You're Reading...
Government Officials, Lawyers

Felice Congalton, Esq., and J. Reiko Callner, Esq., under more pressure for their criminal conduct

Today, January 16, 2014, John Worthington filed a “motion to intervene” in Scheidler’s criminal complaint against lawyers J. Reiko Callner and Felice Congalton for their “official misconduct” and other crimes against Scheidler. Callner is Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct, and Congalton is Associate Director, WA State Bar.

John Worthington is another person who’s rights and protections were invaded by corrupt lawyers and judges. When Mr. Worthington filed grievances with the Commission on Judicial Conduct(CJC) and the WA State Bar, his grievances were dismissed by the Bar and CJC just like the 1000’s of others who file grievances with these “regulatory agencies”.
MOTION TO INTERVENE

This matter of lawyers deciding for themselves how far they can go in the mistreatment of people is either going to stop, or the ‘legal establishment’ by their corrupt hold on our ‘justice system’ will lead to another revolt.

I hope, for the sake of a civilized society, people like lawyers J. Reiko Callner and Felice Congalton and Justice Joel Penoyar (a lawyer) are weeded out and banished from public service.

If honesty in government is an important matter to you, please circulate these stories through all your contacts and “like” us on facebook.

Advertisements

About Brandia

I am an animals rescuer, a mother, a grandmother, a minister, & a human being who is tired of all the corruption going on in our state.

Discussion

22 thoughts on “Felice Congalton, Esq., and J. Reiko Callner, Esq., under more pressure for their criminal conduct

  1. Is it possible for my family to also ‘intervene’ We had 3 grievances filed against 2 separate lawyers, and the WSBA denied my mother the opportunity to view any of the information that the lawyer submitted to the WSBA in response to her grievance, going as far as claiming she was deaf? and then that she couldn’t speak the english language? She has an inner ear infection, so has difficulty hearing, but she has spoke English since she was a teenager and she is now almost 81. When I filed my own grievance, it was dismissed by Erica Temple with the same standard form letter used by Felice Congleton. When I refiled, it was dismissed again before she even reviewed the packet of information I was mailing to her. It contained court documents and transcripts showing evidence of repeated instances where the lawyer Perjured himself in court in statements he made verbally and in writing to the Judge.

