Toft Campaign Softens Statement on Spratt Anti-Harrassment Hearing

The 5th District Senate campaign office of Toft sent an amended statement on the court ruling to supporters Friday evening, Sept. 28.

Brad Toft's 5th District Senate campaign office released an amended statement Friday evening on the outcome of an anti-harrassment suit against Kelly Spratt, a Sammamish resident and former co-worker of Toft's:

Dear Friends:
Today Judge Peter Nault of the King County District Court secured from the bench an agreement from Ms. Kelly Spratt that she would discontinue her personal contact with me and my family.

Judge Nault measured Ms. Spratt's First Amendment rights to engage in political speech against my right as a citizen to be protected against harassing behavior. He determined that Ms. Spratt's assurance that she would quit contacting me struck the appropriate balance between these interests.


I feel vindicated in my attempts to protect my family from additional harassment from Ms. Spratt. Now, it has the backing of a court agreement. Jill and I are happy to be putting this matter to rest and focusing on the needs of Washington State.


A more strongly worded statement was issued shortly after the ruling via Facebook and press release. Toft told Patch he hadn't had an opportunity to review the original statement before it was sent and subsequently and the amended statement more closely reflects his views on the case. The new statement was sent in a newsletter to Toft's supporters later that day and posted on the campaign's Facebook group at 6:15 p.m. Friday, Sept. 28.

Spratt's attorney, Janet Irons, sent additional comment on the case to Patch via email:

It is unfortunate Mr. Toft is mischaracterizing the court proceedings in an effort to continue his attack on Ms. Spratt. The Judge quite clearly expressed, repeatedly, that Ms. Spratt was exercising her First Amendment rights by challenging Mr. Toft's fitness for office, and that the Court would not restrict her right to do so. Indeed, contrary to Mr. Toft's rendition, the only time the Court spoke to Ms. Spratt was to confirm her long held intentions to contact Mr. Toft only in public forms, expressed in a letter written several weeks earlier. Ms. Spratt responded with a very clear and confident "certainly", not humbly as stated in Mr. Toft's creative rendition of the event. In contrast the Judge addressed Mr. Toft repeatedly and indicated people who voluntarily thrust themselves into public light will be criticized and Mr. Toft needs to, in the word of the Judge, "grow thicker skin." At no time was Mr. Toft given the opportunity to speak, as the Judge didn't deem it necessary to even take testimony given the nature of the petition and of Ms. Spratt's action.

The Judge did not indicate that he was considering entering an order against Ms. Spratt - let alone restraining himself from doing so due to possible stigmatization of Ms. Spratt. The Judge specifically said he was denying the petition outright, not entering even a conditional order, as it was unnecessary under the circumstances. Mr. Toft's statement to the contrary is blatantly false.

Toft stated in the filing that he has received unsolicited and unwanted communication from Spratt since December and that he was seeking to bar her from contacting him or his wife Jill directly via social media, email, telephone calls, or going to his home.

Randall September 30, 2012 at 04:34 PM
I have huge concerns about Brad's willingness to stretch the truth (or outright lie) and denigrate constituents (or voting blocks). I doubt that he would be an effective legislator for the 5th - he would quickly be marginalized and then cast aside as a crackpot.
Terry J. LaBrue October 02, 2012 at 04:20 PM
I attended the Toft/Spratt hearing last Friday and the reporting of the events is pretty accurate. Brad and his wife are well within their rights to seek protection from a person who among other things, continually sends emails calling him Satan and sending images of a skeleton. The only crackpot appears to be the defendant.
G.Teller October 04, 2012 at 09:29 PM
Terry: It's quite obvious Toft had no case and the attack on this woman was unfounded, period. Either that, or you are accusing the judge of incompetence. Is that what you are doing, Terry? Are you accusing Judge Nault of incompetence? As for someone calling Toft "satan", I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's not the first time that has happened. You don't have 22 counts of Washington State Court record history and attempt to seal court records just 6 months ago by being a good guy. If Toft were a stand-up guy, he would not be in this situation. That being said, who's the crackpot?
G.Teller October 12, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Here's another one for you Terry LaBrue. Does Toft have a PhD in Pathological Lying from Crackpot University? Politician claims to have "executive degree in finance" from top university after attending 3-day seminar: http://bit.ly/TmxstM Much more efficient than going to college for four years.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »