Book of Blog

The OSHA Small Business Handbook is a fifty-six page guide about bringing your small business into OSHA compliance. OSHA claims to be streamlining their program to meet the needs of small business and future business needs while eliminating red tape. The goal for OSHA and for all employers is, at the end of the day, to send all employees home – whole. To this end, OSHA has developed a four point program:

1. Management Commitment And Employee Involvement
2. Worksite Analysis
3. Hazard Prevention And Control
4. Training For Employees, Supervisors And Managers

Point number one almost goes without saying: without a commitment to safety, work practices will remain careless and injuries will happen. Experience tells us, people do not naturally look out for their own safety and the safety of others. However, I have seen the attitudes of management and employees change after a simple safety orientation training. So, if management is committed to safety and willing to expend the time and money necessary to instruct the employees in safety, the workers usually reciprocate by working toward a safe and productive working environment. This usually results in a net savings in direct and operating costs.

The point we want to cover in this session, however, is point number two: the worksite analysis. This is the nut – the beginning of every effective safety management system. Without it, you will be hard pressed to fully scope points three and four. In order to control hazards and train your employees successfully, you must first determine what hazards and potential risks exist and what is necessary to keep your employees safe.

Within the OSHA Small Business Handbook is a twenty-four page checklist for self-inspecting your place of business or worksite. Well that is simple: walk through the checklist, develop an accident prevention program and become OSHA compliant. Right? Not really.

There is a section of the OSH ACT OF 1970 [29 USC 654] called the General Duty Clause that says, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” [section 5(a)(1)] This means the OSHA Small Business Handbook Self-Inspection Checklist is only the starting point. Or, in other words, if your safety program meets the scope of the checklist, you still have not reached OSHA compliance.

For this reason, we have developed a checklist that is almost seventy pages. We try to discover every possible area where hazards may occur in your place of business. From this, we develop a safety management and accident prevention program to suit your working environment. We cover OSHA, EPA and ADA requirements to help reduce your liability and help assure a safe place to work for all your employees.

A walk-through with the checklist usually takes two to four hours for small businesses. The first thing we examine is your existing safety program as well as hazard identification and communication and record keeping for accidents and injuries. Then we walk through your business and/or work site, looking for potential hazards – whether they be chemicals, machinery or housekeeping endangerments. When the walk-through is complete, we will ask you a few questions to clarify our understanding of your business and then we go back to the office.

At the office, we review the checklist with our notes and we write up a report for you, explaining where you are deficient and what you need to do to come up to and exceed OSHA, EPA and ADA compliance. We itemize the pricing so you are able to select the most important sections and still meet your budget.

It is our goal to keep you out of trouble and help keep your employees safe from harm. Call Dean today at 208-699-6877 to schedule your site analysis – the walk through and consultation is free (if your business is out-of-town or out-of-state, there will be a nominal travel fee).

Saturday Morning, we open early to give you a good deal at Unique Motif!

Everything is 40% off!

This Friday and Saturday (13/14 August) selected purses are marked down up to 30%. Don’t miss it!

And come early because we close early both days at 5:00pm.

Hope to see you there!

Today and Tomorrow ONLY -

Still Have a Few ESTATE SALE LEFTOVERS – BRING YOUR BIDS

If you are looking for the “Internet Explorer Collection” so that you can view sites in every version of Internet Explorer ever made, especially IE6, IE7 and IE8, then here is the link: http://internet-explorer-collection.en.softonic.com/

Miles is waiting for you. Though he is not in the store all the time, he prefers crowds when he is. He is quite the people person-dog. To lure you into the store, he wants me to tell you that the Estate Sale is about half sold out and you can name your own price. Also, he asked me if you would be willing to print this out and bring it into the store, could you get a $5.00 discount on any purse or wallet? And I said, “yes.” So, bring this in with you and tell ‘em Miles sent ya!

In days gone by, Judicial Forum used to review actual court cases and rate all the judges and attorneys involved. We no longer have that resource, although you may view the archives at http://cominus.com/judicial-archives/ and at http://cominus.com/judicial-ratings/ . Now we search the web for information on the candidates. We review their websites if they have one, we search for endorsements, we search for articles, quotes and writings. Some candidates have very little information, so we work with what we find. Also, we only rate contested races.

Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. So, this year, we have begun a star rating system. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%, 2 stars, at least 50%, 1 star is less than 50%, but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.

