, . -- November 1978-The Freedom fund, and that no written or oral agree­ Socialist Party and Radical Women are ment to return the money was ever ordered It) vacate Freeway Hall, their math or implied. headquarters and a popular center of political and cultural activity for more March 1985-Judge Terrance Carroll thana deCade. They launch an intensive rejects the FSP's requestfordismissal search for a new building and establish of the entire suit, but throws out the Freeway Hall Eviction Fund. Snedigar's charges of abuse of trust and violation of charitable solicitation laws. December 1978 - April 1979-FSP negotiates brief extensions of the evic­ May 1985-Judge Arthur Piehler or­ tion deadline with the new landlord, ders the FSP to tum over "all informa­ restaurateur llltu Haglund. tion previously requested and requested in the future" by Snedigar, including January - June 1979-FSP rejects as membership and contributor lists, in­ too extravagant Richard Snedigar's ternal minutes, and other conjidentiIJI offer to seU his house and donate all records. ' proceeds to the evictionfund. After his housemates agree to higher rent, June 1985-The grueling searchfora Snedigar refinances the house for new hall ends $52,500 and donates $22,500 to the eviction fund, . Snedigar v. Hoddersen, with purchase of a build­ Hall Saga: At stake r.n b the Freedom So- ing in Seattle's Columbia City district. The Freeway ad arters purchased y h' h Snedi- retaining $30,000 to pay first mortgage, back taxes, and debts. August. October 1985-Snedigar et al. is a new he a~~ of an Eviction Fundbto; ;~us demands FSP meeting minutes refer­ y January 1980-FSP and RW gear up ringto hall search and the emergency. cialist Pa'!Y bYdm~oW he wants his mo!'e a~h~ newly re- for the administrative hearing in Clara September 1985-TbeFSP, with sup­ Fraser's sex and politkal itholbgy he wa.-JiOll!f1S, discrimination case against Seattle port from the National lAwyers Guild ~=e~:s~:!e~Wl:!e~ ':;;li:~~~~!~~h=' City Ught. Freeway Hall is the center (NLG) and the American Civil Uberties stored and remo of case support work. Union (ACLU), winsreversalofJudge Piehler's order from the Washington Febrnaty 1980-Haglund issues a State Court of Appeals. second eviction notice. But the FSP wins a temporary extension after adverse October 1985-Judge Robert Dixon publicity forces Haglund to relent. orders the 'FSP to turn over the minutes eitherto Snedigar or to ajUdge form August 1980-A city hearing panel camera review. • overturns the hearing examiner's favor­ able decision in Fraser's case. Fraser November 1985 - December 1986- Case Issues appeals to Superior Court. The FSP asks the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to review September 1980-Sned~gtu resigns Judge Dixon's Qrder. An unprecethnted from the FSp, without exp/Qnation, 56 organizations co-sign an NLG • Violation of organizational privacy claiming that he has '~no disagree­ amicus briefthscribing the devastating Snedigar assumed that, as a major contributor to the FSP's eviction fund, ments" with the party and expressing effect any disclosure ofminutes would he had the right to dictate which building the party should buy and when. The good will. have on First Amendment rights. FSP, whose internal democracy is not for sale, rejected Snedigar's assump­ Thousands of people sign petitions and tions. Now, Snedigar and his lawyers seek to have the courts force return of February 1982-Baglund tries to dou­ write letters to the courts. But neither the contribution, which would effectively overturn the party's right to set its bk the rent, but the FSP holds down court wiu rel/iew the case. own policies and priorities. , the increase by documenting Haglund's Additionally, Snedigar's demand that the FSP disclose its internal documents failure to repair the building. April 1987 -Snedigar files a thfau/t motion demanding that he win without is a grievous threat to the party's political privacy. When hostile or even sup­ August 1982-Fraser wins in court even g(ling to trUdbecause of the FSP' s posedly neutral political forces gain access to a radical organization's private and is awarthd back pay and reinstate­ refusal to relinquish the minutes. discussions and membership records, individual members become targets for ment. Superior Court Judge Warren Chan harassment and candidates for the unemployment lines. The group's ability February 1983-Fraser is awarUd gives the defendants 20 doys to comply to organize is compromised and its survival jeopardized. attorneys' fees. or be held in default. And it doesn't stop there.,Were the courts to strip by fiat the FSP's privacy rights, this chilling precedent would swiftly threaten labor, civil rights, environ­ July 1983-Almost three years aJUr May 1987 -FSP attorneys discover mental, church, and all , community organizations. Who indeed is safe