Alaska Airlines has also donated $15,000 toward the initiative.

One wonders whether it is in the company's best interest to be associated with big oil who are getting a reputation of price-gouging and collusion in the Pacific Northwest with our out-of-norm gas prices.

Can Alaska afford to alienate the 30-40% of the electorate that are automatically opposed to any Eyman initiative?

1 of 2

Follow the money

True enough. Following the money is CRITICAL when it comes to all ballot measures, be they initiatives or propositions from a government. I-1125 last year is a good example of how following the money can lead to the truth.

Here is the link to I-1125:

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1125.pdf

Money was contributed by Kemper Development Co. for the signature gathering to get that “Eyman” initiative on the ballot. KDC has a huge stake in East Link getting built, and I-1125 was part of the PR efforts to further that end.

Contrary to what some were saying in press stories about I-1125 approval of that initiative would not have “stopped light rail”. It only would have precluded the transfer of “lanes”, and the proposed property transfer from WSDOT to Sound Transit would have involved the transfer of parts of pontoons, ramps, roadbeds and tunnels – not “lanes”.

Additional evidence shows I-1125 would not have stopped East Link. The ballot title didn’t reference light rail, Sound Transit, East Link, or even the provision that supposedly would have tied the hands of government managers with respect to transfers of “lanes”. Moreover, the mandatory explanatory statement from the AG’s office didn’t say existing law allowed the proposed WSDOT-to-Sound Transit infrastructure handover, nor did it say the change in law the measure would make would stop that proposed property handover.

2 of 2

Why were media stories suggesting I-1125 would stop light rail? PR operatives the media outlets here wanted to please desired that the public should be misled in that particular way. It really is that simple.

What was the reason Kemper Development Co. made contributions for the signature gathering to put I-1125 on the ballot? I-1125 was designed from the outset to do two things. First, before the election it was an excuse for Sound Transit’s PR team to put out copy designed to make that taxing district look good. Stereotypes are at the heart of all propaganda efforts. Their purpose is to create the perception that a clique’s actions are always ethical and honorable, while those of its opponents are always unethical and dishonorable. Eyman and Freeman are stereotyped as unethical and dishonorable, which causes popular sentiment to side with the clique profiting from Sound Transit. That’s Propaganda 101. Second, if I-1125 had passed it would have brought about lawsuits that ST’s lawyers would have controlled. Those lawsuits would have caused years of delay for East Link (which Team Sound Transit wants), and they would have given the justices ample opportunity to again put Sound Transit’s plans above the law:

http://susan-owens.webs.com/

Everyone understands how Kemper Freeman’s supposed “opposition” these days to Sound Transit, and to East Link in particular, is as phony as a three-dollar bill, right? He wants that train line built out and operating because it would make him vastly richer. The light rail station at the Bellevue Transit Center would have an entrance on 110th Ave NE near NE 6th Street. That is just a couple of blocks from the Bellevue Square properties KDC owns. If thousands of extra people a day were to be delivered by train to the doorstep of those properties those KDC holdings would become vastly more valuable. Moreover, further development of those properties would become commercially viable. Also, KDC then could hike rents charged to its tenants. KDC may well also have plans to develop its properties on Bel-Red Road near those planned East Link stations, as well as on the former Group Health property near the planned Overlake station.

Putting some money into getting I-1125 on the ballot was a no-lose proposition for KDC that worked out just fine for it. The pro-East Link press it engendered was plentiful. That press copy also pumped up the false image of Freeman as anti-Sound Transit. That false image now is being used to sell his bogus lawsuits relating to the proposed I-90 corridor infrastructure handovers as legitimate legal challenges. Even if I-1125 had passed there was no way the provision that supposedly would have precluded WSDOT from transferring “lanes” would stop East Link (the property that would be transferred would not have been lanes, and I-1125 most likely would have been struck down in court for violating the “single-subject” rule).

