts, was to increase the business to the good
agencies and prostituted people, with the goal of keeping popular or favorite prostituted
persons in the area longer. Id., at p. 2. Gaining notoriety in the TRB community also

allowed a TRB member to access other prostituted persons and to bypass screening

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T0 Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 16 3311:3353)? 

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

processes for the agency involved. Id. TRB members also arranged references for
individuals so new clients could have access to the prostituted persons. Id.

Detective Hillman had joined the website in an undercover capacity and was
eventually invited to join an exclusive group of sex buyers called ?The League,? a select
group of TRB members. Id. The group was devoted to reviewing, recommending, and
promoting Asian, particularly Korean, prostituted women in the Seattle area. Id., at p. 3.
Membership in The League was by invitation only and required a face-to-face meeting
with The League organizer, Mr. Peters. Id. The League had two Websites they also used
for promoting and advancing prostitution: theloeg.net (open only to members) and
kgirldelights.com (open to the public) where brothels could post advertisements for
prostitution. Id. Members of The League also hosted fairly regular meetings, the purpose
of which was to continue the advancing and promoting of prostituted persons in the
region and nationally. Id.

Detective Hillman infiltrated The League by participating in on-line discussions
with TRB members and then with The League members. Id., at p. 4. Mr. Peters invited
Detective Hillman to participate in a ?meet and greet?. Id. Peters told the detective that
he would have to meet ?face to face? prior to allowing Detective Hillman to participate in
The League. Id. After the meeting, Detective Hillman was allowed to participate in
meetings. Id. The Superior Court authorized recording of some of the meetings Detective
Hillman attended. Id. The League participants were recorded openly discussing topics

relating to their involvement in buying sex and promoting prostitution. Id.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 17 2125;111:3333? Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98104
{206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Meanwhile, detectives from the Bellevue Police Department had received a tip from
a resident at a Bellevue apartment about a possible brothel being operated ?by a neighbor.
Richey Dec., Ex. S, p. 2 (Mueller Cert). Around the same time Detective Hillman learned
from his in?ltration of TRB and The League that S-Sung Hee Choi was managing a group
of Korean prostituted persons online. Richey Dec., Ex. T, p. 3 (Choi Cert). Detective
Hillman also learned from a Homeland Security Special Agent that a woman, Y.A., had
alleged in a declaration that Choi had lured her to the United States from Korea under
false pretenses and then forced her to work as a prostitute. Id. Y.A. alleged that Choi had
paid off her debt to loan sharks in Korea and then arranged for her to be flown to the
United States to work off her debt. Id. Subsequent investigation of Mueller and Choi
uncovered a network of brothels filled with almost entirely Korean women. Richey Dec.,
Exs. and (Choi and Mueller Certs).

The individual prostituted persons are often controlled by the ?agency? which
provides everything for the prostituted person including apartments, advertising, and
customers. See Docket No. 1 (Peters Cert). The prostituted people, typically foreign
nationals, are trafficked from city to city and are advertised as available twelve to fourteen
hours a day, seven days a week. Id. Agencies use ?bookers" to set up appointments with
their prostituted persons. Id. The bookers typically Use a screening process in which new
buyers are required to provided references or photo identification to schedule an
appointment. Id. The investigation eventually identified four different brothel operators.

See Richey Dec., Exs. S, T, U, and (Choi, Mueller, Durnal and Kim Certs).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 18 2125;111:313 533:? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

pThe League and brothel investigations came together over the course of 2015.
Richey Dec., ?11 26. Detective Hillman attended a meeting of The League at a bar in
Bellevue on January 5, 2016. See Docket No. 1, p. 11 (Peters Cert). Mr. Peters was arrested
with various other members of The League at the meeting. Id. Four brothel operators,
including Mueller and Choi were also arrested within days. Richey Dec., ?11 26. Through
the course of the investigation, the detectives learned that Mr. Peters had also purchased
sex with dozens, likely hundreds of women, and then wrote and graphic reviews
and recommendations of the prostituted women on the websites. See Docket No. 1, p. 7-8
(Peters Cert). These reviews and recommendations were designed to help sex buyers
patronize prostitutes and brothels get more business. Id. Peters also helped prospective
buyers?including, ostensibly, Detective Hillman through the brothel screening process so
that they could arrange dates. See Docket No. 1, p. 8 (Peters Cert). Peters is currently
charged with 11 counts of Promoting Prostitution 2. See Amended Information.

The Review Board case lays bare the prevalence and organization of sex buyers,
their impact on the commercial sex industry and the lack of understanding among the
general public and policy makers about the scope of the problem. The investigation
demonstrates the toxic impact of review boards to the illegal commercial sex industry.

The purpose of review boards is to increase traf?c to prostitution businesses and to
provide valuable, reliable information to sex buyers. See Docket No. 1, p. 3-4 (Peters
Cert). They provide safety, anonymity, choice, advice, peer-to-peer communication and

intelligence to sex buyers. Id. The review board community promotes, encourages, assists

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 19 3:211:33 5;ng Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

and facilitates transactions at a high volume. Id. The community normalizes sex buying
for those who visit the website, which leads to more buyers and more transactions. Id.
This increased demand is associated with increased exploitation of the kind observed in
the associated brothel cases. The proliferation of brothels staffed by foreign nationals
across King County was strongly corroborated this conclusion. Subsequently, the
Prosecutor?s Office identified more than twenty similar review boards around the country.
Richey Dec., ?11 28.