Please feel free to leave comments if you believe I am in error or you may have additional information. All comments are moderated. The moderation is to prevent wacko-attacks and vulgar postings. However, if you leave out all the cuss words and unwarranted defamation attacks on candidates, I will authorize your comment, whether you agree with me or not.

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: JIM JOHNSON (5 star)

In his campaign material, Jim Johnson states, “I promised to uphold our state constitution as written and to never legislate from the bench.” In 2002, Judicial Forum endorsed him for his hard work on Initiative 601, car tabs and such and the fact he had done much to reduce the size of civil government and uphold the rights of the citizen. Two years later, he was elected to the Supreme Court. He has not failed his mission and we continue to endorse him.

Jim Johnson’s campaign website is http://jimjohnsonforjustice.com

Running against Jim Johnson is Stan Rumbaugh. Stan is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a board member of the globalist World Affairs Council, which is indoctrinating our school children and “dedicated to providing everyone opportunities to practice global citizenship.” He is proud of endorsements from environmentalists and claims to have fought cases for “legitimate” [not all] property rights and equal benefits for domestic partners. He is a champion of social justice and all other feel-goodisms. “He found his passion in applying the law as he believes it was intended — to help every day people and build a more fair and just society.”

Stan Rumbaugh’s website is http://rumbaughforjustice.com

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: RICHARD SANDERS (5 star)

Richard Sanders is the champion of liberty on the high court. In the days when Judicial Forum was reviewing cases and rating them, his percentage of PASS was 93% for 57 cases reviewed. He is libertarian and pro-life.

One of his most popular quotes is, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” [Malyon v. Pierce County] In Island County vs. State, Justice Sanders wrote, “While the majority may justly claim the Legislature speaks for the people,’ it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.” A vote for Richard Sanders is a vote for our State and Federal constitutions and a vote for liberty.

Richard Sanders’ website is http://friendsofjustice.com

Running against Sanders is Bryan Chushcoff who claims to be “a guardian of the law, the rights of the people and of the Constitution.” Yet upon deeper examination of his words, you will discover subjective matter will always trump objective observation – it is more important to uphold feelings rather than the law. He states on his website, “Legal scholarship is important to correctly apply the law. But with experience one learns that more than legal scholarship is required. Good judgment and an understanding and empathy for the human condition are essential. Also required is thoughtful consideration of the practical implications of how the rule of law will impact people and trial courts.  It’s important that judges remember that the decisions of any court are made for flesh and blood people for whom the outcome will often have a profound and lasting effect.” He is not the worst liberal to come down the pike, but he does lack any grasp of what is the rule of law and somehow thinks it has something to do with people’s feelings.

Chushcoff’s website is http://chushcoff4justice.com

Also running against Sanders is the more experienced than Chushcoff, more liberal than Chushcoff and more dangerous than Chushcoff, Charlie Wiggins. He is a former appellate court judge. He claims to have “helped to establish the nonpartisan award-winning web site votingforjudges.org.” Voteforjudges.org purports to be a non-partisan, non-biased endeavor and they give no endorsements to candidates, however, the only outside information and analysis they do include are from liberal newspapers and other liberal organizations; of course, favoring liberal candidates. Call it what it is – it is a liberal website disguised as centrist and educational.

He claims to be active in his Presbyterian church and is also proud of his high rating from Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association. In Harland Maylon v Pierce County, he ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains in police and fire departments. Fortunately, he was overturned by the Supreme Court. His legal foundation and his religious foundation are worlds apart.

Charlie Wiggins’ website is http://charliewigginsforjustice.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 2, DIST 3, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOSEPH DAGGY (3 star)

Joe Daggy is an attorney with thirty years experience. He is running against Jill Johanson, who has been in the legal profession for twenty-four years, eight years as a judge.

In an interview with the Daily News, he was asked, “As a court of appeals judge, would you be willing to overturn a case where it was clear the trial court had erred significantly, but you knew a dangerous defendant would be freed into the community?”

Joe Daggy answered, “I’d have to. It’s not a matter of if I would be willing to. That’s the job of the appellate court.”

Jill Johanson answered, “If it was a significant error, then yes, absolutely. Those are probably some of the most difficult questions. That’s where personally you might feel that morally or personally you don’t want him in the community, but the law requires it. And as a judge, we’ve taken an oath to uphold the law.”