    Like

    Posted by Cameo C Massey | January 16, 2014, 12:39 pm
  2. Felice Congalton is just another prime example as to just how blatantly-flagrantly corrupt the entire WSBA is . Those dirt bags at the fraudulent document altering defrauding WSBA are so corrupt, I told them all “they would stand before me and attempt to deny having 2 good legs if they thought it would help prevent them from being held accountable for some of their behind the tent at the carnival conduct”. The CJC is even a worse fraud to the public. I filed a complaint with them for the Superior court Judge Sergio Armijo’ allowing multiple appearances of (Now Disbarred) Gregory E. Grahn in my divorce hearings while Grahn was unlicensed,(suspended from practice) by the WSBA and the Supreme court. Grahn went ahead and defrauded me of the deed to my home that the Superior Court had already awarded me. Grahn went ahead along with Geoffrey C. Cross and defrauded me of not only the deed release that was proposed by them in court, agreed to be provided to me in no more than 24hrs from the time of that hearing , defrauded my innocent kids of their right to all past due child support , current support and all future support from their mother that had already been ordered to be paid by the superior court. Even though I had 2 separate Judgments against their mother for refusal to pay child support, and it is totally illegal for any court, any attorney to strip from innocent children their right to receive child support from an able bodied parent, the superior Court signed this illegal Order anyway. And the bought and paid for goons that run support enforcement honored it and never did a single thing about it. I filed time & date stamped motions for contempt of court and an emergency Motion both with detailed attachments to the Superior Court, Called multiple times telling the clerks Office and Judge Arimijo’s assistant that these insane bankrupt of ethics back stabbing attorneys were illegally forcing my home into default and illegally forcing me to lose my new fully approved and affordable mortgage contract. Severely damaging my good & hard earned credit. then wrote a letter that I filed with the Clerks Office to Judge Armijo’ re-explaining and re-notifying the court and Judge Armijo’ of the three separate currently ongoing felony crimes being committed agaist me by the attorneys and my now ex-wife. the Felony crimes of Conspiracy to defraud, the actual fraud itself, the felony grand theft of over $50,000.00 of my money from the trust account these 2 attorneys with blood hound noses for other peoples hard earned assets, and specifically the money I had agreed to pay upon delivery to me the fully signed and notarized deed release to my home. The Superior court never responded to the time& date stamped motions that I still have to this day. They never responded tot he letter or all the phone calls to avoid be held accountable for the unprofessional Gross negligence for allowing multiple appearances of an unlicensed attorney and the undeniable direct liability for exactly that So the superior Court obviously felt that it was far better to allow these 3 people(2 attorneys) to commit these most serious felony crimes, strip from innocent children their rights to over $30,000.00 worth of very much needed child support, allow a totally innocent victim to have his credit destroyed and be illegally forced into foreclosure and ultimately bankruptcy. Violate the Law themselves, breech their Oath to Office and figured I would just go down the drain of bankruptcy and never be heard from again. Wrong , this is still an ongoing Case that will prove the Superior Court , the Supreme court Clerk Ron Carpenter , the entire WSBA and its LFCP and the CJC al being nothing less than fraudulent and heavily involved with the employment of RICO, Color of Law, Home and Property theft, Obstruction of Justice, obstruction of investigation , Theft of money paid for a jury that was never provided, Abuse of Office, retaliation against a victim/witness. Point being when I went to the CJC with the Supreme Court Records of Grahn’s suspension from practice, the WSBA Records of Grahn’s suspension from practice, and the Superior Court records of all Grahn’s appearances in the Superior Court practicing Law making a mockery out of the Supreme court, the WSBA and the Superior court. Then also provided the CJC with copies of the time& date Stamped motions I filed with the Superior court that were never responded to and a copy of the filed letter to Judge Armijo’ that was never responded to , and clearly demonstrated that all these dates perfectly aligned with each other and that this was clearly an undeniable cover up and set up, Those phony fraud committing creeps at the CJC came back with that there was no clear preponderance of evidence of any wrong doing there now!
    They must be an equal opportunity employer down at the CJC and hire the severely mentally challenged and the legally blind to review these complaints. Apparently they must have had Ol Ray Charles (God Bless his soul) and Stevie Wonder review my complaint, or they are so damn corrupt and they have been pulling this flagrant total BS on so many innocent citizens that they think its their God given right to do so and that we are all totally ignorant fools that do not deserve any rights, due process, our homes and property, our careers, absolutely nothing. There is a lot more illegalities that have taken place since because they retaliate and continue to injure you worse and worse each and every time. They will stop at nothing , I am currently fearful for my safety, for my life. they think nothing of having their goons/henchmen that mascaraed as the Pierce county Sheriffs Dept. go out and put the hurt to innocent victims if that is what is necessary to keep the truth from the public and ultimately being held accountable for their Felony criminal acts and direct involvement with attorney M. Jordan’s foreclosure mill that has Landlord Solutions(Jim Henderson) listed at the same exact address as Jordan’s law Office, which they conspire with Rainier Foreclosure Company Inc. in Seattle(Lora Schweet, wife of foreclosure attorney Schweet ) whereas through the protection and set up from the Superior court, steal the homes, property, vehicles, family heirlooms from, completely innocent victims. Working with Boush moving and storage in Puyallup Wa. whereas they hold what has not been already stolen, for $9000.00 ransom or lose that too. A nice tidy little in house Foreclosure mill and gang of idiot criminals they have given guns and badges to, so as to enforce these felony’s all on the authority of a known Null & void Order.

    Like

    Posted by Bruce | January 17, 2014, 1:19 am
    • Bruce, have you considered filing a “motion to intervene” in the lawsuit? As you know I’m not a lawyer and therefore I cannot represent your interests that are at stake in the lawsuit. As the WA State Constitution states in Art. 1, sec 1, “governments sole purpose is to protect and maintain individual rights”. Neither the WSBA nor the CJC, both government entities, have protected my “individual rights”…. if these agencies have been equally negligent or criminal with you …… let us tell a jury and get these criminals out of government and behind bars

      Like

      Posted by Bill S | January 17, 2014, 4:20 am
      • By all means, we should get together and talk about this. Two of us with double the violations, injuries and injustices from the very specific people we all are paying to do exactly the opposite would be a lot harder to bulldog, defraud and blatantly ignore as they are so accustomed to doing & getting away with only one victim at a time.

        Needless to say, anyone who has actually fought one of these long lonesome type of battles, knows what the unavoidable effects of it on a person are. I want this never ending 13 year long nightmare from hell corrected, out of my life, my life restored the best it can be and move on way away from these sick twisted out of control predators..But only after they are booted fro their Office and have been charged with criminal Felony crimes they have committed.