From all this, the Office concluded it was critical for the broader community, in
particular law enforcement, policy makers, and the sex buyers themselves, to understand
the incredible negative impact of review boards on exploitation. Richey Dec., 29. This is
Why the Office participated in a press conference related to the filing of charges in the TRB
case and the associated brothel cases. Id. It is also why the Of?ce granted additional
interviews typically in a national context as opposed to local to disseminate general
information about the existence of review boards, their impact and the need to address
them as crucial infrastructure contributing to exploitation. Id. These press contacts
necessarily included information about the nexus between TRB and the brothels involved
in the investigation. For example, in his talking points for the January 6, 2016 press
conference, Mr. Satterberg wrote, ?in response to the market cultivated by these men,
numerous brothels sprung up in our community and served as a part of a national
pipeline that transports exploited women around the country for use in the prostitution

industry.? Richey Dec., Ex. (Satterberg Talking Points). Such descriptions of the

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 20 3561:1113 53$? Counhouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845





Laexploitation involved in the brothels and their relationship to the demand promoted by
TRB and The League were essential to effectively communicate what this investigation

had revealed and why it should matter to the public.

111. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

. A prosecutor may be disquali?ed where he or his Office has a direct con?ict Of

interest. The grant was a project to coordinate a change in the paradigm around

illegal commercial sex. Does such a grant create a direct con?ict of interest?

. A criminal charge may be dismissed under the Due Process Clause where there

is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of the defendant?s rights presented
by an unrestrained private prosecutor with a direct con?ict of interest. The
Demand Abolition grant did not fund or direct Mr. Peters? prosecution in any
way. Does such a grant pose a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of the

defendant?s rights?

. The Rules of Professional Conduct address the appropriate limitations on

pretrial publicity in a criminal prosecution. Here, the terms Of the grant did not
require publicity in con?ict with the the statements made by law
enforcement were factual and appropriate under the the defendant has
not provided any evidence that he has been harmed by the publicity; and the
remedies he seeks disqualification and dismissal?are not available for a
violation of the RPCs. Is the defendant entitled to dismissal of the Complaint

absent improPer statements or a showing of prejudice?

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 21 malf??my Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

This response is based on the records and files in this matter as well as the

declaration of Valiant Richey and the attachments thereto.
V. AUTHORITY

A. Motion for disqualification.

Mr. Peters seeks to have the Prosecutor?s Office disqualified from representing the
State in this prosecution. In support of this pr0posal, he submits a Tennessee Supreme
Court decision where a private attorney was personally paid over $400,000 (plus an
additional $100,000 in expenses) by a private organization to investigate, indict and
prosecute a defendant without any meaningful over-sight from the elected prosecutor and
Without having even been properly appointed to the role during the investigation.
Tennessee v. Culbreath, 30 309 (Tenn. 2000). Under Tennessee law, that court
determined that a prosecutor must be disqualified if he has an actual con?ict of interest
because he cannot exercise his independent professional judgment free of compromising
interests and loyalties. Id., at 312?13. The Tennessee Court went on to hold that if there is
no actual con?ict of interest, the court must nonetheless consider whether conduct has
created an appearance of impropriety. Id., at 313.

The Washington Supreme Court has rejected the notion that an appearance of
impropriety standard applies to a prosecutor. State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792,. 810 (1999).

This is because, as the Supreme Court has held, ?rigid requirements designed for

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DanielSatterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 22 ?251: Elli 53111:? Courthouse

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

of?cials performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, are not applicable to those acting
in a prosecutorial or plaintiff-like capacity.? Marshall v. Ierrico, Inc., 446 US. 238, 248
(1980). Unlike judges, "[p]rosecutors need not be entirely ?neutral and detached?". Id.
They are ?necessarily permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law.? Id.
?Although the constitution prevents prosecutors from making decisions that are
?motivated by improper factors or contrary to law. . . . [T]he strict requirements of
neutrality cannot be the same for prosecutors as for Finch, 137 Wn.2d at
810, citing Marshall, 446 US. at 249-505

Mr. Peters must therefore prove that the prosecutor has an actual con?ict of interest
in order to attain his goal of disqualification. State v. Orozco, 144 Wn.App. at 20-21. Such
a con?ict could occur, for example, where a prosecutor has a direct financial interest in the
outcome of the case. Id.; and Tennessee v. Culbreath, 30 at 316 (unsupervised
private prosecutor had a direct ?nancial interest in the duration and scope of the ongoing
prosecution and owed a duty of loyalty to a private interest group). It could also occur
where a prosecutor simultaneously represents another party with a con?icting interest and
Owes an ethical duty to those other clients. Young v. US. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481
US 787, 803?04 (1987).

Neither of these situations is presented in Mr. Peters? case. Mr. Richey owes no

duty of loyalty to Demand Abolition. And he has no direct financial interest in the

 

5 Mr. Peters cites to State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wn.App. 749, 751 (1992) for the proposition
that a prosecutor must be ?impartial?. Defendant's Motion at 19. The defendant fails to
acknowledge that this very proposition was explicitly abrogated by inch. See State v.
Orozco, 144 Wn.App. 17, 20 (Div. 1 2008).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Setterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 23 325%] $13 5:31;? Cou?housc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

 

30489845

duration, scope or outcome of this prosecution. Mr. Richey receives the same salary from
King County regardless of what happens with this prosecution and regardless of the
existence of the Demand Abolition grant.

The defendant's arguments instead amount to a claim that the Of?ce?s work with
Demand Abolition creates an appearance of unfairness or an undue in?uence over the
Of?ce. Such arguments are inapposite under Washington law. And they could not
succeed in any event.