Joe Daggy understands the rule of law. Jill Johanson prefers the law of men and how they feel – or the law of women. She demonstrates she would have to wrestle with hard questions and depending upon which side the political pressure came from, feeling could trump the law.

Another question by the Daily News: “Should judicial candidates discuss specific issues such as gun control and abortion?”

Joe Daggy replied, “The judicial code of conduct discusses the ‘need to protect the voters from people campaigning by selling ideas.’ It’s ‘entirely inappropriate’ for a candidate to promise to make specific changes to the law if elected. But the rules don’t prohibit a candidate from talking about their beliefs. . .  That would interfere with the only method voters have of getting to know the candidate.”

Jill Johanson replied, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be discussing our personal opinions. Personal opinion is not relevant, because we can’t use our personal opinion when we’re on the bench. It could give the appearance of impropriety, that I might lean one way or the other if I were to express my personal opinion.”

Joe understands all judges have opinions and they don’t need to hide them. Voters have a right to know the foundational beliefs of whom they elect, regardless how that translates into decisions. Jill believes a judge should pretend he does not have any opinions, that way nobody can accuse him of bias. Jill is a deceived liberal who is bound by feelings and cannot see the law.

Joe Daggy’s website is http://joedaggy.org – not working at the time of this writing.

Jill Johanson’s website is judgejohanson.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 3, DIST 1, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: HARVEY DUNHAM (5 star)

Harvey is a solid, pro-life conservative. He has practiced law for over thirty years; been a district court judge for two years and a judge pro-tem for seven.

Harvey says, “I believe in old-fashioned justice. I believe that a judge should not make new law. I believe that the legislative branch should make new law. I believe a judge should follow the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington and not ignore them. I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that no person should be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. I believe that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. I believe that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Harvey Dunham’s website is http://votedunham.com

Running against Harvey is the very liberal, Laurel Siddoway. She was appointed in May by Governor Gregoire so she could run as an incumbent. She is endorsed by all the liberal judges.

She withheld critical information and correspondence to the City before recommending the Spokane City Council settle with the developers in the Riverside Park Square parking garage dispute. She duped the council into making a very expensive settlement – a huge cost to the taxpayers – against the advice of other attorneys on the case by not allowing their voices to be heard and representing herself as consensus – as the liberals always do.

She led the fight against the badly needed Lincoln Street Bridge because of a potential to block a view of the Spokane Falls from a certain direction. Feelings (of a few liberals) are more important than the needs of people, transportation and commerce.

Laurel’s website is http://retainjudgesiddoway.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SHORELINE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DENNIS MCCURDY (3 star)

Dennis McCurdy has been a King County Deputy Prosecutor for seventeen years, now a Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

His website is http://mccurdy4judge.com

Marcine Anderson is running against him to keep her seat. She is a former King County Deputy Prosecutor. She was appointed by Metropolitan King County Council, on 22 February, so she could run as an incumbent. She has affiliations with minority organizations and capitalizes on her Asian descent. She is endorsed by liberal judges and rated highly by Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://marcineanderson.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOHN L O’BRIEN (2 star)

John O’Brien has been an attorney since 1981. He is endorsed by the moderately liberal Citizens for Judicial Excellence.

“O’Brien endorses the philosophy that the District Court upholds the current law and holds individuals accountable for their actions. He has seen the glow of pride in a defendant who has successfully completed a probationary counseling program, but has also sentenced defendants to maximum confinement for failed efforts at personal reform.” – as told to Citizens for Judicial Excellence

John’s business website is http://obrienlawfirm.net/team_jobrien.html

Michael Finkle was appointed to the bench on 22 February so he could run as an incumbent. He, also, has been an attorney since 1981. He has worked on the Seattle-King County Racial Disparity Work Group and is endorsed by liberal judges, officials and Democratic Party organizations. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Finkle’s website is http://retainjudgefinkle.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SW, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: SUSAN MAHONEY (1 star)

Susan Mahoney is an Assistant Des Moines City Attorney, Judge Pro Tem and former prosecutor. She is endorsed by Democrats and liberals.

Her website is http://mahoneyforjudge.com

Judith Eiler is the incumbent and has served on various courts since 1992. Prior to being elected to the bench Judge Eiler practiced law in Federal Way for 12 years. She is known to be “rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment” of attorneys and people representing themselves.

We could not locate a website for this candidate.