if the he severed contact with the FSp' that Snedigar's personal copy ofa Free­ judicial arm of government can arbitrarily junk the Constitution? Snedigar writes the party, accusing it way Ball Case deposition has been (If inventing the eviction fund as a given to a righ/wing employer. who "ruse" to bilk supporters. He demands is suing FSP attorney and defendant the dismantling of the fund and return Fred Hyde. (See "The Latest Round," of all contributions. p.3.) • Sentence before verdict The FSP refuses to comply with the order to disclose minutes, which may Jannary 1984-Snedigar files suit in May 1987 -Judge Chan signs the de­ result in a default decision. Snedigar could then, without having to prove a King County Superior C(lurt demand­ fault order, but refuses to file it until thing in court, try to seize the party's headquarters and defendants' wages, ing return ofhis gift plus interest and . the appeals court decides whether it bank accounts, and personal property. Such a penalty imposed before the lawyers' fees. He charges the FSP with will accept discretionary review of the issues in this case have been decided would strike at the heart of due process. fraud, undue influence, breach of constitutional issues in the case. contract, unjust enrichment, abuse of May 1987 -The FSP petitions the trust, and violation of the chari4zble Court of Appeals to review the case. solicitation /Qws. Snedigar moves to dismiss the FSP's • Treasury raid June 1984-The FSP defeats Snedi­ request for review. Normally, freely given gifts are irrevocable. But Snedigar wants back the gar's attempt to impound the eviction gift of $22,500 made to the FSP's eviction fund- ostensibly because the party fund pending outcome of his suit. June 1987 -Appeals court C(lmmis· sioner JoAnne Tompkins denies didn't immediately buy a new hall, but plainly because Snedigar no longer January 1985-1n oral thposition, Snedigar's motion to dismiss and sends agrees with the FSP's politics. Snedigar admits that the eviction crisis the FSP' s request for review to a three­ His suit threatens any voluntary organization whose existence depends on was real and ongoing, that he wasfree judge panel to consider on August 28. contributions from members and supporters. No group can operate for long if to contribute or not to the eviction She refuses to allow oral arguments. its treasury can be raided with impunity by disaffected former contributors. It's been a legal rollercoaster ride for Letters, petitions, pickets-and tbe the Freeway Hall Case defendants this 58 people who crowded the ~ourtroom spring and summer. In April, King on May 14-pJayed a large part in con~ County Superior Court Judge Warren vincing Chan to delay filing the default Chan found the FSPin default for refus­ and to recognize ing to tum OVer its minutes. Then in May, he signed but the case's significance. When Snedigar's attorney, Thomas did not officially Wampold, denounced concern fQr First file the default order. Amendment issues as a "red herring," Judge Chan said he wished to provide Chan asked, "How do you weigh a the party an opportunity to request ap­ claim for $22,()()() against a claim of ' pellate court review of the case's crucial invasion of constitutional rights?" constitutional issues before default actu­ ally took place. Sinister partnership. Earlier in the Breakthrough! Until Chan, -no judge hearing, Carlson dropped a bombshell had even admitted these constitutional by presenting evidence that Snedigar is issues should be reviewed. However, colluding with a rightwing employer Chan refused to consider them himself who, in another harassment lawsuit, is or consider any option less drastic than suing FSP attorney Fred Hyde. default. Snedigar's personal copy of a Freeway Hall Case document was given to the Shortchange. The FSP imrhediately employer, Thomas Layne. As an ad­ petitioned the Washington State Court ministrative law judge for Washington of Appeals to review the issues that lie State, Hyde had ruled that Layne had behind the default order-and Snedigar' s discriminated against a transgenderal thing else he can lawyers immediately demanded dismis­ employee. Layne charges that Hyde, sal of the party's request. because he is a socialist and human . a e garnishments and any ost of them low- . On June 19, appeals court Commis­ rights activist, is "biased" against em­ cars, savIngs 'Jiw ! the nine defendant~ mil this before a tnal sioner JoAnne Tompkins rejected ployers and should be removed from his commandeer .ro orkers. He deman s a FSP refuses to Snedigar's dismissal motion and sent job. the FSP's request for review directly to Carlson herself was subpoenaed to income or ~etir~h: complaints,. becaus,e t~~utes and financial a three-judge panel to consider on Au­ provide Freeway Hall Case Legal Fund on the me~ts OJ mbership lists, mt~rna m gust 28.