Following the money is critical. It can reveal the truth, even if a smokescreen is set around it. In this case, the implausible smokescreen was the false assertion that Freeman for some reason does not want train infrastructure that would make him immensely richer.

Of course Sonntag would support McKenna. For the entire time Sonntag has been state Auditor, the democratic-let Legislature has been trying to defund and distract him from his duty of fostering openness and accountability in government. They've made it clear that Sonntag is their enemy. Why should he support his enemies' candidate for governor? It's payback time.

Mr. Jackson seems to believe that without the impetus of big campaign advertising Washington voters would righteously vote down any initiative that would lower their taxes. Is there any evidence for that belief? when was the last time a statewide vote of any kind favored higher taxes? I admit I don't know; the most recent example I can think of was the income tax for high earners (actually a tax on other people but still ..). Tim Eyman helps give us stupid voters the opportunity to slow the rise in taxes. We fall for it every time and it's his fault.

The assertion that Kemper Freeman is some sort of pro-Sound Transit Manchurian campaign funder is pure tinfoil hat stuff.

You really want to discuss this?

He has huge financial incentives to try to get that East Link train line built out. If it starts operating, he, his partners, and his family would become vastly richer. Just look at where the line would stop in downtown Bellevue. The proposed light rail station at the Bellevue Transit Center would have an entrance on 110th Ave. NE near NE 6th Street. That is just a couple of blocks from the Bellevue Square properties Kemper Development Company owns. If thousands of extra people a day were to be delivered by train to the doorstep of those properties those KDC holdings would become vastly more valuable. Moreover, further development of those properties then would become commercially viable.

That's his motive for 1) signing his name below the lame arguments comprising the "Statement Against" in the 2008 ST2 measure voters guide (something Sound Transit's board selected him to do), 2) paying to get signatures for I-1125 to qualify for the ballot (see above), 3) failing to disclose to the public how the courts have been routinely acting dishonestly when lawsuits implicating Sound Transit's powers come before them (http://susan-owens.webs.com/), and 4) failing to address publicly the flaws with that governments financing plan, and the lack of power people can exert over its policies and management (i.e., the lack of any taxpayer-protection provisions, the outlandish costs to individual taxpayers in light of how all the peers finance rail, and the fact that people are not able to exert any control over that government by political means).

He also raised entirely meritless claims in the two lawsuits he brought since ST2 was enacted. In both of those cases Sound Transit voluntarily entered into those lawsuits (Freeman did not sue it). NO WAY would Sound Transit voluntarily enter some lawsuit implicating its interests unless it knew the claims were sure-losers. Plus, Freeman and his lawyer Talmadge not only AGREED with all the purported facts the governments' lawyers put into the record, they failed to take ANY discovery to obtain the kind of factual record that could have been used to establish the legitimate statutory and constitutional challenges that should preclude the proposed WSDOT-Sound Transit infrastructure transfer.

First, if you disagree with any of what I've written explain why.

Second, what evidence do you have that might suggest that Freeman's purported opposition to ST2 is anything other than a flimsy pretext?

Sure I'll discuss this.

As Freeman's many opponents have pointed out, he probably does indeed benefit financially from ST. Nevertheless, he has spent tons of his own money despite that because he is a true believer (not unlike you, I would add) that light rail is a misguided waste of public resources.

In addition, in publicly opposing ST, Freeman has broken one of the cardinal rules of business, which is that you don't try and fight City Hall (or its regional equivalent). He has also generated a lot of ill will among light rail supporters (which includes a majority of Eastside voters, by the way) that has also carried over against his tenants Bellevue Square. Conversely, he could just as easily have sat on his hands and not spent a dime and light rail would have gone forward regardless.

In addition to seeing him give countless interviews over the years opposing LRT, I also happen to have met the guy, and I am quite convinced that he sincerely believes that light rail is a really bad idea, and that he's been willing to put his money where his mouth is to oppose it.