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DARRELL E PHILLIPSON (2 star)

Darrell Phillipson has spent twenty-seven years on the bench. He is involved at his Lutheran church and endorsed by Democrats and liberal judges.

Phillipson’s website is http://darrellphillipson.com

His opponent is David Meyer, who has been practicing law for twenty-five years. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and the SEIU. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender).

David Meyer’s website is http://davidmeyerforjudge.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: DAVID TRACY (2 star)

David Tracy has been a Municipal Court Judge for six years and served three years as a District Court Magistrate. He has thirty years legal experience. He is the Dean of Washington State Judicial College. Although he is a member of Diversity Task Force for Kent School District, he is also a volunteer at Second Harvest. David is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

His website is http://electdavidtracyjudge.com

His opponent is Matt Williams, who has twenty-seven years experience as an attorney, prosecutor, defense attorney and arbitrator. He is a program director for National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which means he gets paid while advancing his skills (rather than having to pay for the instruction). He states his reason for running is, “I want to give back to the community in which my wife and I raised our daughters by keeping our neighbors and our community safe.” That said from a man who does little without remuneration. He, also, is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

Matt’s website is http://electmattwilliams.com

KING / SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NE JUSTICE COURT, POS 7 – COMINUS’ PICK: LARRY MITCHELL (2 star)

Larry Mitchell has spent the last sixteen years as the City of Redmond Prosecuting Attorney. He is endorsed by King County Democrats and highly rated by the King County Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

His website is http://electlarrymitchelljudge.com

Larry has two opponents. Donna Tucker is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bar associations and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://donnatuckerforjudge.com

Ketu Shah is the other opponent and is an immigrant from India. He wants to make the judiciary “more engaged with our entire community.” Does he mean the judiciary should step aside from the practice of law and begin a dialogue with criminals and gangs? Liberals are so dependant on what sounds good and forget the rule of law. Mr. Shah has fifteen years experience in immigration and civil issues. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

His website is http://k2forjudge.com

KLICKITAT COUNTY EAST DISTRICT COURT – COMINUS’ PICK TIM O’NEILL (2 star)

Tim O’Neill has been practicing law since 1978; part of that time as an elected prosecuting attorney. In 2002, O’Neill and Gwendolyn Grundei ran against each other for the position of county prosecuting attorney. O’Neill won that contest. An incidental fact: His wife kept her maiden name.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Running against him again, but for a different position, is Gwendolyn L Grundei. She has been both a prosecutor (deputy?) and a defense attorney.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Rick Hansen is the third candidate in this race. He has twenty-five years in law practice and is a public defender.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: KEVIN MCCANN (2 star)

Kevin McCann is a Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor. He has raised almost as much money as Sussman with limited personal funds and loans. He is running because, “Pierce County has suffered too many embarrassments by public officials whose behavior has resulted in admonishments, a loss of the public’s faith and even criminal charges” True – this seems to be a decades old, perennial problem. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and unions.

Kevin’s website is http://electkevinmccann.com

Claire Sussman has raised the most money in this race, but that includes over thirty thousand dollars of her own money. That has to be worrisome when someone is willing to buy the office. Formerly, she spent six years as a prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and seven years as a pro-tempore judge. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations as well as Brian Sonntag and Rob McKenna.

Claire’s website is http://clairesussmanforjudge.org

Karl Williams is the former president and vice president Pierce County Minority Bar Association. He spent the last twenty years practicing law; fourteen years as a pro-tem judge. Aside from working to further minority interests, we know very little about Karl. He appears to have the energy for the position but we think it will be tainted by his minority pursuits as opposed to his interest in law.

Karl’s website is http://karlwilliamsforjudge.com

Finally, Lance Hester has his own private practice, the Hester Law Group. He volunteers with Young Life and Chapel Hill Church. However, he takes no stand on any issue and a perusal of cases seems to indicate that most his clients are cop killers, wife beaters and rapists. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Lance’s website is http://electlancehester.com

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: ED MCKENNA (1 star)

Ed McKenna has spent more than twenty years as an Assistant City Attorney for Seattle; now as a Senior Assistant. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. He is running because, “In the 2010 King County Bar Association survey, [the incumbent, Edsonya] Charles ranked last – 47 of 47 judges rated.  She received lowest ratings in the Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication category, which includes being attentive to court proceedings, treating people with courtesy and respect, acting with patience and self-control and using clear oral communications. It’s time for new leadership on the Municipal Court.”

