Sheriff Keith Swank used vulgarity to refer to prosecutors in text messages
Editor’s note: This story contains crude language.
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank called prosecutors “motherfuckers” in text messages with a private attorney and referred to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs as “libtards,” records show.
Swank’s texts are part of ongoing litigation over whether Joan Mell, a private attorney who has sought to represent Swank, has invaded Prosecutor Mary Robnett’s core function as legal advisor to county officials. Earlier this year, King County Judge Michael Ryan said Swank’s texts appeared to have been altered to remove potentially offensive remarks.
The texts became part of the lawsuit after Mell was subpoenaed to submit her communications with Swank to the court, including texts and emails. An unrelated public records request made by an unknown requestor asked for the same records from the Sheriff’s Office. When Swank emailed screenshots of his text conversations with Mell to the public records officer, he cc’ed Mell. That meant Mell was compelled to give the court her own records of texts with Swank along with the email of screenshots the sheriff had produced.
The News Tribune analyzed the texts turned over by Mell and Swank to identify the disparities Ryan had mentioned.
Comparing the messages showed a little more than four dozen texts sent between May and August that were not included in screenshots Swank produced Sept. 15. Among the missing texts were vulgarities and an instance where Swank said deputy prosecutor Michelle Luna was “incompetent.” Luna is one of four attorneys representing Robnett in the lawsuit.
In response to questions from The News Tribune on Dec. 5 and Dec. 7, Swank said the texts were omitted by mistake and explained that his statements were part of conversations with a lawyer with whom he felt free to speak frankly.
“I wasn’t trying to hide anything I said by my texts,” Swank said in an email to The News Tribune. “I realize that you have a text or two with a cuss word and an insult of someone. I own them, and I stand by them.”
When Ryan said it appeared that Swank had altered his text messages, the judge referred to a RCW 40.16.010, a state law that says willfully or unlawfully altering a public record is a felony. Ryan did not identify what could have been offensive about the messages. At the time, the texts were designated for “attorney’s eyes only.” They have since been publicly entered in the court file.
In an interview Wednesday, Robnett said she had not done a side-by-side comparison between what Swank and Mell provided. She indicated that issues with what Swank disclosed in a public records request could be pursued by the requestor and likely wasn’t a sticking point of her lawsuit against Mell. The legal action, called a quo warranto, remains pending while Ryan mulls whether to grant Mell’s motion to dismiss the case.
Robnett said Swank’s words about Pierce County prosecutors have no effect on her personally.
“Professionally, regardless of the language that anybody uses, I’m going to do my job, which is to give his and his department, his office, the best legal advice that I can,” Robnett said. “And that goes for all of our employees. We’re going to do that regardless of language, insults, whatever.”
Restraining order ruling prompts texts
On May 28, a Pierce County judge granted Robnett a temporary restraining order prohibiting Mell from holding herself out as Swank’s attorney. Ryan was later brought on as a visiting judge from King County after an attorney for Robnett asked the court for one, noting that Mell said in an email she did not consent to appear before a Pierce County judge.
Later on May 28, Swank texted Mell about being contacted by The News Tribune for a story on the restraining order.
“Peter Talbot left me a voicemail telling me he is writing the story,” Swank texted Mell. “He didn’t need any input from me, but he was giving me a chance to say something if I wanted. I’ve talked to you more than I have my wife since I’ve been here. 😂 Thanks for everything. Let’s defeat these motherfuckers!”
“10-4,” Mell texted Swank back. Mell’s response was included in the screenshots Swank later submitted, but his text that prompted it was not.
Swank’s relationship with Robnett had fractured by that point. In emails sent between the two earlier in May, Swank said he had “no faith” in Robnett’s counsel — instead turning to ChatGPT to answer a legal question — and accused her of trying to sabotage him, writing, “You are my peril.”
Days after the restraining order was issued, June 4, there was another exchange between Swank and Mell. It, too, was missing from the texts Swank submitted to the records officer.
“Can u get WASPC to file a supporting declaration or Amici brief saying her suit has a chilling effect and is not in the best interests of Sheriffs,” Mell texted Swank., according to documents Mell was compelled to file in court.