        Apparently I valued my credit, my life, career, real estate assets, 25 yrs worth of prior career achievements, family heirlooms, my Rights, My Right to be able to trust in the Court, Law enforcement, a lot more than they figured I would or what hey are use to getting away with. Unfortunately to some degree, its the public’s own fault.

        In my specific issue, they have allowed themselves to become so eroded with Felony Criminal Corruption, and total disregard for their creation, purpose and outlined intent , that they are basically doing what ever illegal felony act they feel is going to possibly help save themselves from themselves. Its at a point to where I have so much undeniable consistent proof of evidence of guilt concerning so many of them, that I have grown a bit concerned for my own safety. Pierce County does not have the Dirty Corrupt Reputation it has had clear back in the Sheriff Janovich days for no reason at all. People disappear, unexplainable things happen and they see too it that is the way they remain. My ph.#253-212-7242 Give me a call

        Bruce Gambill

        Like

        Posted by Bruce Gambill | January 18, 2014, 1:43 am
      • Thanks Bruce, you are right on the money with all you say… and I’m sure there will be more than 2.. more than 3… more than 4… who understand exactly what you and I and others write about. I’ll call you today …. also, my direct email is billscheidler@wavecable.com for any correspondence not for publication.

        Thanks again Bruce

        Like

        Posted by Bill S | January 18, 2014, 9:34 am
    • My sympathies Bruce, I too have experienced inexplicable and outright illegal/corrupt goings-on with the handling of procedural documents involving child support/visitation/etc. issues, in my case with Mr. Penoyar’s courthouse in Pacific County at the time. So I know these things do indeed happen, evidently when it is the male rather than the female who is somehow connected with the primary parenting role.

      Like

      Posted by Hugh Whinfrey | January 17, 2014, 7:01 pm
  3. Please join this complaint. Together we can make a difference. Thanks Bill and Bruce.

    JW

    Like

    Posted by John Worthington | January 24, 2014, 7:16 pm
  4. My complaint I filed against Felice Congalton was rejected, but the general public now realizes that the court and their associates, is the last place to go if you want truth and justice – See classic denial email below. The internet is an awesome tool to get action to infinite courthouse victims who believed that they were the only ones. Great Work here!

    From: Avvo [mailto:email@mail5.avvo.com]
    Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 2:20 AM
    To: scarterwa0@comcast.net
    Subject: Alert: Your review for Felice Congalton was not approved. Please resubmit.

    Please resubmit your client review for attorney Felice Congalton.

    Greetings,

    The review you submitted for Felice Congalton was not approved because it does not meet one or more of our community guidelines. If you wish to submit a new review for Felice Congalton, please be sure to…
    • Make it clear in your review that you were a client of this attorney.
    • Plainly state what you did or did not like about the attorney’s services.
    • Refrain from making personal attacks, insulting comments, or accusations.
    • Try to be as objective as possible.
    Post a new review

    Thanks for participating on Avvo,

    The Avvo Team

    Visit Avvo: Find a Lawyer | Ask a Lawyer | Research Legal Issues | NakedLaw Blog

    Like

    Posted by Sharon | February 1, 2014, 3:45 am
  5. If we intervene, will the court want to access us $$$ like they did you bill ?

    That would be my only concern..

    I filed a complaint against 2 of the largest risk management law firms working for the state of washington and Felice Congalton ..

    Stewart A. Estes | Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis aka k/l gates – this was in 2007

    In filing this complaint, k/l gates was formed and they joined others to hide the money because of fear of being sued.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%26L_Gates
    follow the time lines- History- 2007: On January 1, K&L Gates is formed in a merger between Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham and Preston Gates & Ellis to form Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis.[10] The name was later shortened to K&L Gates.

    2008: In January, K&L Gates combined with Hughes & Luce, a Dallas, Texas-based firm of 150 attorneys with offices in Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth

    2008: In July K&L Gates combined with Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman LLP, a North Carolina-based firm of 200 attorneys with offices in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Research Triangle Park.[11]

    March 1, 2009: K&L Gates merged with Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, a Chicago based firm with approximately 215 attorneys with offices in Chicago, San Diego and Washington, D.C.

    2013: K&L Gates combined with Australian national firm Middletons with offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, and Brisbane

    Notable lawyers and alumni

    Jack Abramoff former lobbyist, writer- After a guilty plea in the Indian lobbying scandal and his dealings with SunCruz Casinos in January 2006, he was sentenced to six years in federal prison for mail fraud, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and tax evasion.