Ed’s website is http://edmckennaforjudge.com

Edsonya Charles is the incumbent and has been a Seattle Municipal Court Judge since 2004, appointed by the very liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. She was formerly a deputy legal council to Seattle Mayor Nichols and his senior policy advisor on public safety. Before that, she was a federal prosecutor specializing in fraud cases. She states, “My proudest achievements including receiving the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award and twice receiving Al Gore’s Government Reinvention Hammer Award for my work in prosecuting criminals who lied and stole from working people.”

Her website is http://reelectjudgeedsonyacharles.com but it is not active.

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: KAREN DONOHUE (1 star)

Karen Donohue has twenty-five years in private practice. She has been general counsel to an international telecommunications firm, assistant city attorney and judge pro tem for the past 16 years. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. She states the reason she is running is because, “Judge Michael Hurtado, received average ratings of ‘acceptable.’ His legal decision making skills were rated between ‘poor’ and ‘acceptable.’ In addition, Judge Hurtado has been admonished twice by the commission on judicial conduct, most recently for failing to treat attorneys with patience, courtesy and dignity.”

Her website is http://karendonohueforjudge.com

Michael Salvador Hurtado has been twice disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In both cases, the facts were agreed upon by all parties.

CJC No. 3790-F-100 (October 4, 2002) Receiving and acting upon improper ex parte (one side of the case) communications while serving as a judge pro tempore of the Des Moines Municipal Court. Judge Hurtado received ex parte information from one of the parties’ counsel and witness, and acted on it without hearing from the other side, vacating the order entered earlier. This is no small travesty and the Commission only admonished the judge.

CJC No. 5775-F-141 (December 5, 2008) He failed to treat two different attorneys with patience, dignity and courtesy. As soon as the Commission brought this matter to Respondent’s attention, he openly acknowledged the acts occurred and recognized their impropriety. The Commission admonished the judge.

To his credit, he has received numerous community service awards.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: TIMOTHY NOTE (3 star)

Timothy Note is a criminal defense attorney with seven years experience. [Update 16 July] “I own my own law office and am running on a work ethic platform.  District Court Judges make $141,700 plus benefits, they owe it to the people they serve to show up as required for work and put in a full day when they get there. Beyond that they need to treat all parties with dignity and fairness without prejudging individuals or cases.  I will do that. Unlike the the current bench, I vow to make my attendance record a matter of public record, that way the the public will know they are getting what they are paying for.  I am widely endorsed by the people who actually practice law in Spokane County as well by David Stevens and Frank Malone, candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor.  I think this shows that I have support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that District Court should be where Rising Stars in the legal community go to hone their judicial chops in preparation for greater service, rather than operating as a pasture where mediocre attorneys wait out their retirement at public expense.”

His website is http://noteforjudge.com

Debra Hayes is the incumbent and a former deputy prosecutor. However, she lacks focus on the law. On her Facebook fan page she posted several Spokane Review news stories of various crimes – cases in her court, giving the impression she had determined the guilt or innocence based upon the story. She demonstrates lack of discretion by posting the articles of interest; these are not her adventures, she is responsible to judge these cases on their merits, not the drama. Furthermore, two years ago, her son was arrested on drug charges. Maybe her fault, maybe not; we will give her the benefit of the doubt as kids from good homes sometimes go bad.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: GLEN WARREN (5 star)

You gotta love this guy, Glen Warren. He describes himself as a “lifelong taxpaying resident of Yakima county.” He has over thirty-two years of experience in criminal, traffic, civil, and other cases. He is a member of Grandview Christian Church and an “advocate of 2nd Amendment rights” He is endorsed by scores of businessmen and police. “Glen’s decades of experience, local Christian values, and upbringing will contribute to his responsible running of this office funded with taxpayer money.”

Glen’s website is http://warrenforjudge.com

Brian Sanderson is running for this position also. He has been a Selah Municipal Court Judge since 2004 and was a former Washington State Assistant Attorney General. He has all the establishment endorsements.

Brian’s website is http://sandersonforjudge.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 3 – COMINUS’ PICK: DONALD ENGEL (3 star)

Donald Engel is the incumbent and appears to be an acceptable judge.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Steve Keller is opposing him and has twenty-eight years experience as a deputy prosecuting attorney.

