[WSBAPT] Google rejecting Order because it is signed by a Commissioner and not a Judge

Mon Mar 10 10:48:58 PDT 2025

This is phenomenal, Jason. How kind of you to share this concept with we non-civil litigators. (Yes, the dual possible meaning of that phrase is intentional.)

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com/>
________________________________
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Jason Burnett <jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 10:43:01 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Google rejecting Order because it is signed by a Commissioner and not a Judge

I started getting citations issued that compel productions and in-person appearances like a subpoena duces tecum with a 30(b)(6) representation and include the threatening sounding language in the citation statute (11.48.070):

Such party may be brought before the court by means of citation such as the court may choose to issue, and if he or she refuses to answer such interrogatories as may be put to him or her touching such matters, the court may commit him or her to the county jail, there to remain until he or she shall be willing to make such answers.

Targeted companies get lawyers involved quickly and we get what we want and are entitled to.  All the tech companies are like this, in my experience. I just go straight to getting a citation issued and don’t spend time on any sort of voluntary compliance request or letter-writing exercise.

Jason W. Burnett
Attorney at Law
Reed Longyear Malnati Corwin & Burnett, PLLC
[A black background with white text  Description automatically generated with low confidence]<http://reedlongyearlaw.com/>

801 Second Ave, Suite 1415, Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 624‑6271 | Fax: (206) 624‑6672
jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com>
www.reedlongyearlaw.com<http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/>

[cid:image002.png at 01DB91A8.5198E730]<https://www.facebook.com/reedlongyear>[cid:image003.png at 01DB91A8.5198E730]<https://twitter.com/ReedLongyear>[cid:image004.png at 01DB91A8.5198E730]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/reed-longyear-malnati-&-ahrens-pllc>
The information in this email message may be privileged and confidential.  It is intended only for the use of the recipient named above (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient).  If you received this in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Brent Williams-Ruth
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 10:20 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Google rejecting Order because it is signed by a Commissioner and not a Judge

I have also battled this before - and even attempted (on my own before I was heavily involved in the Section and the WSBA) to get the law changed to add TEETH.....only to be stopped short by Frank Chopp and Jamie Pedersen.  That said - make sure you are getting the order from the statute which I just reviewed DOES NOT SAY a Judge, but an order from the Court.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.120.070

Please also, if you feel so inclined, write your representatives and state senator and ask them to put TEETH into this act. It says they SHALL comply, but there is no penalty for failing to comply with this act.

I did this dance with Apple and it took NINE MONTHS to get access.

Brent Williams-Ruth (pronouns: he/him)
Attorney-At-Law

Law Offices of Brent Williams-Ruth, a division of BWR Consulting, PLLC

Physical Address: 500 S 336th Street, Suite 214; Federal Way, WA 98003

Mailing Address: PO BOX 3319; Federal Way, WA 98063

Office/Scheduling Phone: (253) 285-7751

For All Meetings & Scheduling: info at williams-ruthlaw.com<mailto:info at williams-ruthlaw.com>

e-mail<mailto:Brent at Williams-RuthLaw.com> / website<http://www.williams-ruthlaw.com/> / facebook<http://www.facebook.com/bwrlaw> /

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:12 AM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>> wrote:

Argh. Bureaucrats. That’s as stupid as the “sovereign citizen” movement where they claim a court doesn’t have proper jurisdiction over them because there is no fringe on the flag in the corner of the courtroom.

I’d refer them to RCW 2.24.050 and note that the order is a valid order of the superior court as of 10 days after entry. And ask for a review by a supervisor, and if they still persist, tell them if they don’t comply with a valid superior court order and force you to get a second order, you’ll ask for attorney fees and costs as a sanction for a frivolous objection.

Somebody a while back did a deep dive on the statutory and (state) constitutional basis for commissioners’ authority. Does anyone remember that article?

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

Sayre Law Offices, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South

Seattle WA 98144-3909

206-625-0092

eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Julie Martiniello
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 8:53 AM
To: Trust and Probate Section <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Google rejecting Order because it is signed by a Commissioner and not a Judge

Hello All,

I have a probate where we need access to a gmail account. We have an order signed by the court with all the requirements Google sent, but Google is rejecting it since it is signed by a Commissioner and not a "Judge". In King County, almost all of our orders in probates are signed by Commissioners. Is anyone aware of a way I can get a Judge to sign the order absent going the TEDRA route and I guess pursuing Google in that manner? It seems like a huge waste of resources.

--

[Image removed by sender.]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by email, facsimile, or telephone; return the email to us at the email address below; and destroy all paper and electronic copies.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone; return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on the part of this firm’s client(s) or its agents.  IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLAIMER:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBAPT mailing list
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD0004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD0004.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/WRD0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24909 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/image001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1750 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1991 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/image003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1826 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250310/fd710096/image004.png>