Mr. Peters asserts that the Demand Abolition grant funded efforts to prosecute
cases, obligated the Of?ce to increase prosecutions of buyers and changed the Office's
policy on penalties and pleas for those cases. Defendant?s Motion at 16-20. None of the
grant documents entail any such obligations. Demand Abolition funds were never used to
fund any prosecution. Nothing in any of the grant documents obligates Mr. Richey or the
Office to undertake or increase the frequency of any criminal investigation or prosecution
or to pursue a criminal prosecution in any specific way. And nothing in any of those
materials requires Mr. Richey or the Of?ce to change its policies for Promoting
Prostitution cases in any way.

Mr. Richey's goal was for there to be a credible threat of accountability to deter all
illegal commercial sex perpetrators, which includes buyer arrests. This meant that there
should be a broad array of police agencies conducting various types of buyer stings and

that they should persist over time. This also meant that there should be a reduction in

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Sauerberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 24 3565:1343 33$! Combouse

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

arrests and prosecutions of prostituted persons, including by the King County
Prosecutor?s Office. The documents referenced by Mr. Peters re?ect that strategy.

Mr. Peters claims that Demand Abolition ?heavily influenced? the Prosecutor?s
decision to charge Mr. Peters under the promoting statute. Defendant?s Brief at 20. In
support of this, he cites a January 11, 2016 e-mail from Mr. Richey to Ziba Cranmer at
Demand Abolition. Richey Dec., Ex. 11/16 Email). But Mr. Richey explicitly states in
the e-mail that a detective and two supervisors had attended a conference sponsored by
Demand Abolition and in that way the local shift eventually led to this ?op? or police
investigation. The e-mail says nothing about the charging decision in Mr. Peters' case at
all.

The paradigm shift that Mr. Richey was coordinating involved illegal commercial
sex. That much is true. And Demand Abolition's grant helped fund an initiative to
coordinate that shift Within law enforcement. But that is not evidence that the grant
funded felony prosecutions or that the Office modified its policies to suit Demand
Abolition. Neither of those things happened.

Mr. Peters next claims that the Demand Abolition grant ?required the prosecutor to
actively publicize arrests, prosecution and sentencing of sex buyers.? Defense Brief at 2.
This is also incorrect.

Before applying for the grant with Demand Abolition, the Office had been
exploring public awareness and deterrence campaigns in other venues and states to

address the burgeoning demand for prostitution in King County. Richey Dec., 8 and Ex.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 25 325% 1:33 Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98  04
(206) 296-9000

 

 

30489845

(1/31/13 Email). Subsequently, the locally controlled initiative proposed by the Of?ce
included a program to educate police agencies to increase the number of stings and to
educate municipal prosecutors to prosecute buyers netted in them. Richey Dec., Ex. L, p.
15 (Formal Application). The proposal also included informing sex buyers that arrests
were being conducted, that they would actually be prosecuted and that the statutory
penalties were signi?cant. Id. The reason for this was that sex buyers are need to be
aware of the risk of criminal consequences for that threat to be effective.

The goal was to present a general atmosphere of risk to buyers consistent with
other campaigns attempting to reduce harmful criminal behavior, like drunk driving. This
goal did not include publicizing specific cases. And there was no publicity requirement in
the 2014 and 2015 grant agreements. Richey Dec., Exs. and (2014 and 2015 Grants).

In 2016, the grant agreements for the various participating cities adopted the Seattle
Core Group?s concept from two years earlier that there should be a communications
strategy around demand. Richey Dec, Ex. 0 (2016 Grant). For that year, the grant
required that cities develop a communications strategy designed to ?help shift cultural
norms? and "increase sense of risk among sex buyers?. Id. The grant did not require any
specific strategy and it did not require publicity of individual cases. Id. The Seattle Core
Group already had a communications strategy and it continued to pursue it.

Nevertheless, the defense argues that the grant controlled publicity of the TRB and
related cases. In his Opening salvo, Mr. Peters claims that, ?Mr. Richey understood that

[publicizing arrests and prosecutions of sex buyers] went well beyond what he would

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel-Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 26 356531.333? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

normally be expected to do as a prosecutor.? Defendant?s Brief at 7. According to the
defense, this outlandish claim is supported by Mr. Richey?s response to an interview
question about whether the Demand Abolition grant was used to fund prosecution of
individual cases. Richey Dec., Ex. 2 (Second Richey Interview, pp. 58-59). Mr. Richey?s
response was plainly that the grant money ?didn?t go to prosecuting?. The defendant?s
use of this response without providing even the question posed to Mr. Richey is badly
misleading. In this vein, the defense falsely claims that Demand Abolition arranged for a
photo shoot of Mr. Richey to be used in the media. Defendant?s Brief at 8. In reality, Mr.
Richey attended a conference sponsored by a different organization, World Without
Exploitation, at which a photographer undertaking her own project offered to photograph
everyone there to add the photos to her website based in New York. Richey Dec., ?11 32.
The connection to Demand Abolition and the media is the defendant's invention.

Next, the defendant claims that Demand Abolition paid for a media consultant to
work with Mr. Richey to teach him emotion laden terms. Defendant's Brief at 7-8.
However, this training was a general class on how to talk to the media. Richey Dec., ?11 33.

On its own, Demand Abolition did hire a consultant, Frank Luntz, to work with
that organization on how to talk about the problem of demand. Richey Dec., ?11 34. And
his report was broadly distributed. Id. But the claim that this was done to ?assist Mr.
Richey with media promotion and messaging component of the grant? (Defendant?s Brief

at 8) is untrue. Mr. Luntz?s work was not directed towards Mr. Richey nor related to the

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 27 ?f?g?is?g?rg Cou?house

Seattle, Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

grant. And there was never a requirement or even a request from Demand Abolition that
the Core Team use Mr. Luntz?s report. Id.

