News Jul 2, 2009 at 4:00 am

Are Tom Carr's Days Numbered?


Carr's comment in response to the King County Dems endorsement was reported by Johnathon Fitzpatrick on Twitter. Carr said: ""It's just infuriating, but that's life. We'll deal with it."

Holems also got endorsed by the Metro Dems - vote was Carr 9, Holmes 33, with zero votes for No Endorsement.

Of the partisan races, that means Holmes had the most resounding support of ANY of the candidates from Metro Dems - almost 80%.

The 34th District (Carr and Nickels home district) is issuing endorsements on July the 8th at Fauntleroy Hall. Carr is a long-time, active member and Nickels paid his dues recently and there's a lot of interest in the endorsements from that District. Are you going to be there, Dominic?

Greg paid his dues recently? WTF? Greg has paid his dues to the 34th every year.
Odd that the 34th District newsletter has narry a word on the hissy fit Carr pitched at the June forum when Holmes held his feet to the fire on these issues.
Well, it is on the 34th website, so it's easy to check. Greg Nickels shows in 04 as a member up to May 05. Don't see anything in 07 or 08. Looks like his name appears on the website as a benefactor ($100) in June 09. That would put him paying dues in May, right around the time that he plead his case at the board meeting on May 24, right?
diogenese - missing from the newsletter? Weird, it doesn't say anyting about Carr getting all bothered and calling his opponent a liar. I was pretty impressed with Mr. Holmes because of his calm demeanor and factual statements. He just kept saying "look at the record". Very lawyerly. What do the minutes say? Are they wrong or something?

bikerchick @1, I wouldn't exactly call Carr and "active member". He may pay his dues, but only rarely attends meetings of the 34th District Democrats. Other electeds who live in the 34th seem to find the time to show up and participate such as Dow Constantine and Tom Rasmussen.
Miranda, we'll i have seen carr there. At least he goes to meetings! You are right, though, active is a little strong and implies participation. Nickels on the other hand, hasn't even been there (years?) except for the candidate forum.
Thank you for writing this story, which really needed to be written. Carr likes to talk about his successes with programs for alternatives to detention, but it seems like nobody ever challenges him on his strict approach to cases that many citizens would consider less of a priority. When he insists on jail time for questionable, nuissance cases, he guarantees drawn out processes, and certainly doesn't do anything to help the issue of jail capacity.

I'm not 100% sold on Holmes, but I think that Cindi Laws really misses the mark on her critique of him. It sounds like she's trying to make him sound evil, just because he was a bankruptcy lawyer, which is silly. Perhaps a more persuasive question would be to ask whether he is knowledgeable enough about the issues and types of law the City Attorney deals with. Of course, I don't think that Carr really had a lot of relevant experience prior to taking office, either.
yea, the experience thing is stupid. Carr didnt do anything before being a city attorney that was so special either. Peter spent 8 years dealing with transparency issues and has won numerous awards praising him for his legal prowess. Even if its mostly in Bankruptcy... ask yourself what Tom Carr did before being a city attorney. He was a commercial lawyer. How is this any different? He was briefly a US attorney prosecuting organized crime... so he had experience in what... 5% of the cases he deals with as city attorney? You learn on the job, and seattle needs someone with more progressive ideas than Tom.
I supported Tom Carr, but Carr has been in the papers arguing the case for traffic cams that will "stop red-light runners and speeders and thereby calm intersections." Yeah, well, I got a cam-ticket at 23rd and E. John for a free right turn, as did my next-door neighbor. Now I've lived in the CD for 40 years and I have a lot of driving experience at 23rd and E John St., and I refuse to pay a $124 ticket for a good driving judgement that a camera cop turns into a bean-counting (seconds) exercise. So screw Tom Carr and his money-grabbing ticket-cams.
One problem that City Attorney Candidate Peter Holmes faces is that he may not meet the requirements under the City Charter for the position of City Attorney. Section XIII of the Charter requires the City Atttorney to have practiced law for the four years prior to his or her election. Holmes was reportedly inactive for a period of time during the past four years. While a lawyer is on inactive status, the lawyer cannot practice law.

"Widely regarded as a man with axes to grind who pushes a tough-on-crime agenda"

... HA! only if he isn't operating on an conflicting agenda- first and utmost taking a risk adverse course of action on behalf of the city even when contrary to the law. City first, laws second.

Carr needs to go.

Go Holmes! and give us accountability and transparency and consistent application of adherence to laws.

Not an issue and a strawman. Gotta get some new talking points!

Why isn't it an issue? How can someone who could not legally practice law during the last four years qualify under the City Charter? Please explain?
Pete has been fully authorized and licensed to practice law since his Washington State admission in 1986. It's not an issue because you are factually incorrect. Thanks.
Ivan, did you find that documentation that support your assertion that Greg is a long-time 34th member? Be interested to see it.
Sorry, bikechick, but you're factually incorrect. Peter Holmes was on inactive status during the last four years and could not practice law during that time. You can look it up.

I did look it up. However, since you are the one making the assertion, please do offer your evidence.

As a matter of fact, I challenge you to file the appropriate documentation and raise a legal challenge. That would be the appropriate thing thing to do.

Barring facts, evidence or a legal challenge: this is just nasty politics.

Here's the Charter:…

It says: The City Attorney shall be an attorney of the Supreme Court of the State, and have been in the practice of his or her profession in The City of Seattle for at least four years next prior to his or her election.

Holmes is a practicing attorney in the state of washington and in the city of seattle. He has not now, nor has he ever been, on inactive status in Washington. License up to date, dues paid, credits fulfilled.

Here's the Holmes bar page:…

It is you that is making this specious claim. Since this has been investigated and proven false already, I really question why you keep bringing it up. There's a great phrase in legal circles: When the law is on your side - pound the law. When the evidence is on your side - pound the evidence. When neither is on your side - pound the table. This isn't even pounding the table - it's specious, unfactual and malicous character assassination brokered under the cover of anonymous emails and blog postings and whispers in back alleys. Not admirable for the campaign of a member of the legal profession. Swiftboating is a GOP technique!

Not a lawyer here, but I'm pretty sure that this last line of yours is well into defamation and libel: "Peter Holmes was on inactive status during the last four years and could not practice law during that time."

You will also note that Pete Holmes was employed BY THE CITY and recieved compensation in the same manner as did Tom Carr. Irony alert! He also did other legal work during that time, as a practicing attorney.

What is interesting to note is that Pete has been in Private Practice more recently than has Carr and neither is in private practice now. To require such, would be unconstitutional, of course.

Ok. I'll take you at your word and retract my earlier statement. Based on what you say, it appears that "Holmes is a practicing attorney in the state of washington and in the city of seattle. He has not now, nor has he ever been, on inactive status in Washington. License up to date, dues paid, credits fulfilled."

Wow That city is Fucked up. people are fleeing in mass droves. over 1/2 the people I know are heading to Portland in an attempt to live there life in peace. Washington is now the reddest of red states. they do not even try that kinda crap in Texas or Oklahoma. IMO they should change the name to bustington

Thanks for your disclosure regarding your involvement in the marijuana decriminalization initiative (which really does nothing as federal law controls on the matter). Please also disclose whether you've made or solicited any contributions for Holmes.
@21 Incorrect, I-75 tells the city not to pursue marijuana cases where the amounts were clearly for personal use. It's kept about 60 people from seeing a courtroom each year since it passed in 2003.

Washington is now the reddest of red states.That city is Fucked up.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.