Justice Joel Penoyar: He is as dirty-slick as they come

Justice Penoyar, as a court of appeals judge, is almost the last in a chain of government entities that view their role as “master” over citizens.  To Joel, every opportunity to misstate the facts so he can then rule on his own version of reality is simply great fun in his mind.  After all, who can tell him differently …. he is MASTER and when you rise to the level of “MASTER” you  answer only to your self-created notions of truth and honor. God forbid, but If Citizens were empowered to be the masters over government, Joel’s own self-image will be dealt a sever dose of moral and ethical REALITY.  I doubt he would survive the shock; reality of being “found-out” would be too much to comprehend.  His whole world view would fall apart.

One example to illustrate all that I say is true is my case against a corrupt attorney Scott Ellerby.  To be clear I’m saying that nothing Joel says represents reality.

Background.   During the course of litigation Scheidler v Ellerby, Esq. Ellerby’s defense team subpoenaed all my medical records. Because some of these subpoenas were directed at health providers who are covered by law which states that the records in their possession are “privileged“ and NOT discoverable, I sought a ‘protective order’. In seeking this protective order I cited the law — specifically RCW 5.60.060(9), which states,

 (9) A mental health counselor, independent clinical social worker, or marriage and family therapist licensed under chapter 18.225 RCW may not disclose, or be compelled to testify about, any information acquired from persons consulting the individual in a professional capacity

….. long story made short….. Ellerby, Esq., defendant, as lawyers do, lied about the nature of the medical records he was seeking. He said he was only after records under RCW 5.60.060(4), when in fact he was going after “privileged”.   My “protective order” was for Records PRIVILEGED and NOT for records Ellerby had already obtained, without any objection, under RCW 5.60.060(4).  But as any pro se litigant will validate, when an attorney makes a statement in court any statement in contradiction by a pro se is simply ignored by the Judge, …. so Ellerby, defendant, as he did throughout the case, lied to the Judge, and the Judge denied the protective order  — ruling upon the lie…. this is how defendant obtained the privileged records.  When the case went to appeal, I raised this issue of privilege medical records, under law,  and argued that defendant Ellerby violated law by obtaining the privileged records under false pretenses.

This argument that I presented in my appeal clearly created a dilemma for Joel — if he ruled that those records were privileged, as the law so states, then he would need to rule that defendant’s counsel obtained records under false pretenses and violated a number of laws in doing so…. First…. Joel would have to rule Ellerby, Esq., the defendant, lied in obtaining statutorily privileged medical records. Second, Ellerby would have had to commit a fraud upon the court in defeating a protective order so as to obtain statutorily privileged records.  Third, to violate the privilege, and to commit a fraud upon the court, are clearly violations of an attorneys Oath to “tell the truth”. And fourth, obtaining, unlawfully, personal information is a violation of my privacy.   This subject, when investigated from the record itself, shows that dirty-slick Joel’s highly developed skills in legal mumbo jumbo and misinformation twists the truth to save his colleagues.

Joel simply rules that “Defendant’s had no need of these medical records”……. Joel did not rule that the medical records ARE PRIVILEGED and defendant’s had NO LEGAL RIGHT to the records that they obtained.  Joel didn’t base his “unpublished opinion“ on the law, but rather his “personal view” that defendants didn’t need Scheidler’s medical records.  Furthermore, Joel “intentionally” alters my “privilege argument” …. he switches ‘statutes’  ….. Look carefully at the way he twists my bases for the privilege under RCW 5.60.060(9) by claiming my bases was under ****FORMER*** RCW 5.60.060(4)(b) (2009).

Scheidler contends that the sanction was erroneous because “the substantive issues centered upon privileged communication.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. Scheidler cites former RCW 5.60.060 (2009)⁹ as authority for his argument. But, because Scheidler filed an action for personal injuries, he waived the physician-patient privilege under former RCW 5.60.060(4)(b) (“Ninety days after filing an action for personal injuries or wrongful death, the claimant shall be deemed to waive the physician-patient privilege.”). Further, as Ellerby’s counsel pointed out during the hearing on Scheidler’s motion for a protective order, “Scheidler’s interrogatory answers directly place in issue his physician’s testimony.” RP (Aug. 21, 2009) at 9. Scheidler’s interrogatory listed his doctors as “individuals who have knowledge” of the damages incurred by him as a result of the events alleged in his complaint. ….Ellerby’s counsel did not need to obtain Scheidler’s medical records

 

This is the TRUE argument that I made in my Brief.  Appended below Is is an excerpt, page 44 et seq., that rebuts Joel’s distorted rendition and how he avoids the FACTS and the controlling law to SAVE HIS COLLEAGUES — Ellerby, Esq., and Downer, Esq.  — it isn’t about the TRUTH it is an abuse of power!!!

Scheidler states:

 

Court Rules 26-37 explicitly state that any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter not privileged.

 

First and foremost, CR 37 applies to non-privileged discoveryissues. Sanctions imposed by the court under CR 37 for Scheidler’s 

motion for a protective order, and Defendant’s allegations of
interference with the depositions of Dr. Holder and Mary Scheidler
are outside the gambit of CR 37 issues and governed by statutory
privileges under RCW 5.60.060. ….
….  The legislative enactment of RCW 5.60.060(9) is their statement
on behalf of the citizens that the courts are no longer free to find for
themselves that an “implied waiver,” or an “accelerated waiver” of
the mental health privilege occurred. Certainly Ellerby cannot
unilaterally determine for himself, as he has [CP 764-944], what he
can discover and by what means he can use to that end.

Scheidler: “Mental health records are privileged. They are
under RCW 5.60.060(9). He (Downer) wants to pretend they
are under (4)(b).” [RP at 588]
Downer: “the waiver of the physician patient privilege is cut
and dried 90-days after filing a suit like this one.” [RP at 593]
The Court: “Now with respect to your protection order for
your medical records, Civil Rule 26 defines what’s the
appropriate scope of discovery in a civil lawsuit .. ” “you waive
those protections when you file a complaint for these kinds
of damages based on the claim you submitted.” [RP at 603-
604].
Scheidler consulted attorney David Zuckerman re this issue and
Mr. Zuckerman supports Scheidler’s legal position. [RP at 1700].
Scheidler consulted with Senator Delvin, who sponsored the
passage of RCW 5.60.060(9), and he supports Scheidler’s legal
position [RP at 1702-1707]. 

 

Justice Penoyar is so slick not even the truth will stick.

Compare the rest of Joel’s  complete fabrication of the facts to the TRUE facts in this case.  Please see  Exhibits 1-10  and compare what these exhibits say for themselves in relation to Joel’s version of reality.

JOEL NEEDS tO GO…. HE IS A PREJUDICED JUDGE WHO HAS NO INCLINATION TOWARDS THE TRUTH!