Source: http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv61950/op=fstyle.aspx?t=i&q=wauar&f_places=Washington+(State)--Politics+and+government
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:11:21+00:00

Document:
Attorney Camden Hall was born in Seattle in 1940. He received a BA in 1962 and a JD in 1965 from the University of Washington, where he was president of the Young Republicans Club. Hall served as a Judge Pro Tempore in the Seattle Municipal Court from 1971 - 1975, and in the King County Superior Court from 1988 - 1997. He was a member of the firm Foster, Pepper & Shefelman PLLC from 1970 - 2002, after which he opened his own practice.
As an attorney and counselor at law in Seattle, Hall has reported on many significant cases including, Hirabayashi v. United States, Seattle Times Company v. Ishikawa, Rosenberg v. Seattle Art Museum, Hoppe v. The Hearst Corporation, Seattle School District No 1 v. State of Washington, Washington Public Power Supply System Secuities Litigations, Citizens against Mandatory Busing v. Palmason, and more.
In the 1980s, Hall served on the Seattle Coram Nobis "writ of error" legal team that challenged the 1943 wartime convictions of the Japanese-American Gordon K. Hirabayashi for violations of curfew and exclusion orders of the United States government.
Materials include Legal briefs, correspondence, news releases, letterhead, notes, and a research paper.
Camden Hall's files on Hirabayashi v. United States, including an inscribed copy of Gordon Hirabayashi’s 1985 lecture, "Good Times, Bad Times: Idealism is Realism," as well as annotated editions books used by Hall's legal team and clippings and articles, related to Hirabayashi and other Japanese Internment cases, through 2005.
Scope and Content: This accession consists of Camden Hall's files on Hirabayashi v. United States and includes an inscribed copy of Gordon Hirabayashi’s 1985 lecture, "Good Times, Bad Times: Idealism is Realism," as well as annotated editions of the following books, used by Hall's legal team: Justice Delayededited by Peter Irons (with an note to Hall from Barry Garfinkel), Justice at Warby Peter Irons, Personal Justice Denied(a Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians), and a government publication, Japanese-American and Aleutian Wartime Relocation. Camden Hall also collected clippings and articles, related to Hirabayashi and other Japanese Internment cases, through 2005. Another portion of the materials, unrelated to Hirabayashi, is comprised of political ephemera from the 1950s and 1960s, at both the national and Washington state level.
Restrictions on Use: The creators' literary rights have been transferred to the University of Washington Libraries.
Scope and Content: Includes the publication, Good Times, Bad Times: Idealism is Realismby Gordon K. Hirabayashi (inscribed).
Scope and Content: Includes FBI files for Ken (Kentaro) Nakazawa.
Japanese-American and Aleutian wartime relocation: hearing before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session, on H.R. 3387 ... H.R. 4110 ... H.R. 4322 ... June 20, 21, 27, and September 12, 1984published by the House Committee on the Judiciary, of the United States Congress.
Rosenberg v. Seattle Art Museum: "L'Odalisque" painted by Henri Matisse in 1928, was purchased by Virginia and Prentice Bloedel from the Knoedler Gallery in 1954. In 1991, the Bloedels gifted the painting to the Seattle Art Museum (SAM). "L'Odalisque" was later found to have been stolen from French art collector, Paul Rosenberg, by German Nazis during World War II. Rosenberg's heirs, including Elaine Rosenberg, discovered the whereabouts of "L'Odalisque" and filed suit against the SAM for its return. The museum, in turn, sued the Knoedler Gallery for breach of title, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. SAM claimed that the Knoedler Gallery defrauded the Bloedels when it sold them the painting in 1954, by lying to them about the provenance, or chain of title. SAM presented evidence that the Knoedler Gallery knew that the painting belonged to Rosenberg, but assured the Bloedels that the Gallery had a legal and accurate title to the painting. The Knoedler Gallery argued that SAM could not prove this claim and that if this claim were to be dismissed, all other claims should also be dismissed because the Court would lack personal jurisdiction over Knoedler. SAM originally refused to return the painting to the Rosenbergs. Eventually though, they agreed that the Rosenberg heirs were the rightful owners of the painting and returned the work to them.