The rest of your speculation is just that - speculation. And frankly, while you often make good arguments against Sound Transit, this particular conspiracy theory just sounds plain nuts.

You may want to consider getting another hobby.

1 of 2

in publicly opposing ST, Freeman has broken one of the cardinal rules of business, which is that you don't try and fight City Hall

His so-called opposition has in fact supported Sound Transit’s objectives in each of the three instances where became involved. Those are the campaign for the passage of ST2, I-1125, and the litigation. I assume those are the “fights” to which you refer. In each of those situations he did and said EXACTLY what Sound Transit wanted him to do. He failed to explain to voters how the financing plan was unprecedented and abusive, the reference in I-1125 to “lanes” is how Sound Transit’s lawyers are misrepresenting what would be transferred by WSDOT to it, and the claims in the lawsuit are entirely bogus (for example, the driving public’s protected interest in ongoing exclusive access to that highway infrastructure is ignored completely).

He has also generated a lot of ill will among light rail supporters (which includes a majority of Eastside voters, by the way) that has also carried over against his tenants Bellevue Square.

Care to try substantiating that claim?

he could just as easily have sat on his hands and not spent a dime and light rail would have gone forward regardless.

That is not true. Sound Transit needed a faux opponent to raise lame arguments against it, both to get voter approval of ST2 and in the subsequent litigation. He agreed to play that role in each of those instances. Those efforts were and are necessary for East Link to go beyond the planning stage.

You say you’ve seen “him give countless interviews over the years opposing LRT”. The arguments against building train lines to his properties’ doorstep I’ve heard from him are nonsense. Identify the strongest and most fact-based arguments he made against ST2 prior to the 2008 election.

2 of 2

Freeman brought weak, sure-loser claims in his lawsuit relating to the surplus-property statute and the key provision of the constitution.

Here is the claim that references article II sec. 40 of the state constitution (it’s set out on pp. 6-7 of the memorandum opinion -- http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/releases/SJ_Memorandum_Decision_3-5-12.pdf):

“Whether the 18th Amendment (Article 2, Section 40 of the Washington Constitution) bars the leasing of highway right-of-way purchased and/or construction, [sic] with motor vehicle funds as authorized by RCW 47.12.120, for non-highway use, such as light rail, when the land is not presently needed for highway purposes and when fair market rent is paid?”

Here is the claim that references the surplus property statute at issue (this is set out on p. 8 of the memorandum opinion):

“Whether the State’s decision, made under RCW 47.12.120, that I-90 center lanes will be no longer presently needed for a highway purpose and can be leased for light rail after two replacement I-90 HOV lanes are constructed is so arbitrary and capricious that it amounts to fraud or bad faith, requiring this court to abrogate such decision?”

Let’s discuss how he’s acting as a patsy in these lawsuits. He agreed with all of the factual assertions the state and Sound Transit made regarding those claims (8 or so affidavits, and hundreds of pages of documents). He obtained no discovery (he made no document requests and deposed no witnesses). That’s not how a plaintiff actually opposed to a defendant prosecutes a lawsuit.

Why do you think he falsely asserts in those claims that “highway right-of-way”, “land”, and “lanes” would be transferred, when in fact it is portions of pontoons, roadbeds, ramps and tunnels that WSDOT would transfer to Sound Transit?

Bear in mind, Sound Transit’s lawyers wanted him to mischaracterize the nature of the proposed transaction in exactly those ways. That is because no MVF assets were spent on that corridor for “highway right-of-way”, “land” and “lanes”, which means any article II sec. 40 claim phrased that way would be doomed to failure. Legitimate claims would be premised on the driving public’s constitutionally-protected right to continued exclusive access to the highway infrastructure elements that in fact had been engineered, constructed, maintained, and improved using MVF assets. He didn’t bring that kind of strong claim though, and he certainly didn’t obtain evidence using the tools of discovery that would have been needed to prove a legitimate article II sec. 40 claim like that.

Lots of speculation, lots of words - and all of it purely delusional.