Mr. Richey and the Seattle Core Team worked with Sidney Asbury, a media

 

consultant, retained by Demand Abolition. Richey Dec., ?iI35. Ms. Asbury worked with
the Seattle Core Team on messaging for the general publicity campaign that the group had
included in its strategy from the beginning of the project. In the course of this
conversation, Mr. Qualliotine wrote to Ms. Asbury to suggest that they use ?commercial
sexual exploitation? to capture both consensual commercial sex and commercial sex
involving trafficking. Richey Dec., Ex. AA 30?5 11 15 e-mails). Mr. Richey agreed

with the question and asked Ms. Asbury for her thoughts. She suggested that sex

 

 

traf?cking should also be included in the messaging so that reports would not be confused
by the nuances Mr. Qualliotine identi?ed. Not only did this conversation have nothing to
do with Mr. Peters or any other individual case, but it is an appropriate example of the
Core Team working to carry out its general publicity strategy around the problem of
demand.

B. Motion for dismissal.

Mr. Peters next argues that the charges against him should be dismissed under the
Due Process Clause because of Demand Abolition?s purported in?uence on the
Prosecutor?s Of?ce. Defendant?s Brief, p. 20 (citing Tennessee 0. Culbreath). However,

charging decisions are generally within the prosecutor?s exclusive domain. United States

 

v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 1983). This is because the separation of powers

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 28 3250533531? 

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845













.mandates judicial respect for the prosecutor?s independence. United States v. Sears,
Roebuck 8: Co., 719 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir. 1983), cert denied, 465 US. 1079 (1984). Thus,
charges may be dismissed only in ?agrant cases of prosecutorial misconduct. Id. Absent a
constitutional violation or some form of misconduct justifying an exercise of its
supervisory powers, a court errs when it interferes with decisions which are properly
within the domain of the prosecutor. See United States v. Channen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1309
(9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 US. 825 (1977).6

The court in Tennessee v. Culbreath, 30 at 317-18, set forth the three factors
for consideration of a Due Process claim to dismiss: (1) the private interest at stake; (2) the
risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used and the probable
value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and ?nally (3) the
government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative
burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. See also
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 US. 319, 335 (1976).

As the court found in Culbreath, a criminal defendant?s liberty interest is obviously

significant given that he has been charged with a felony. However, unlike the facts in

 

Wright v. U.S., 732 F.2d 1048, 1056 (2?Id Cir. 1984) is not in disaccord. Mr. Peters cites to
Wright for the proposition that a conviction should be dismissed if the prosecutor ?has, or
is under the in?uence of others who have, an axe to grind against the defendant.?
Defendant?s Brief at 18. Wright addressed a claim that a prosecutor had a con?ict because
his Wife was a public activist opposed to the defendant?s political leadership and role. Id.,
at 1051. The Court found that ?axe to grind? insufficient to overturn Wright's conviction
on his petition for post-conviction relief. Id., at 1057. The case addresses a situation where
a prosecutor is personally interested because of an ?axe to grind? and does not address the
grant funding at issue in this motion.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 29 21:25:11 1:313 $31113! Courthouse

Washington 98 l04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Culbreath, the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used in Mr. Peters?
prosecution are nil. In Culbreath, there was no written agreement as to the private
prosecutor?s role, nor any supervision or control over him or over the extent of his
participation. 30 at 315-16. To the contrary, the private attorney was supervising
the prosecutors. Id. Moreover, the private prosecutor had an actual con?ict of interest
because he owed a duty of loyalty to a private interest group due to directly receiving
enormous hourly compensation from them and having a direct financial interest in the
duration and scope of the prosecution. Id.

In Mr. Peters? case, the prosecutor is a career public servant, paid a salary by the
government. He is supervised by a Unit Chair and Co?Chair and by the Chief Criminal
Deputy and is responsible to the elected Prosecuting Attorney. What?s more, the
relationship between Mr. Richey and Demand Abolition is governed by written
agreements, which have nothing at all to do with the prosecution of individual cases. The
Demand Abolition grant is not used to fund prosecutions but in fact allows Mr. Richey not
to prosecute so he can work on coordinating a change in the law enforcement paradigm.
Mr. Peters? Due Process assertion fails at this stage of the analysis. The Court should deny
the motion to dismiss as a result.

C. Pretrial publicity regarding the TRB and related brothel cases.

Mr. Peters asserts that the grant required publicity of his prosecution and that the
publicity around his case violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. This Claim fails

because: (1) the grant did not require publicity of individual cases; (2) the Rules of

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 30 13:11: 3:13 Courthouse

Seattle. Washinglon 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Professional Conduct authorize the factual and appropriate statements made by law
enforcement and the Office in Mr. Peters? case; (3) the prosecutor is not responsible for the
stories written by the media or for the statements made by private entities to the media;
and (4) Peters can make no showing that the police or prosecutor?s statements have
deprived him of his right to a fair trial; and (5) disqualification and dismissal are not
remedies available under Washington law for alleged RPC violations.