    Slade Gorton, former two-term U.S. senator

    Dick Thornburgh, former Attorney General of the United States and two-term Governor of Pennsylvania

    Rick Santorum, former two-term U.S. Senator and 2012 Republican presidential candidate

    Michael S. Greco, former American Bar Association president

    Eric Schneiderman, the current New York Attorney General

    Bart Gordon, former eight-term U.S. Congressman

    Bill Neukom, former American Bar Association president and managing partner of the San Francisco Giants

    William H. Gates, Sr, attorney and philanthropist. One of the founders of Preston Gates & Ellis (which merged to become K&L Gates)

    Michael C. Ormsby, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington

    Do any of these names sound familiar ? How about the money ?

    The bar association clued me in on one thing about filing complaints… it is the functional equivalent of filing a notice of suit… almost like a tort notice.. if your not a club member.. and if your a club member.. better have some friends to back your side of the facts.. or you get CR11 sanctions..

    And one other clue I was given… the RPC says “may” and not “shall” report a violation to the proper oversight commission.. i.e. bar for lawyers and CJC for judges..

    In otherwords, it’s ok to be corrupt as long as none of your club buddies get offended… they all share in the pie the steal from the cases.. for their dinner table.. not ours.. we are their food..

    James Barber Sr.
    je.b.424@hotmail.com and on the issue of medical cannabis, thclist.com/ forums

    My kids call me POPS.. policing officials public services..

    Like

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 8, 2014, 10:59 pm
    • James, when we deal with people who only want to steal, increase their power and do the utterly despicable things they do NO ONE IS SAFE. All that I can say is I will never back down. It is my hope that as this lawsuit ‘grows and grows’ and stories like yours comes to light the cockroaches will begin to scatter.

      I know a little of the “trust accounts” and all the big players are in it — law enforcement, the prosecutors and a whole slue of law firms who have contracts with state and counties. It is a multi million dollar fleecing of citizens.

      If you come to any decision, I would wait until I file my ‘Amended complaint’. So far everyone who has intervened is staying with the case and others are considering joining too.

      Thank you for all that you have done for citizens and a “just” society.

      Bill

      Like

      Posted by Bill S | February 9, 2014, 8:32 am
  6. http://thclist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=7712
    James Barber Sr. v. Clark County & Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force
    (This case without filing in court dismantled the skamania drug task force, changed it to clark-vancouver dtf, I just sent this to risk management and the county via email.. it was never filed in court)

    http://thclist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8405
    Citizens Criminal Complaint filed in Clark County
    ( this was just a shot across the bow, the county lawyer claimed they was just seeking “advice” from the feds, judge found no PC at this time, but did say I had a different claim with what I presented)

    http://thclist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9777
    James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
    (dismissed this case because they repealed their ban)

    http://thclist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12466
    JAMES E. BARBER SR. et. al. V. CLARK COUNTY et. al. 13-2-03628-6
    ($ 20 million dollar tort claim)

    Bill, I read your suit on the tax exemption case and found some issues which may cause you problems..

    I have had this exemption for sometime now… in 2010 a federal judge awarded me disability retroactive to jan. 1, 1999…

    The county of clark commissioner in my district at the time, denied I was disabled because the judge pointed out I am in treatment with medical marijuana..

    By the end of my travels, the county now has refiling at every 6 years instead of 3… this was due to my case of disability.. and I’m at the max. exemption level under state law..

    I also had an issue with turning over my personal info until I woke up and realized tax returns are not so private.. and any exemption to save paying outrageous taxes, saves my property interests… art.1 sec.1… is a bonus.

    Now before our legislature is a bill to allow retroactive exemption passed 3 years SOL currently on the books.. i.e. a refund past 3 years if facts are shown you have been tossed into shouldering the burden you are exempt from, and the county screwed the pooch.

    I am interested in reading your amended complaint.. which complaint your amending, is the question ?

    You have so many intertwined complaints dealing with the underpinning of the exemption complaint this lawyer you hired… I’m ultimately concerned with standing.. I have read every one so far..

    The CR 11 sanctions you got, really concerns me also… that amount is not a joke or anything to sneeze at… that is a heavy message…

    It may behoove you to file a tax exemption to see if what your complaint says is true… county will misapply the laws..

    Like I said, I also felt the same as you until I did it… it sure worked out for the rest of disabled citizens in our state, or at least county I live in..

    If you wish to talk about this, email me @ je.b.424@hotmail.com and I will give you my number to call me.. I don’t have long distance.