Steve’s website is http://stevenrkeller.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 4 – COMINUS’ PICK: BRONSON FAUL (3 star)

Bronson Faul is a Yakima assistant city attorney and formerly a deputy prosecuting attorney with the county. He appears to be a standup guy with a respect for law and is endorsed by Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and GOP politicians.

Bronson’s website is http://bronsonforjudge.com

Michael L Everett would be our second choice and has been practicing law since 1974 including six years judge at Wapato District Court. He is an unhappy looking fellow but very patriotic. Regarding his previous stint on the bench, he states, “During my time on the bench I never lost sight of the fact that each individual who came before me was a person worthy of respect who deserves to be heard and that the community deserved everyone be held accountable for their actions”

Michael’s website is http://everettforjudge.com

Doug Federspiel is the hands-on establishment favorite. But that is disturbing, because he appears to be the most liberal in a conservative area. He has been practicing law since 1989. He has done some mountain climbing and at age thirty-five took a month long trip in the Himalayas. In liberal fashion, he has a feel-good vision, “Make sure everybody feels like they’ve had their day in court, that they know the judge listened to their arguments and worked hard. That’s what people expect from somebody on the bench.” When I go to court, I want to know justice was administered according to the law – not feel like I had my day in court. If we are going to “make sure everybody feels like they had their day in court,” what do we do with the losers?

His website is http://dougfederspiel.com

This is the end of the report. I hope you find it helpful and useful. Feel free to pass this on with credit back to the source.

- cominus

By Pastor Joe Fuiten

Is God interested in nations or only in individuals?

In a great many evangelical churches in recent years there has been a wholesale abandonment of the idea that God works within nations in particular ways. In those churches, it is all about evangelism and any sense of discipling the nation has been lost. In some churches it has become so severe they no longer even allow voter registration in the church. The question I am asking is what does God thinks about that?

We have a generation of church leaders who have adopted a multicultural model rather than a national model. In doing so, they have abandoned centuries of Christian thought. Indeed, they have abandoned centuries of Christian thought in America. My concern is that such leaders could never have produced a nation such as America had they not been born into it. They are coasting on a previous generation’s energy and investment. Like the prodigal, they are progressively cashing in their inheritance and will leave nothing behind for the next generation. By their omissions, Pastors are diminishing America.

In this message, I want to establish three things:
FIRST, that God designed the concept of a holy nation in the Old Testament.

SECOND, that it was retained in the New Testament.

THIRD, that American Christians and America’s founders envisioned America as a fulfillment of that concept for our nation.

I want to begin with the Apostle Peter’s audience in 1 Peter 1. He begins his epistle like this:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood….”

He was writing to Christians who were chosen for obedience to Jesus Christ. This was no longer Judaism. This was Christianity. This was no longer Old Testament. This was New Testament Christianity. He gets down to it in chapter two when he writes in 1 Peter 2:9-17:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

In this passage, it is clear that Peter is building the New Testament church squarely on the Old Testament concepts. Who are the chosen people? The Jews. Yet Peter uses that language for the church. Who was the holy nation? It was Israel. Yet now Peter uses that language to apply to members of the Roman Empire who happened to be Christians. He deals with them on a personal level. That would be verses 11-12.

After dealing with personal morality, Peter starts talking about government. He defines the role of government in rewarding good and punishing evil. I would point out that an Apostle is defining the role of government. It is not other people, secular people, defining government. The spiritual leader is saying what government should do. I suppose some would say that Church leaders should not be involved in politics. Yet Peter here, and Paul in Romans 13, define the role of government. Paul even goes so far as to say that government authorities are God’s servants.[1] We sometimes call ministers “God’s servants” but Paul uses that term for government.

I would ask my fellow preachers and church leaders a few questions:
1. Does your theology include government?
2. Do you inform government what it should do? Peter and Paul did.
3. If you adopt the idea that as a church leader you are only going to be concerned with saving souls and are not going to get involved in politics, do you see that you are not following the Apostolic pattern?

I think there is biblical evidence that both Paul and John were politically active. I have a chapter on that in my book The Revenge of Ephesus. In America today, the most fundamental debate is over the role of government. The Apostles spoke to that issue in their day, why shouldn’t church leaders do the same in our day?

Peter also defines the Christian’s relationship to government. He says that we are to submit to the government as part of our testimony. We put pagans and foolish people to silence by that relationship. We like to say that they will know we are Christians by our love but Peter here says they will know we are Christians also by our relationship to the government. Peter would not accept the idea that it is better not to be involved in politics and just concentrate on loving people and leading them to the Lord.