1. The grant did not require publicity of Mr. Peters' case so there could be no con?ict
between the grant and the RPCs.

Mr. Peters claims that the grant con?icted with the RPCs because he believes it
required publicity of his case. But the grant did not address or require publicity of
individual cases. It directed only deveIOpment of a communications strategy. Richey
Dec., Ex. L, p. 13-15, supra. As evidence to support his claim, Mr. Peters avers that Mr.
Richey asked Ziba Cranmer, from Demand Abolition, if she knew who handled a similar
case in California (Defendant?s Brief at 10); the Seattle Core Team discussed media
coverage of this case at 23 and 32-33)7; a core team member, Robert Beiser, reached out
to Mr. Richey with suggestions at 23 and 293); Carol Edgar, from Demand Abolition

reached out to Mr. Richey with suggestions at 25)9; the Of?ce worked with Sidney

 

7 The defendant also claims that the Core Group discussed evidence from the TRB
discovery. Defendant?s Brief at 23. But he has produced no evidence to support this claim
and it is unclear what it might refer to.

a At page 29 of his Brief, Mr. Peters claims that Mr. Richey directed others to search out
quotes showing him in the worst possibly light. But the referenced e-mail is a suggestion
from Mr. Beiser, and does not support that prOposition.

9 Her suggestions about press coverage were just that. There was no requirement to

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 31 331:3? 33:11:)? Counhousc

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Asbury to review its press release at 11); and Mr. Richey ?ew across the country to
meet other prosecutors and encourage them to file similar charges.10

None of these claims are evidence that the grant required publicity of Mr. Peters?
case. Mr. Richey conununicated with Ziba Cranmer about whether she knew who had
handled the California MyRedBook case because he wanted to reach out to that law
enforcement agency regarding their experience with an investigation regarding a review
board. Richey Dec., ?11 36. He did not discuss the TRB investigation with Ms. Cranmer and
the e-mail does not suggest that he did. Id., and Richey Dec, Ex. BB (2 8/ 15 e-mail).

The Core Team?s public awareness efforts had previously focused on changes to
cultural norms around sex buying. Richey Dec., '11 37. The case broadly intersected with
several other strategies the Core Team was pursuing including engaging businesses
(where many sex buyers were employed), educating law enforcement about the
infrastructure and organization of sex buying, and the use of technology to connect supply
and demand. The impact on other Core Team initiatives of the TRB investigation was so
significant that Mr. Richey decided to discuss how it could be a part of the group?s public
awareness campaign.

The Seattle Core Team had a discussion about how the learnings from the TRB case
were broadly relevant to addressing the issue of demand. Richey Dec, Ex. CC 5/ 16

agenda e-mail). And Robert Beiser, one of the Core Team members offered thoughts to

 

follow them.
1? Curiously, the e-mail offered to support this is from May 2014, well before the TRB
investigation even took place.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 32 2:25:11 1:31: 3:11:12)! Courthouse

Seatlle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Mr. Richey about messaging for the case following that meeting. Richey Dec, Ex. DD
16 e?mail). This discussion was not required under the grant. And it was part of an
appropriate public awareness campaign to educate the public about the problems
associated with review boards and the brothels they supported.

The Office did work with Ms. Asbury in a pro bono capacity on the draft press
release in the days preceding the January 6, 2016 press conference. Richey Dec., '11 39. Mr.
Richey made this request directly to Ms. Asbury on behalf of the Of?ce and not through or
on behalf of Demand Abolition or the Core Team. Id. Ms. Asbury was an independent
consultant Mr. Richey had previously met through Demand Abolition. Id. But her work
on the press release was provided bro bono directly to the Of?ce after her contract with
Demand Abolition had expired. Id.

2. The RPCs authorize the statements made by police and prosecutors.

Peters next alleges the statements made by police and prosecutors violated the
RPCs. They did not. The comment to RPC 3.6 provides that ?there are vital social interests
served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences
and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its
safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the
conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern.?
Comment 1. The comment goes on to explain that ?the offense and identity of the person

involved? as well as ?information contained in a public record? would ?not ordinarily be

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 33 325%] 1:313 Con-mouse

Seanle, Washington 93104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any
event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition" on publicity. Comment 4.

The comment notes that certain other subjects may have a prejudicial effect,
including: (1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party; (2) the
possibility of a plea or existence of a confession; (3) results of any examination or refusal to
participate in an examination; (4) any opinion as to the guilt of a defendant; and (5)
information that the lawyer reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible; and (6)
the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime unless also noting that the charge
is merely an accusation. Comment 5.

The Prosecutor?s statements about the investigation were factual and appropriate
under the RPCs. The defendant avers the Office erroneously interjected ?rape, assault and
coercion into the discussion of a pending case and trial that involved none of the above."
Defendant?s brief at 26. This is not true. Mr. Satterberg?s statement did not reference Mr.
Peters or any of the TRB defendants specifically. It addressed both the brothel case and
the TRB case. As such, the statement included comments about trafficking. They were
focused on factual information contained in public records and well within the bounds of
the Rules for Professional Conduct.

Mr. Richey?s statements to ABC News and on the Ron and Don Show related
generally to charges having been ?led against people who were placing content on the
review board sites as well as how review boards operate and their nature and effect.

Richey Dec., Exs. EE and FF(Transcripts of ABC News program and Ron and Don Show).

ii BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney

W554 King County Courthouse
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 34 516 mm Mme

Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Other statements on the Ron and Don Show related generally to the brothel aspect of the
investigation, educating the public about the nature of the international sex trafficking
marketplace or the exploitation of adults and children generally. See Richey Dec Ex. FF
(Transcript of Ron and Don Show). The defense does not cite to any statements made by
Mr. Richey to NPR.