I worked briefly with Mr. Freeman on the brief Trust and Transit effort close to 10 years ago, and I was and remain convinced of his sincerity in opposing light rail (my issues were more with the siting and details of the project rather than opposition to light rail per se, fwiw).

Kemper Freeman didn't have to bring the I-90 lawsuit and/or fund Tim Eyman's initiative - light rail was already heading to the eastside, and he has effectively been the last remaining impediment to that happening (and while he is certainly rich no one throws that kind of money away when they don't have to).

Aside from repeating yourself endlessly on this blog, what have YOU actually done and who have you actually worked with that makes you such an expert on the supposed hidden motivations of Kemper Freeman?

As it is now, you really do sound like someone who has spent far too much time obsessing about this stuff at your computer and far too little time dealing with it in the real world.

You and Wells should get a room.

1 of 4

Please. Nobody cares what you think about me.

You don’t seem willing to discuss the meritless constitutional claim Freeman brought – do you think that statutory claim he raised is any better?

He’s trying to lose in court – you get that right? If the justices hand Sound Transit the right kind of new case law in his lawsuit Freeman gets immeasurably richer.

That statutory claim he brought (copied above) challenges only “the decision” WSDOT made to transfer “lanes”. That isn’t the property the proposed property handover would involve. You do understand that don’t you?

2 of 4

There are meritorious statutory claims that could be raised against this proposed handover (assuming both WSDOT and Sound Transit eventually finalize the key documents). One set of statutory claims would center on how the particular surplus property statute WSDOT is trying to rely on (RCW 47.12.120 -- http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.12.120) does not provide the specific authority necessary for this kind of property handover.

There are a series of reasons that authorizing statute does not provide the right kind of power to WSDOT to hand over all the property to Sound Transit that it would need.

The proposed deal terms do not meet the legal definition of a “lease”. The term “lease” has a particular meaning. It is a property assignment that is different from an outright sale in a number of ways. For example, in a lease the property returns to the lessor; that is called a reversionary interest. There would be no reversionary interest in the highway infrastructure at the end of the 40-year term. That is because once Sound Transit got that property it would rip up the road surfaces and build up a trackbed and overhead electrical wiring on the bridges and ramps. At the end of the 40-year period WSDOT would not get back anything of value. What would revert to WSDOT would have no value as highway infrastructure.

The absence of any substantial reversionary interest is one fact showing that the true nature of this proposed transaction is an outright sale, and not a lease. Here are two more:

-- the consideration Sound Transit would pay would not be less than the full market value for sale purposes, and

-- this proposed transaction is completely anomalous in comparison to the other leases of unused land and rights of way based on the authority of RCW 47.12.120 in which WSDOT has participated, and those anomalies are further evidence that it is an outright sale.

Not only did Freeman fail to raise the claim that the key statute does not authorize this type of transaction, he failed to obtain any discovery so he could not have presented it.

3 of 4

There is another legal challenge that should be raised due to how RCW 47.12.120 does not authorize this kind of infrastructure handover. That statute only applies to transfers of highway improvements that are not “presently needed” for highway purposes. A claim that that criterion is not satisfied also has merit.

That kind of claim would be based on how each of the infrastructure elements Sound Transit would start using (the pontoons, ramps, tunnels, roadbeds, etc.) would continue to be used in part for highway purposes. WSDOT’s ongoing and future need for each of them means they ARE “presently needed” for highway purposes, which in turn means that due to what RCW 47.12.120 requires they can not now be handed over to a third-party.