“Probably not,” Swank replied. “WASPC is a bunch of libtards, but maybe you can reach out to Steven Strachan and see if he would.”
The WASPC is the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and Strachan is its executive director. A spokesperson for the association said Tuesday it did not have a comment, and it had not been contacted about this matter.
Swank defends his statements
Asked about his choice of words regarding WASPC, Swank told The News Tribune they “reflected an exaggeration based upon the policy position WASPC was taking on specific topics of interest to me.”
Swank described disagreeing with the position of WASPC and the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association on a bill expected to be introduced at the next legislative session in Olympia concerning qualifications for sheriffs and police chiefs.
“I told them we should not compromise because that’s how the Democrats in Olympia will be able to select the sheriffs that they want,” Swank said. “I am in the minority on that position. I suggested that we support a ‘qualification’ bill for ALL elected officials. Start with background checks, then a polygraph, psych test … I know the Democrats won’t go for that, but we should all be held to the same standard.”
Swank said referring to prosecutors as “motherfuckers” was a blunt way to express his frustration. He said that was the day the court ruled Mell could no longer serve as his lawyer on county business.
“Though crude, the words should not be taken at their true meaning and merely showed how I felt about the fact I could not choose my own lawyer,” Swank said.
He added that he thinks he is being mistreated by not being able to choose his own attorney. Swank said he believes all of his communications with Mell are protected by attorney-client privilege and that he released the communications under “duress.” Swank said he hopes this lawsuit goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a sworn declaration filed in the case Nov. 7, Swank waived any claims of privilege for his communications with Mell.
Swank had a similar choice of words for prosecutors Aug. 1 when Mell texted him about a federal court case against Pierce County brought by former members of a Sheriff’s Office special investigation unit (SIU). Those remarks also weren’t included in Swank’s submission to the public records officer.
“Ok. 9th Circuit reversed and reinstated SIU claims against prosecutors,” Mell wrote.
“Great job!” Swank said. “Let’s get these crooked mo fo’s!”
Asked by The News Tribune about the exchange, Swank said Mell represents the former members of the SIU, and he defended his words.
“...So, I stand by my text of let’s beat those motherfuckers,” Swank wrote. “That is another reason I don’t trust the Prosecutor’s Office. I hope the cops are vindicated and they win millions of dollars.”
Why were texts missing in what Swank turned over?
Ryan was the first to point out discrepancies in Swank’s texts in an Oct. 22 court order made after reviewing Mell’s claims that her communications with Swank should be protected by attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality privileges. As part of the order, Ryan said it was noteworthy that Swank had not given the public records officer all of his texts.
“It appears to the Court Sheriff Swanks (sic) altered his text messages to take out text messages that some might perceive to be offensive,” Ryan wrote. “Altering a public record could be problematic. See RCW 40.16.010.”
It’s impossible to tell whether Swank purposefully excluded certain texts from the messages he turned over. Some of the omissions are single messages in the middle of an exchange where other texts weren’t left out. Others are multiple conversations that occurred over days.
Not all the omitted texts could be perceived as offensive. On June 9, for example, Mell sent Swank contact information for an attorney the Prosecutor’s Office appointed to represent Swank, Randall Gaylord. Those texts weren’t included in what Swank produced.
The screenshots Swank produced also don’t differentiate between the sender and the receiver. Although they are in the correct order of when texts were sent, Swank’s screenshots show long, unbroken blocks of text that include messages sent by Swank and Mell.
In emails to The News Tribune, Swank explained how he compiled his messages and complained that he should not have had to spend hours on his own looking for and downloading texts that were responsive to a records request.
“To the best of my ability I took screen shots, sent those to my campaign email address (which I didn’t want to use) and then emailed that to my county email,” Swank said in an email. “That method somehow combined all text messages together in a jumbled mess.”
“The text messages had not been deleted,” Swank continued in a follow-up email. “Unfortunately, the process to retrieve text messages from a private phone did not allow me to select certain messages through a search process and the process I used was to ‘read, review, photograph, cut and paste’ – resulted in some being omitted.”
Swank said that in the end, actions taken by him and others resulted in all the messages between him and Mell being delivered to the court.