First, the public has a right to know about the nature and scope of exploitation
occurring in the community, particularly on a topic that has been plagued by
misinformation and Because sex buying is the root cause of sex traf?cking,
identifying the inevitable connection between sex buying and sex trafficking is an
important and accurate position for the prosecutor to take. The necessity for public
awareness here is similar to awareness around other criminal justice issues such as
domestic violence or opioid abuse. The awareness also serves an important law
enforcement purpose, namely to communicate to law enforcement beyond Seattle and
King County the systems of exploitation revealed in this investigation.

Second, the press conference announcing the arrest of the TRB defendants also
covered the related arrests of the brothel owners. Richey Dec., 11 29. The investigation
covered the full supply chain for the illegal commercial sex industry. And there was

evidence of sex trafficking in the brothel cases.11 Richey Dec., Exs. and (Mueller and

 

1' Mr. Peters attempts to rebut this fact through the comments of the prosecutor, Mr.
Ernsdorff, during the sentencing for one of the buyers, Mr. Reinhardt. Defendant?s Brief at
11-12. However, Mr. Reinhardt was not a brothel owner. He was not charged with
traf?cking because there wasn't evidence to charge him with that crime. Mr. Ernsdorff?s
cements at the sentencing do not indicate that there was no evidence of trafficking from

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DaniBIISatterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 35 3:25:11 1:313 33:? Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98 104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

Choi Certs). Peters attempts to impute the comments of the prosecutor and law
enforcement to his own case, but the documents and statements he cites distinguish
between the brothels where evidence of traf?cking existed and the sex buyers who fueled

the industry.

Third, themes of exploitation and traf?cking pervaded the TRB case itself, and

references to this evidence is factual, not in?ammatory.12 The founder of TRB, Sigurd
Zitars?a co-defendant of Mr. Peters, told Detective Hillman that he did not like
advertisements for the Asian brothels because of the prevalence of traf?cking. Richey
Dec., Ex. V, p. 5 (Zitars Cert). And another defendant from the case, Michael Dumal,

summarized his experience with traf?cking of these women for ABC News:

Durnal: There's a lot of different stories on why people come over and do that that
job. Some of them just want to start a business and some of them, their families will
get hurt, or death. One girl, I asked her why she doesn?t just run, and she says she
tried and they ?nd them.

at- a- 

Durnal: You feel like a piece of the soul for the girl is gone.

Reporter: You think these women are doing it voluntarily?

Durnal: Well, it depends on what you are looking at as voluntarily. I mean they are
moving on their own. Nobody is holding their passports.

Reporter: And yet isn?t the fear and the debt that you just described to me holding
them. .. captive?

Durnal: Yes, but again it is - not all of these girls are being held like that, either.
Reporter: How do you know which ones are and which ones aren't?

Durnal: You don?t.

Richey Dee, Ex. EE at pp. 8?9 (ABC News Transcript). 

 

 

 

the investigation.

?2 Informational statements are not in?ammatory just because the nature and
circumstances of the investigation are a cause of public interest. State v. Whitaker, 133
199, 211-12 (Div. 1 2006).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T0 Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 36 Eli Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98 [04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845





Mr. Peters was himself aware of sexual violence toward the women, and he too

wrote about it on The Review Board:

I recall a negative review about a girl on this board that didn?t sound right to me, so
I called the Booker to ask what had 

Come to find out, the lady had been sexually assaulted before his visit and not
revealed this to the Booker. While her behavior seemed odd and unacceptable to
this client, it was entirely understandable in light of what happened.

In going back and re?reading the review, the trauma was apparent in the
description of her behavior. Unfortunate the reviewer did not call the Booker to
alert him to what had happened.

Given the chance, the Booker could have followed up with the Provider, insisted
she take the rest of the day off, explained the situation to the client and likely
compensated him for the failed session, but by not calling none of that took place.
Instead he found out about all this from the review, which only added to her stress
and led to her leaving Seattle early. 

Richey Dec., Ex. GG (3/31/15 post).

Peters' post blandly acknowledges the prevalence of sexual assault and the impact
of buyers on the woman?s life?she left the area entirely. This was not the only time Peters
acknowledged the harm of what he was participating in:

Ijust hope Lohan [a ?provider?] and the other girls you mentioned can survive the
hobby with enough of their soul and dignity left to lead a normal life

Richey Dec., Ex. HH (Peters Email 2/11 

The discussion of trafficking was appropriate in light of the public's need to know
about these review boards and brothels, the link between demand for illegal commercial
sex and trafficking, the evidence of trafficking in the brothels that had been closed, as well
as the themes of exploitation and trafficking that were pervasive throughout the TRB case.

The discussion of these issues did not identify Mr. Peters specifically.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 37 325:]! 1:313 53$? Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

The Prosecutor is not responsible for statements of unaffiliated third parties, including
the press.

Peters erroneously ascribes the actions of third parties, including the press and
Demand Abolition, to the Prosecutor's Office. In support of his argument, he references
the following events: (1) efforts by Demand Abolition to contact media in other parts of
the country to inform them about the case (Defendant's Brief at 25-26); (2) content of the
coverage by ABC News (Defendant?s Brief at 27-28) and NPR (Defendant?s brief at 24)
referencing trafficking of the women involved in the brothels; hosts of a local radio show,
Ron and Don, referenced the case as involving sex trafficking and sex slaves (Defendant?s
Brief at 28).