Adams v. Burlington Northern Railroad (and related cases): Adams v. Burlington N. R, as well as Schickler & Noparstak v. Burlington N. R, Guardian v. Burlington N.R, and Ellenson v. Burlington N.R. all arose from the effort of bondholders to enforce "gold clauses" in railroad bonds issued almost a century ago. A "gold clause" requires payment of the bond's obligation in gold dollars valued at the time the obligation was undertaken. In 1933, Congress rendered such "gold clauses" unenforceable, but permitted them again in 1977.The issues presented regarded whether the 1977 legislation revived these ancient "gold clauses" and whether various actions of the parties created new, post-977 obligations payable in gold. The court determined that neither situation warranted the payments. The bondholders brought a class action to force the Burlington N.R. to pay the interest and principal of its gold bonds, issues in 1896 and 1921, in gold coin. Class representative, Guy Adams, appealed the district court's dismissal of the action. Due to the identity of issues in this case and Adams v. CSX Transportation Inc, an appeal from the district court's dismissal of a class action to enforce the "gold clauses" in CSX Transportation bonds, the court consolidated the cases for their opinion. In all cases, the court affirmed the decision of the district courts and denied the bondholders payment.
Hoppe v. The Hearst Corporation: A columnist for the Seattle Post Intelligencer wrote a satirical article that portrayed a local public official negatively. The article referred to the official as "Herley Herpes" and suggested that the official may have misappropriated public funds. The public official soon brought suit against the columnist and the company which owned the newspaper (The Hearst Corporation) for defamation, outrage, false light invasion or privacy, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional stress. The court dismissed the case on the following grounds: (1) the use of he term "hurley Herpes" in reference to the official could not reasonably be interpreted as factual assertion that the official had herpes; (2) speculation in column as to whether the official has misappropriated public funds could not reasonably be interpreted as implying assertion of undisclosed defamatory facts; (3) it was not shown that the columnist had acted with actual malice.
Washington Public Power Supply System Litigations (WPPSS) : WPPSS issued $2.25 billion dollars in municipal bonds to finance the construction of two nuclear power plants (Projects 4 and 5). Serious problems led to the eventual termination of the projects and subsequently to the default by WPPSS on its bond obligations. In creating the WPPSS bond offerings, the utilities participating in the construction of the nuclear power plants entered into agreements which provided that they would repay the bonds, regardless of whether the plants were completed. This multidistrict litigation was the consolidation of various cases made in connection with the bond default, including Chemical Bank (bond fund trustee) and individuals. Plaintiffs in this litigation sought relief, in part based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the ability and willingness of WPPSS and individual members of WPPSS to pay the bond debts. In connection with the WPPSS litigations, Haberman v. WPPSS involved various bond holders claims against WPPSS and others for injuries resulting from WPPSS default on the revenue bonds. The trial dismissed all bondholders claims.
Seattle School District No 1 v. State of Washington: This lawsuit held that the State Constitution requires the funding of basic common school education as the "paramount duty" of the state. School District No 1, parents of children enrolled in the district schools, and children enrolled in the schools brought suit against the State of Washington, and various state officials, to seek a declaration that the State's reliance on special excess levy funding for discharging its duty to provide for the education of the district children was unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (School District, parents, and students). After various appeals, the court confirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This case provided the foundation for McCleary v. State of Washington, a similar school funding litigation case.
Also includes documents (ephemera, newsclippings, correspondence) related to the 25th Anniversary of US v. Hirabayashi Conference in 2012.
Subseries 1: Adams v. CSX Transportation Inc.
Scope and Content: Legal briefs, correspondence, news releases, letterhead, notes, and a research paper.
Acquisition Info: Donor: Camden Hall, July 2018.
"The Future of Present State Problems Project 1965" by Christopher T. Bayley, Camden M. Hall, and John H. Hauberg Jr.
Notes about "The Future of Present State Problems Project 1965"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.