I’m referring to the Inlander’s apparent policy of not talking to select members of the Media…like me for example.

On June 18, 2019 I sent this email to the Inlander folks trying to get some information regarding the Adriano Eva case.

The email was regarding this story of mine.

I haven’t received any response from the Inlander so I have to assume they must have a “Nadine Policy” in place.

It kind of seems like a fitting name for a policy when you consider all the press from the Inlander and the Spokesman Review regarding the allegation Nadine Woodward won’t talk to the Daniel Walters and the Inlander don’t you think?

The current issue stems from this April 25, 2019 Daniel Walters Inlander story.

The April 25, 2019 story in which Walters details information from the 2014 HR case, and even interviews the alleged victim creates some real problems for the City of Spokane and to a lesser extent for the Inlander. The reason it creates problems is obvious, it appears that Walters received a copy of or information regarding the 2014 case outside of the Public Records Request process and reported on the information he obtained.

For those that aren’t familiar with the Public Records Act you should be aware that in cases like the Adriano Eva matter when a PRR is made to a government agency that agency is required to make what is referred to as “Third Party Notification” so that the subject of the release has an opportunity to go to Superior Court and object to the release. Adriano Eva received his “Third-Party Notification” on April 29, 2019 four days after the Walters Inlander story.

You will notice in the above Third-Party Notification Laurie Farnsworth as is required advises Eva that he has until May 13, 2019 to object to the release of the records.

Eva took advantage of his legal right and obtained TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against the City and Daniel Walters.

Tomorrow Friday June 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not the records should be made public.

These Court Records should give you an idea of how the arguments will go.



I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this recent Division III Appellate Court Decision doesn’t come into play since Media folks consider it win.

As for me I’m holding off on whether or not the Jane Doe case ends up being a win for the Media until such time as the Washington State Supreme Court hears the likely appeal and renders a binding decision.

Regardless of what happens on Friday the City is very likely still in deep manure, because some how some way the information regarding the 2014 case was provided to Walters and the Inlander prior to the PRA process being completed and Eva having a chance to object. Eva’s lawyer in my opinion would be remiss if he didn’t point out the possibility of malice on the part City if Eva’s 2.8 Million dollar claim against the City ends up in a lawsuit.

As far as the Inlander and Daniel Walters are concerned the April 25, 2019 story opens up some real issues about protecting sources, and whether or not to go with a story before you receive Public Records through Public Records Requests or from outside sources. I receive Public Records from outside sources almost on a weekly basis and use what I have received to formulate Public Records Requests, in most cases not all I will wait until I receive the records via the PRR route to protect my sources especially where access to the records is very limited. If the records have been widely distributed making identifying the source impossible sometimes I will go with the story and the record. What happens if you don’t use caution when it comes to that you could easily put your source in jeopardy and also could find yourself on the witness stand with a contempt charge for refusing to identify your sources, so it becomes a real balancing act.

When you look at all the issues surrounding this case maybe the Inlander’s lack of transparency in not responding to me even though it subjects them to criticism was the right move, since I had some great follow-up questions if they had chosen to respond.