Peters claims that ?an effective lobbying effort by Demand Abolition" compromised
his right to a fair trial. Defendant?s Brief at 29. But he does not point to any evidence of
that his right to a fair trial has been compromised by the media coverage in this case. He
further avers that "Demand Abolition?s approach to the media contemplated by the grant
agreement also violates RPC Mr. Peters? argument fails because (1) the grant
agreement does not contemplate an approach to the media and he cites no authority that
the Office violated RPC (2) the Office does not have editorial control over the news
and no duty to correct the media; (3) nonprofits, including Demand Abolition, have the
right to make comments to the press or to seek out members of the press it might view as
sympathetic to their cause; (4) the brothel aspect of the investigation involved evidence of

sex traf?cking, such as coercion.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 38 Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

The defense attempts to bootstrap this argument by suggesting that the Office
controlled the editorial content of the media coverage by providing access and information
to the press and because members of the Office liked the stories. Defendant?s Brief at 24-
27. In support of this, he points to the Office having provided a photo and video to an
NPR reporter; a question from that reporter to identify Mr. Peters by his AKA, Peter
Rabbit; emails from Mr. Richey and Mr. Ernsdorff providing feedback on the NPR story;
offers from Mr. Richey to connect an ABC News reporter to Detective Hillman, OPS, and a
sexual assault advocate who had worked with Asian prostituted persons Who had been
raped; and providing publicly available information to an ABC News reporter.13 Mr.
Peters claims that these actions "interjected rape, assault and coercion into the discussion
of a pending case and trial that involved none of the above." Defendant?s Brief at 26.
Responding to public records request, helping the media understand the full scope of
commercial sexual exploitation, making referrals and providing factual information about
these cases does not mean there was a con?ict between the grant and the RPCs or that the
Of?ce is responsible for the editorial content of media stories.

4. Peters has produced no evidence that the police or prosecutor comments have deprived
him ofafair trial.

Peters speculates that prosecutor or police cements have deprived him of his right

to a fair trial. Defendant?s Brief at 29. However, he provides no evidence of the effect of

 

?3 i.e. the fact of additional arrests, suspect quotes previously provided at the press

conference, confirmation that audio and video of undercover meetings were provided in
response to a public disclosure request, information on how to obtain booking photos,

Ii another victim advocate referral, and sentencing audio for a co-defendant .

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 39 his?fr??if?? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98  04
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

the prosecutor?s comments on the fairness of his upcoming trial. Nor has he
provided any legal authority to support his claim.

One analytical approach for determining if Peters? claim of prejudice is based upon
anything more than mere speculation would be to apply the standards governing motions
for change of venue. Under those standards, the defendant bears the burden of
establishing the probability of unfairness or prejudice such that a change of venue is
warranted. State v. Maupin, 63 Wn.App. 887, 895, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1003 (1992)
(affirming trial court's denial of motion to change venue in ?rst degree felony-murder
prosecution). ?To obtain a change of venue in a criminal case, the defendant must
demonstrate that pretrial publicity resulted in an apparent probability of prejudice.? State
v. Worl, 58 Wn.App. 443, 446 (1990), reconsideration denied, review granted, 115 Wn.2d
1022, reversed on other grounds, 117 Wn.2d 701 (1991) (upholding trial court?s denial of
motion for change of venue in prosecution for murder and malicious harassment, finding
no apparent probability of prejudice Where articles appearing shortly after the incident
referred to the defendant and his companion as "skinheads,? ?racist skinheads,? or ?neo?
Nazi skinheads?)

The standards governing the consideration of a motion for change of venue were
originally set forth in State v. Crudup, 11 Wn.App. 583, 587 (1974), and reiterated in State
V. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251 (2003). Those factors are: (1) the inflammatory or non-
inflammatory nature of the publicity; (2) the degree to which the publicity was circulated

throughout the community, (3) the length of time elapse from the dissemination of the

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DanielSatterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 40 153% 53.1? Courthouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296?9000

 

 

30489845

publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the difficulty encountered in the
selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity of prospective or trial jurors with the publicity and
the resultant effect upon them; (6) the Challenges exercised by the defendant in selecting
the jury, both peremptory and for cause; (7) the connection of government officials with
the release of publicity; (8) the severity of the charge; and (9) the size of the area from
which the venire is drawn. Id. at 270.

Peters has not attempted to make the required showing under the Crudup factors.
And he would be unable to meet most of the criteria necessary to establish prejudice
simply because several of the Cradap factors relate to the trial and jury selection which has
not commenced: (3) the length of time elapse from the dissemination of the publicity to the
date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the dif?culty encountered in the selection of the
jury; (5) the familiarity of prospective or trial jurors with the publicity and the resultant
effect upon them; and (6) the Challenges exercised by the defendant in selecting the jury,
both peremptory and for cause. These factors are perhaps the most compelling because
they provide the best means for determining the actual impact on the jury of any pretrial
publicity and any resulting effect on the defendant?s right to a fair trial. As stated in
Jackson, ?the best test of whether an impartial jury could be impaneled is to attempt to
empanel one.? Q. at 228 (quoting with approval to the Court of Appeals opinion in State v.
Jackson, 111- Wn.2d 660, 673 (2002)). ?The best way to ?nd out if the jurors have opinions
so ?xed that they cannot be impartial is to attempt to empanel a jury.? State v. Whitaker,

133 Wn.App. 199, 212 (2006).

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 41 mi?? '33 53.1"? Commouse

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

 

30489845

Likewise, on factor 2, it is impossible to assess the degree to which in this age of
Internet news - a TV news magazine airing at 12:30 a.m. and a weekend public radio
I feature circulated through the community until a venire is actually questioned. On factor
7, while some of the comments cited by Peters can be attributed to the prosecutors or

police, many come from members of the community or the media itself, so, again, it is

 

 

impossible to assess this factor without examining a jury venire.
Finally, the ninth and ?nal Crudup factor the size of the area from which the

venire is drawn is perhaps the single most critical variable in determining the

ll ?probability of unfairness or prejudice from pretrial publicity.? It is common sense that the

likelihood of being able to select a jury that will be fair and impartial increases as the

population base from which a jury panel is selected increases. In the present case, the size

 

of the King County venire i.e. the pool from which the venire is drawn is

approximately 1,750,000 potential jurors. It is inconceivable that one would seriously

 

argue that Peters will be unable to receive a fair trial in the most populous county in the
State of Washington.