Another meritorious claim challenging the applicability of RCW 47.12.120 relates to what Subsection 2 of that statute requires. That subsection requires that after the transfer the property must be subject to the local land use ordinances and regulations. That would not happen here. subsection 2 of that statute. It requires that the property leased must be “subject to the provisions and requirements of zoning ordinances of political subdivisions of government”. As discussed above on March 20, Sound Transit’s light rail undertakings were designated by the legislature as an “essential public facility”. That means it can site and operate its light rail lines where it wants no matter what city and county land use laws and regulations say. See RCW 36.70A.200(5). Sound Transit would be able to use the portions of the I-90 corridor infrastructure it would obtain from WSDOT without any regard to the local governments’ zoning (and other land use) ordinances’ limits. As that future use of the subject property would not be subject to all local zoning ordinances, that requirement of RCW 47.12.120(2) is not satisfied.

4 of 4

Another statutory claim that Freeman would have brought had he truly been interested in stopping this proposed handover would center on how the building of a heavy, rigid trackbed on the floating bridge and the ramps could be expected to harm, and accelerate the degradation of, those highway infrastructure elements.

WSDOT has statutory obligations to both preserve and maintain those highway infrastructure elements for the driving public. One of WSDOT’s main enabling statutes is RCW 47.01.260(1). It specifies WSDOT must “improve . . . and maintain state highways”. The proposed property transfer would be in derogation of those affirmative requirements. That is because the transaction proposed would result in significant degradation of the highway structures in that corridor, and WSDOT would be divesting itself of highway property (not “maintain[ing]” it). The 2008 panel of engineers alluded to some of the ways those highway improvements would be harmed by this proposal. Reconfiguring these structures to function as supports for these heavy trainsets is expected to harm their structural integrity and functional utility. That is the kind of evidence needed to make out this particular statutory claim.

Again, Freeman didn’t bring that kind of claim or obtain any evidence bearing on those critical issues. That’s because he is trying to lose this litigation – big time – to make himself vastly richer.

That's quite a conversation you're having with yourself.

Once again, all Kemper Freeman has to do to make all of this money you say he will is sit on his hands - light rail is going to the Eastside whether he keeping bringing lawsuits or not.

It looks like he's probably funding the latest futile lawsuit (which doesn't have any effect at all on how close light rail comes to his properties, by the way) from those South Bellevue homeowners - how exactly does that benefit him? (OK, now I get to prepare for another one of your 5 page repetitive posts that have about 10,000,000 words and no basis in the real world)

The notion that Mr. Freeman has been playing a 20-year game of 9th dimensional chess in pretending to oppose light rail is laughable on its face. But by all means, keep brewing those bizarre conspiracy theories if that makes you happy

Better still, if everything you say actually has merit and you're the expert you claim to be, bring the lawsuit yourself. Or try getting another hobby - this one clearly isn't doing your mental health any good.

Oh, and you forgot to mention the Illuminati, contrails, the gold standard, and the fluoridation of water....

Once again, all Kemper Freeman has to do to make all of this money you say he will is sit on his hands - light rail is going to the Eastside whether he keeping bringing lawsuits or not.

And once again you are wrong. Light rail may never be built on that I-90 corridor infrastructure. That’s a fact, Jack. The initial, critical action may never happen -- WSDOT may never deed over all that highway infrastructure to Sound Transit. That is because there are very substantial legal and engineering hurdles.

The best chance the governments have to overcome the constitutional and statutory hurdles that the justices outlined in their April, 2011 “Freeman v. Gregoire” majority opinion is this new lawsuit by Freeman. That’s why he’s brought the lame claims he did – the governments now need the right kind of new case law that would in effect bless the legal work-around they are proposing.

Look at the new claims he raised in this second action. They are completely different than the claims in the first suit. Each of the new (bogus) claims specifically references the surplus property statute RCW 47.12.120. The ONLY reason for that is the justices noted in their majority opinion last April that one of the four “surplus property” statutes WSDOT could rely on for this transfer would HAVE to authorize the handover, and that that issue was not then before the court. That language, and the language relating to how the constitutional issue was not ripe, forced the governments’ hands.

It is ironic . . . had Freeman and the governments not undertaken the first writ action they might not have had to bring this second suit.

