Because this case is going to fucking fall apart as soon as the trial begins. If the intent of this rabidly homophobic lawyer is to forcibly remove a gay man from political office and damn the entire community with the trope of gay-men-as-pedos, it's better to delay the start fo teh trial as long as possible to let the media run wild with this bullshit accusation. If teh trial went forward and Murray were found innocent on the first day, that's the end of Jackoff Connoly's political hit job.

Is it me, or does Murray look a little bit like Peter Pettigrew in this photo?

Venue Shopping.

Um, given that DH has a criminal history, maybe the judge has been involved in one of his prior cases either as a judge or prosecutor? That would be a pretty clear conflict and reason for a different judge.

Who knows, but let's go ahead and speculate wildly about shit.

Meh. Not sure what all the comments regarding delaying trial are about. This is routine, and is handled within a few days. Plus, civil matters are automatically set for trial about a year out in King County (the currently scheduled trial date is April 2, 2018), so if you were under the impression that this case was on some sort of fast track, you are wrong.

If I was a local journalist, I would be paying more attention to the subpoena filed yesterday that seeks the deposition of Murray's communications director.

I'm an Illinois attorney and not familiar with Washington civil procedure, do take these comments with a grain of salt.

That said, many jurisdictions, including my hometown, have a procedure to substitute judges at the beginning of the case. Here in Illinois, every party to a case gets one automatic substitution (although it has to be used before the judge makes any substantive rulings... You don't want people testing the waters too much and then using their wild card when things aren't going their way).

I wouldn't say we move to substitute judges super frequently, but it is a relatively common strategy. Often times judges have a reputation for being pro-plaintiff or pro-plaintiff defendant; and good litigators know when to get their case away from a bad judge (or judge that will be bad the the case).

In that vein, all litigators know that it's inevitable that you're going to get stuck before pretty much all judges... So we like to use this power judiciously (sorry). We don't want a rep before judges that we see frequently.

Also, I would never publicly comment on why I was moving to substitute a judge, beyond making generic comments like this attorney. Giving any substantive comment would likely be a breach of the attorney client privilege and attorney work-product privilege.

Also, for those that are further curious... These types of motions rarely slow down the case. It typically takes 1 to 2 weeks to transfer to a new judge, which is a heartbeat in the scope of litigation.

So short story, while the accuser's attorney has made some asshat-ish comments in the past... Everything he said here would appear to check out.

Sorry for the type-o's, double words, grammatical errors, etc. Typed that on my phone and didn't feel like editing on such a small screen.

@9 AND @10 thanks for your insightful commentary....

@9 Well stated.

This is called an affidavit of prejudice. Every party in a Washington court has the right to challenge a judge assigned to the case without giving a reason, as long as the judge hasn't made any decisions in the case. The reporter should have checked this out before commenting.

Well, fact checking legal stories isn't exactly The Stranger's strong suit. Checking dockets, asking unbiased experts for their take so they can get immersed in the nuances of a story, etc.--the kind of stuff journalists do--that isn't really a part of what goes on here.

Thanks for @9 @13.

Maybe other writers could do what Dan does and write a regular "here's what commenters schooled me on recently" roundup.

Moving to substitute, although using the term "prejudice", doesn't mean the attorney/party thinks the judge is prejudiced. I agree that media like The Stranger don't have the expertise/time/capacity to explain legal procedure, but maybe they shouldn't make this kind of thing the topic of an article then. It just raises the paranoia level.

In legal jargon it just means the judge could have reasons to not give a fair ruling based on facts. Such as, if the mayor had been a coach on the judges childs soccer team, etc. In that sense, the ruling would be based on the emotions of the judge.

@18,

Whenever the political right wants to deny civil liberties to an entire class of people, they use tropes. Tropes used against women's liberation include every-woman-is-stupid-and-emotional, all-women-are-crazy, women-are-physically-weak. When they want to keep Black people down, the use tropes such as Black-men-are-violent, Black-people-are-stupid, or Black-women-are-sexually-predatory. When they want to attack gay men, they portray us as pedos. None of these tropes are in any way true; however, they are remarkably effective politically.

What's surprising is the degree to which the targets of these tropes are willing to believe these lies about themselves. 55% of white women voted for the Pussy Grabber. I could understand not voting for Clinton- her policies sucked, and the argument that only a sexist would vote against her falls apart as soon as one considers that Sarah Palin also has two X chromosomes. But voting for Trump? There were other options out there, including notable double X chromosome having Jill Stein, or if she did not appeal, there was always the option to leave the Presidential candidate portion of the ballot blank. To vote for Trump was something that suggests these women believe the tropes as well.

Many Black people, including Charlie Rangel, voted for the 1994 Crime Bill and supported the War on Drugs, harsher sentences for crack than powder cocaine, and other measures that promoted the trope of Black-man-as-criminal. Its sad, because these men are statistically speaking less likely to commit crime than white men.

As for gay men, statistically, the FBI reports man-on-little-girl abuse is 9 times more common than man-on-little-boy abuse. Note that I do not use the terms gay or straight; medical literature suggests that pedophilia is an orientation unto itself, unrelated to and separate from either heterosexuality or homosexuality. This is borne out when one considers the overt rejection the gay community expressed toward NAMBLA during the brief history of that organization. Yet, when one of our own kind is so accused, we form a circular firing squad.

I understand why the establishment deploys these tropes. Jack Connoly is a wealthy heterosexual white male. He wants to hold onto the predominance his community has held for centuries. I cannot understand why the people he targets accept these tropes. Sure, we've been programmed since birth, steeping in the media portrayals and the political rhetoric. And I can see why a young person fresh out of mom and dad could still bear the stench of the bullshit he was brought up in. However, every adult has a responsibility to decide independently what they believe and dont believe. We can, and must, reject this trope.

The amended complaint is quixotic.. It appears as more of a political document than a legal case..

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/…
CORRECTED.html

I do think the case will be dismissed. They really don't give any evidence that Murray needs to pay up to Delvonn, other than the statutory rape allegation. However, there should be many more that should pay up for the statutory rape as well.

The case seems more of an extortion scheme that many gay males were terrified to face, when they were living in the closet in the decades past..

Jack Connelly not the attorney of record on this case from everything I have read. Most firms allow seasoned attorneys (Beauregard and Kays in this case) to choose which cases they take. Why would Beauregard and Kays risk their legal licenses to propagate some fake conspiracy set forth by the Stranger? This article has about as much "real reporting" as Breitbart. What is there to extort? Murray can't have any real money, but maybe some other people besides myself might look at his campaign disclosures. Maybe the whole thing is publicity for the attorneys but no attorney would risk their career if they didn't believe their client. Not that anyone loves the grandstanding, but that is one thing, some made up lawsuit is an entirely different matter.

Also, Grover again sets forth a bogus conspiracy that we are to believe that affidaviting the Judge has something to do with a right wing agenda. Maybe she should actually talk to a consulting attorney in King County (one that practices) and she would learn this is actually quite common. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that Sulkin has affidavited his share of judges in his career. Has she asked him that? Most likely not, the Stranger is standing by their man and that would undermine her "story." Also, maybe Sulkin should actually appear in the case instead of trying his case in the media. One side has filed legitimate court documents, the other side has only gone to the press. Take a guess on which side that is, or read the legal documents for yourselves.