Peters? claim that the comments in the media have somehow prejudiced his right to
a fair trial is unsupported by any facts, and unsupportable in the absence of any attempt to
select a jury. His claim of prejudice should be rejected, as should his motion to dismiss.

5. The remedies of disquali?cation and dismissal for an RPC violation are unsupported by

Washington law.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page 42 3565;111:3353? ?mm?

 

Scaltle. Washington 98 NM
(206) 296?9000

 

30489845



Peters claims that the elected prosecutor?s and police comments in the media have
so injured him that he is entitled to disquali?cation of the prosecutor or absolution for
these alleged crimes. He claims, unconvincingly, that the prosecutor?s comments have

violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. But he offers no support under Washington

 

law for his proposed remedy of disqualification or for dismissal under Criminal Rule 8.314.

I Defendant's Brief at 29 and 30.

 

Even if Mr. Peters claim that there was a con?ict with the RPCs was valid, he would
not be entitled to dismissal of the charges against him. In State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829
(1992), the defendant in a capital murder case sought to have his conviction and death
sentence reversed based on a claim that his right to a fair trial was denied by prosecutorial
conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Speci?cally, he claimed that the
prosecuting attorney exchanged vulgarities with him during trial. Lord submitted an
af?davit to the trial court alleging that the prosecutor called him derogatory names and
made disparaging comments about him, and alleged that it was ?likely that the jury
I observed? the exchanges. Id. at 886. The trial court denied the motion because, even
presuming that Lord?s allegations were true, the alleged misconduct would not rise to the

level of requiring a new trial. The Court went on to reject the notion that an RPC violation

supports remedy of a new trial:

 

 

[j Mr. Peters references Criminal Rule 8.3 and suggests an evidentiary hearing in the concluding
sentences of his Brief. But he offers no authority in support of such claims for relief and has not

attempted to explain how he has met his burden of proof under that Rule. The State is at a loss to
respond to this unformed and unsupported request.

ll BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Daniel Satterberg. Prosecuting Attorney

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 43 m?h?ij?ig?y 

 

 

Seattle. Washington 98 I04
(206} 296-9000

 

 

30489845

 

Lord relied on the RPCs to support his allegation of prosecutorial misconduct

which, he argues, requires reversal. However, the remedy for it claimed violation of the

RPC is a request for discipline by the bar association. In the context of a criminal trial,

Lord?s allegation of prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed under applicable case

law.
1d. at 887 (emphasis added).

Thus, even where, as in Lord, the alleged prosecutorial misconduct is claimed to
have occurred during trial, in front of the jury and in violation of the RPCs, the remedy
available to the defendant is not reversal of his conviction - or dismissal of the
prosecution. In the present case, the cements cited by the defendant were not made in
court or in front of a jury. The proper remedy could not include dismissal..

VI. CONCLUSION

The Core Team's initiative was a project to coordinate a change in the paradigm
around illegal commercial sex from one focused on its most vulnerable participants to one
focused on the source of the problem those who create the demand. This is anathema to

the men who want to protect their access to illegal commercial sex:

I know we all like to talk about how much we care and want to protect the girls, but the truth
is what we want is to protect is our access to the girls. If we really cared about their safety to
the extent some claim, we would take all our hobby money and buy them plane tickets
home.

Richey Dec., Ex. II (Peters Email, 3/2/15). The defense motion is a challenge to the new
paradigm. At its core, the defendant's argument boils down to this: it is wrong for the
government to work with a private group to develop effective strategies to curtail their
?access to the girls?. The defendant is wrong.

The State requests that the court deny defendant's motion.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DanielSatterberg. Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 44 :31: 33$! Counhousc

Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 296-9000

 

30489845

16

17

18

 

 

DATED January 29, 2018.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

DANIEL T. SATTERBERG
King County Prosecuting Attorney

EVWW

EEPRED, WSBA #26125

Senior Dep Prosecuting Attorney

500 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 296-8820 Fax: (206) 296?8819
david.eldred@kingcounty.gov

SIG Third Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98 I04
(206) 296-9000

?or nan-

 

Daniel Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
Page 45 W554 King County Courthouse

 

30489845

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 29, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the KCSC E?Filing System and by agreement

of the parties a copy was served electronically on the following:

James R. Dixon, WSBA #18014
Attorney for Defendant
Dixon 8: Cannon, Ltd.

601 Union Square, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98104

Jennifer Cannon-Unione, WSBA #27008
Attorney for Defendant
Dixon 8: Cannon, Ltd.
601 Union Square, Suite 3230
Seattle, WA 98104

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed on January 29, 2017 in Seattle, Washin on.

  

 

 


By:
MEL A. 
Legal Secretary, Litigation Section
Email: rmunozcintron@kingcounty.gov
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO Prosecuting Attorney
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Page - 46 38581831853833? 

Scuttle. Washington 98104
(206) 296?9000