Actually, the initial issue is that without the big money, Eyeman couldn't get the signatures to get the corporados and polluters wet dream on the ballot in the first place.

I see your point, Steve E. If the "corporados and polluters" (polluters? ) did not facilitate getting 1185 on the ballot we stupid voters would not be involved at all and a much better outcome would be assured. Right.

@bubbleator

Don't you get it by now. Crossrip is the secret identity of Kemper Freemen Jr. We are just fortunate enough to see the inner workings of his mind as he shows us his master plan.

My mind can barely comprehend the brilliance of his plan to make Sound Transit invincible by suing it to death and opposing it at every turn. Kemper pretends he's a conservative business man, but he spends millions of dollars campaigning against Sound Transit to support it.

It is such a crazy and audacious scheme I can hardly believe it will succeed.

My mind can barely comprehend the brilliance of his plan to make Sound Transit invincible by suing it to death and opposing it at every turn.

He's not "suing it to death". He is raising lame claims that he wants the justices to use as a springboard to hand even more dishonest case law to the financial beneficiaries of that taxing district. The justices act dishonestly for that interest group on a regular basis. Here's an essay describing four such cases:

http://susan-owens.webs.com/

Also, you say Freeman has been "opposing [Sound Transit] at every turn." What he's done is only bring up lame arguments against ST2, while ignoring completely what's truly abusive about that local government (its' intergenerational, and grossly excessive, taxing scheme used to secure the mountain of long-term bonds). Here's an example of the weak arguments against ST2 Freeman raised leading up to the 2008 ballot measure:

-- “residents will never tolerate the population density that makes rail commuting attractive in New York”,

-- “electric trains aren't really green”, and

-- “it wouldn't reduce congestion”.

Those are from a story in the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lightrailinitiative/2008299945_prop1debate23m.html).

Are those weak assertions what you mean by Freeman supposedly "opposing it at every turn"? What he's was doing there was NOT giving voters good reasons to oppose the measure.

Look, the guy wants those light rail lines built out to Bellevue as that would increase the value of his properties immensely. You really can't believe he's play the role of an opponent to help get the measure passed and help get the justices to act dishonestly again in an effort to make himself vastly richer? Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

I'm agreeing with you Kemp... er crossrip. It is such a simple plan I'd have to be insane or vice-versa not to understand it. Sound Transit should name the first light rail train Freeman. Like the time Kemper supported all those anti light rail Bellevue City Council candidates to press for building light rail away from his properties to support Sound Transit by um... er... doing something cool.

I guess Cross-Kemper doesn't remember that he was the primary funder of the light rail opposition ever since it was first on the ballot in 1995. Because, obviously, if you REALLY want it to pass and come to Bellevue the best way to do so is to try and kill it at the polls first. Everyone knows that, silly!

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001008&slug;=4046810

No idea what you're talking about here:

Like the time Kemper supported all those anti light rail Bellevue City Council candidates to press for building light rail away from his properties to support Sound Transit by um... er... doing something cool.

It would do absolutely no good to support (or oppose) any city council candidates if you had concerns about where Sound Transit would be siting light rail lines. Sound Transit has authority under a state statute to site its light rail wherever it wants, irrespective of any existing local land use ordinances and/or regulations.

Just so I'm clear on your position -- those quotes attributed to Freeman in that 2008 Seattle Times story are the extent of the blistering opposition to ST2 you think he mounted, right?

Kemper did indeed spend a lot of money supporting anti light rail candidates (including an effort that funneled money through one of the groups bringing the latest lawsuit against Sound Transit. If only he had listened to you, he could have saved his money.

According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, "That attitude may explain his long-standing opposition to light rail on the Eastside, which he has spent about $4 million fighting. He argues that bus rapid transit would cost half as much as light rail and have three times the ridership and could be implemented in three years. He’s debated the issue 400 times and said he will never stop opposing light rail, despite being “vilified” for filing a lawsuit over what he believes will be an illegal expenditure of highway funds on construction of the light rail project."

