Sat, Aug 8th, 2026

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state
(cc’d to the media, house & senate members, and Governor, and other candidates for office)

From: Tim Eyman
Fighting for taxpayers for 29 years

As always, I showed up early for this hearing in Olympia:

I was really happy to see so many of “our people” came in person and on ZOOM to watch it with me:

We were there to watch a liberal activist named Arthur West present his challenge to the neutrality, legality, and constitutionality of the description that’ll be printed on the ballots for Superstar Brian Heywood’s No Income Tax Initiative.

The hearing started out as it always does with the Plaintiff explaining the arguments that were filed in the case opening brief and reply brief.

But after listening for a few minutes to West calmly present his arguments … 

… the judge went nuts. 

Mega-podcaster Brandi Kruse described it this way: 

She included this short clip so you can see it for yourself:

If that doesn’t work, click here.

Radio legend Ari Hoffman had a similar assessment:

It was clear the judge was infuriated that the issue was even being discussed let alone questioned.

BAD NEWS: judge made a bad ruling.

GOOD NEWS: he’s not the final decision-maker.

As I’ve said from the beginning, regardless of which way the judge was going to rule, it was going to be appealed. 

And one of the “grounds” or reasons for the higher courts to agree to hear an appeal — other than the seriousness of the legal arguments made in the case — is what’s called “the appearance of fairness.” 

An attorney friend sent me this after he watched the hearing: 
“Judicially established in 1969 and codified into law in 1982, Washington state applies an objective standard to judicial proceedings: whether a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer, apprised of all the facts, would conclude the parties did not receive a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.”

That clearly didn’t happen.

The Washington Policy Center’s Ryan Frost was clear on that point: 

“Judge Lanese said the disclosure does not put ‘a finger on the scale,’ then defended it on the ground that voters should be forced to consider spending cuts because they might otherwise be more likely to support tax reductions. It is difficult to imagine a better description of putting a finger on the scale: the warning exists to introduce an argument that could make voters less likely to approve the initiative. … Protecting government spending from voters is not the court’s job, and Judge Lanese’s policy preferences cannot serve as a neutral baseline.” 

You can read his entire analysis by clicking here.

MORE GOOD NEWS: It’s been widely reported the appeal will be filed on Monday. And since it is election related, the higher courts will have to issue their final ruling by August 21st.

Always remember:

As always, I welcome your feedback.

For 29 years, I’ve been fighting for our state and our nation.

Is it any wonder Bully Bob Ferguson is trying so hard to impose a lifetime ban on all my future political activity? 

I urge you to help me survive this political persecution by donating to the Tim Eyman Legal Defense Fund so we can get the AG’s ridiculously unconstitutional ruling overturned.

Mail your check to: 
Tim Eyman Legal Defense Fund
17404 Meridian Ave E #F PMB 176
Puyallup, WA, 98375

Or donate online:
By GiveSendGo (credit/debit card)
By Paypal (donate using PayPal or using a credit/debit card)

The only reason I’m still here and I’m still fighting is because of the prayers, love, and support of wonderful friends like you who’ve seen this gross injustice and abuse of power and are willing to help.

I love you all.

Onward!

Tim 

You can call or text me anytime: 509-991-5295

You can email me anytime: TimDEyman@gmail.com

For more details, go to: TimDefense.com