Let’s take this passage out of Peter and put it back into its Old Testament context. Peter sounds a lot like God at Mt. Sinai before the law was given.
“Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:3-6)

In a world of nations, God wanted Israel to be a holy nation. There was to be something special about that nation. They were to be obedient to God. For his part God promised economic blessings and defined borders.
“The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in his ways. Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will fear you. The LORD will grant you abundant prosperity – in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground – in the land he swore to your forefathers to give you.” (Deut 28:9-11)

In the Old Testament, when God said Israel would be a holy nation, he had in mind their economy, their land, and their governance. In short, it would be all the things that define a nation. This wasn’t just a spiritual kingdom of the heart. This was to be an actual kingdom with a particular relationship with God. They would be a nation among the nations.

Peter described New Testament Christians as being “… a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

He was incorporating by reference, the Old Testament concepts. This is not replacement theology. Rather it is continuity with the past. It is God bringing the same concepts forward into the church.

We have covered the first two points. First, that God designed the concept of a holy nation in the Old Testament. Second, that it was retained in the New Testament.

Now I want to turn to the third idea, that American Christians and America’s founders envisioned America as a fulfillment of that concept for our nation.

You see it from the very beginning. The Pilgrims were quite explicit in their goals in the Virginia Charter. “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia …”

The connection between God and Country was deep. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

The echo of that is found in the words of the Pilgrim leader John Winthrop in 1630. Aboard the Arbella he said, “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses …”
That vision has been a mainstay in America since the beginning right up to the present moment. Ronald Reagan said it. “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

In his farewell address to add to it for emphasis “‘I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life … In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.’

Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews. They viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God’s chosen people headed for the Promised Land. Other colonists believed they, too, had been divinely called. The settlers in Virginia were, as John Rolf said, “a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of God.”

This self-image of being God’s Chosen People called to establish the New Israel became an integral theme in America’s self-interpretation. During the revolutionary period, it emerged with new force.
“We cannot but acknowledge that God hath graciously patronized our cause and taken us under his special care, as he did his ancient covenant people,” Samuel Langdon preached at Concord, New Hampshire in 1788.

George Washington was the “American Joshua,” and “Never was the possession of arms used with more glory, or in a better cause, since the days of Joshua, the son of Nun,” Ezra Stiles urged in Connecticut in 1783.
In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wanted Promised Land images for the new nation’s Great Seal. Franklin proposed Moses dividing the Red Sea with Pharaoh’s army being overwhelmed by the closing waters. Jefferson urged a representation of the Israelites being led in the wilderness by the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day. Later, in his second inaugural address (1805), Jefferson again recalled the Promised Land. “I shall need…the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.” [2]

When America was founded as a country, the preachers of America were aflame with that idea. They showed they had learned the lesson of the nation Israel who wanted a king like other nations. They created the motto of the American Revolution “No King but Jesus.”

Yale historian Harry S. Stout wrote an article in Christian History magazine titled, “Christianity and the American Revolution”. Here is what he said about America at the time of the Revolution:

“Over the span of the colonial era, American ministers delivered approximately 8 million sermons, each lasting one to one-and-a-half hours. The average 70-year-old colonial churchgoer would have listened to some 7,000 sermons in his or her lifetime, totaling nearly 10,000 hours of concentrated listening. This is the number of classroom hours it would take to receive ten separate undergraduate degrees in a modern university, without ever repeating the same course!”

Events were perceived not from the mundane, human vantage point but from God’s. The vast majority of colonists were Reformed or Calvinist, to whom things were not as they might appear at ground level: all events, no matter how mundane or seemingly random, were parts of a larger pattern of meaning, part of God’s providential design. The outlines of this pattern were contained in Scripture and interpreted by discerning pastors.
“[Today] taxation and representation are political and constitutional issues, having nothing to do with religion. But to eighteenth-century ears, attuned to lifetimes of preaching, the issues were inevitably religious as well. When understood in its own times, the American Revolution was first and foremost a religious event.” [3]

The idea of the expansion of America to the west was a religiously inspired idea. In 1845, an article in the Democratic Review, declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”

In various ways, the people who put America together were people who believed in the concept of a holy nation. Because they believed we were a nation with a particular destiny given to us by God, they sought for God’s will to be accomplished. They were not ashamed of the laws required by the Bible.