Four million dollars and 400 speeches.....clearly the work of a man who secretly loves light rail. Um, right....

I'm guessing you still want to see the original long-form birth certificate, too...

Maybe Publicola or the Stranger or the Evergreen Freedom Foundation or the dozen more interviews he's granted, but it's all part of the plan isn't it. Just like when he implanted that explosive cell phone in his henchman to escape from jail.

[Freeman] was the primary funder of the light rail opposition ever since it was first on the ballot in 1995.

So what? Press stories have noted Freeman contributed some money to oppose the Sound Transit ballot measures in 1995 and 1996. If it was anything like his supposed opposition to ST2 it would have been designed and intended as unconvincing. Got any examples of his arguments "against" those earlier measures? We could discuss them.

ST2's East Link has massively-huge potential to boost the value of the Bellevue Square properties. There is no good reason for Freeman to truly oppose the East Link plan, and plenty of financial motive for him to act in sneaky ways by faking opposition to it in an effort to get it built out.

Nice to know your employer has a subscription to the Puget Sound Business Journal. Which PR firm do you work for?

I’d ask you disclose what actually was purchased with that supposed $4 million in spending, and what actually was said at those alleged 400 speeches (“light rail is not so green”?), but I’m sure you couldn’t provide that information. What that information would demonstrate is that ever since ST2 was planned Freeman has been a fake-opponent of it.

The 1995 ballot measure included light rail to downtown Bellevue, and the 1996 ballot measure was sold as the first phase of a route that would eventually go to Bellevue. So, as usual you're just flat wrong.

With regard to the 1995 election, one Times article noted that "According to the Pro campaign FAQ: “There are basically two opponents: Ed Hansen, the Mayor of Everett and Kemper Freeman, Jr., a Bellevue developer. Mayor Hansen opposes this project because it doesn’t include light rail to Everett – in other words, it’s not enough. Freeman opposes this plan because he thinks it’s too much.”

By the way, your guesses about my identity and motivations are as accurate as they are about Kemper Freeman. Which is to say, not at all.

Contrails, anyone?

I'm sure Freeman appreciates your gallant efforts to paint him as a rigorous critic of that local government. Too bad you don't have facts upon which to build your case.

Freeman opposes this (1995) plan because he thinks it’s too much.

What is that supposed to mean?

I'm sure you could point to a dozen stories in papers that characterize him as an opponent of trains. In those he is quoted as saying thing like "Vote no because light rail is not green enough" or "It's too much". Talk is cheap. Those are nothing but vague assertions. They're not evidence of true opposition, and they not meant to be convincing.

Set out here the strongest, most factually-accurate argument you can find that he's ever made against any of Sound Transit's policies or plans. The most detailed "challenges" he's raised have been in the lawsuits, so you should select one of them. What he's quoted in the press as saying ("it won't reduce congestion") are just vague personal opinions devoid of factual support.

Disregard how he is labeled "an opponent". Look at the few vague things he actually says and examine what he actually does.

His lawsuits are comprised of ridiculous claims that are designed to lose. Up above I quoted the claims in the new lawsuit. He failed to take any discovery in those lawsuits, something no true opponent would do. I also describe a series of legitimate, strong claims that he could have brought.

When you look at what he actually does it falls far short of how he is characterized in the press (e.g., an opponent of Sound Transit's planning).

The justices are going to be making a decision in a couple of weeks about whether to accept direct review of that garbage action he brought in Kittitas County against the state. Do you think they should accept direct review? Why or why not?

You don't seem interested in addressing that question, so I'll give you my views. The justices should not play stupid. They should decline to accept direct review. Div. III in Spokane then would have the opportunity to consider the appeal, and given the entirely bogus nature of the suit, and given what the justices said in the April, 2011 opinion in the prior writ action, the commissioner of that appellate court should deny review.

The judges and justices have been acting dishonestly for this interest group routinely, and in my view that should stop.