When you see that giant American flag in this sanctuary, you are feeling a motivation of every generation of Americans. Indeed, Christians from the beginning have wanted to create societies that were more than just personally Christian. They longed for that holy nation. Today we are in a low ebb of that dream partly because we need a revival in our hearts and partly because church leaders have abandoned the historic vision for America. Indeed, most have little vision for America. An effete church does not give birth to a nation.

We are in times like those of Nehemiah. We must have both the tools of building and the weapons of warfare. “From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor … Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked.” [Nehemiah 4:16-18]

————————————————-

[1] Rom 13:6-7 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

[2] Conrad Cherry (ed.), God’s New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971). The quotations are from this book: Winthrop p. 43; Whitaker p. 33; Rolf p. 26; Langdon p. 99 ; Stiles p. 88; and Jefferson p. 65. The information about the Great Seal is found on p. 65. See also, Joseph Gaer and Ben Siegal, The Puritan Heritage: American Roots in the Bible (New York: A Mentor Book/The New American Library, 1964).

[3] Elesha Coffman, editor of Christian History Magazine, quoting from Vol. 50 of that publication.

Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten is the senior pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, Washington, and he is the former president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and the Positive Christian Agenda. Currently, Pastor Fuiten is a founding member of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an associate organization of Focus on the Family.

According to the Seattle Times, a jury awarded a woman 2.7 million dollars for hitting a horse in the road. The award went against the phone company alone, not the phone company driver, not the person attending the horse, not against another driver who had pulled over but did not warn other drivers and certainly not against the driver who was injured from hitting the horse due to her own negligence.

This case is a clear demonstration of how our legal system seeks after the person, or entity, with the deepest pockets. So, if you don’t want your pockets lightened, get your safety management program in place.

Here is what happened, as rendered in the news report: An attended horse got loose and ventured into the road. It was hit by a phone company truck. The driver either left the scene or parked his truck down the road; the article is not clear. Another driver came upon the horse in the road, pulled over, and began looking for the owner, which seems to indicate the horse’s attendant had also left the scene. Shortly after that, another driver came upon the dead horse, hit the carcass and was injured.

It is hard to figure how the driver did not see something as large as a fallen horse in the road and the fact that another driver came upon the horse and pulled over is evidence the horse was observable and that the female driver who hit the horse was not attentive to her driving. So, in effect, the jury awarded the person who was not paying attention a multi-million dollar settlement for two reasons: 1) the inattentive person was injured; and 2) the defendant had deep pockets. The reason I am making this clear is not only to indict our litigious court system but also to emphasize the importance of making certain your employees follow detailed and clear safety management policies and understand they are responsible to protect other employees and the general public because they will not protect themselves.

During the trial, the offensive attorney entered into evidence the phone company had a safety policy requiring the driver to remain at the scene and take steps to reduce the possibility of further accidents. However, the driver testified that stopping was dangerous and that he also could not backup because the accident had damaged one of his side mirrors. Obviously, the employee was not aware of company policy, or was not thinking about it during a critical event.

Sidenote: At this point, it appears the company did everything they were required to do by having a safety policy that addressed this type of event. So, you may wonder why it was the phone company that was penalized rather than the driver. The reason is two-fold: 1) In the law, the employee is an agent for the employer and the employer is responsible for the activities of the employee on company time; and 2) Having a safety policy in place is not sufficient. The employer is responsible to train the employee to understand the policies and enforce the practices. Actual reading of this case may give other reasons as well.

The gap between what was required and what the employee did can probably be measured in the training, or lack of training, provided by the company. The basic requirements of every job should be clearly explained during orientation training and the employee should demonstrate a clear understanding of what was taught. This should be documented and should be repeated, at least, once a year. Specialized training may have other requirements.

The actions of any employee can have direct, or indirect, effect upon other employees and the general public. It is important all employees are thoroughly trained in their responsibilities; be made aware of the dangers of their occupation; how to work safely; and know what to do when something goes wrong. Be prepared, be responsible – make certain you have a qualified, effective safety management program in place and train your employees to understand the full scope of their responsibilities.

Call Dean for a free consultation, 208-699-6877 Idaho, Washington, Montana and Ohio (and anywhere in between).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012303117_horseverdict08m.html?prmid=obinsource