    James

    Like

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 9, 2014, 9:33 am
  7. Bill,

    Experience is what one gets when they didn’t get what they wanted in the first place..

    You are getting alot of experience..

    CrRLJ 2.1(c) is the only citizen criminal complaint process for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors against anyone.. even public employees, officers and officials .. for the best PC hearing before a judge..

    This is commonly know as the checks and balance system for the citizens..just like the initiative/referendum process is our checks and balances process..

    Hope the above court process used properly, benefits you in the future in your interests.

    Regards,

    James

    Like

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 13, 2014, 11:21 am
    • For the benefit of all those who are enticed by a CrRLJ 2.1(c) “citizen complaint”, walk them through the process and describe what may happen or not at each of these steps. Let’s assume “judge X” has committed a crime of “perjury” and filing a “false report” when he published his opinion in which he fabricates a complete fiction so as to rule upon this fraud.

      What is the first step….. and what outcome(s) occur at this stage of the complaint process. And so on…

      Like

      Posted by Bill S | February 13, 2014, 12:09 pm
  8. Person x has committed a crime of misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. You want to have a judge find probable cause this person x has committed said crime. Here is an example of one that was actually filed, and heard: IN THE CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON CITIZEN’S CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CrRLJ 2.1© probable cause hearing requested; DECLARATION OF COMPLAINING WITNESS COMPLAINANT HEREBY REQUESTS A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING PURSUANT TO CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT RULE CrRLJ 2.1©. COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINANT AND AS A COMPLAINING WITNESS COMPLAINANT AND WITNESS: JAMES E. BARBER SR., (put your full address here ) WITNESSES and DEFENDANTS Name:STEVE STUART Case No. 002012-1 (county commissioner) Address:1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:TOM MIELKE Case No. 002012-2 (county commissioner) Address:1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:MARK BOLDT Case No. 002012-3 (county commissioner) Address:1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:BILL BARON Case No. 002012-4 (county administrator) Address:1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:ANTHONY F. GOLIK Case No. 002012-5 (THE county prosecutor) Address:1013 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:BRONSON POTTER Case No. 002012-6 (Chief deputy civil prosecutor) Address:604 West Evergreen Vancouver,WA. 98666-5000 Name:CHRIS HORNE Case No. 002012-7 (Chief deputy civil prosecutor) Address:604 West Evergreen Vancouver,WA. 98666-5000 Name:CHRISTINE COOK Case No. 002012-8 (deputy civil prosecutor) Address:604 West Evergreen Vancouver,WA. 98666-5000 Name:AXEL SWANSON Case No. 002012-9 ( Senior Policy Analyst) Address:1300 Franklin St. Vancouver, WA. 98666-5000 Name:MIKE COOKE Case No. 002012-0 ( THE head drug task force commander) Address: 707 West 13th st. Vancouver, Wa. 98666-5000 CRIMINAL STATUTE VIOLATIONS: Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)-(b) A gross misdemeanor Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. RCW 9A.76.175 A gross misdemeanor Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree. RCW 9A.76.090 A misdemeanor I, JAMES EDWARD BARBER SR., the undersigned known “DISABLED” Complainant, understands that I have the right of complaining to a prosecuting authority rather than signing this affidavit, which I did. I elect to use this method to start criminal proceedings. I understand that the following are some, but not all, of the consequences of my signing a criminal complaint: (1) the defendant(s) may be arrested and placed in custody; (2) the arrest if proved false may result in a lawsuit against me; (3) if I have sworn falsely I may be prosecuted for perjury; (4) this charge will be prosecuted even though I might change my mind; (5) witnesses and complainant will be required to appear in court on the trial date regardless of inconvenience, school, job, etc. The following is a true statement of the events that led to the filing of this complaint. I, THE KNOWN DISABLED COMPLAINANT have consulted with more than 1 county prosecuting authority concerning this incident(see exhibits). Any and all emphasis employed herein may be construed to have been added. Said Known Disabled Complainant upon personal knowledge and beleif, beleive probable cause exists the defendants herein comitted stated crimes below against the known disabled complainant and similarly situtated persons as the known disabled complainant which is clearly beyond any reasonable doubt contrary to the constitution and laws as well as the peace and dignity of the people of the State of Washington: Defendant STEVE STUART, while acting as A Commissioner of the County of Clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in known “DISABLED” Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant STEVE STUART , has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws. Defendant TOM MIELKE, while acting as A Commissioner of the County of Clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant TOM MIELKE, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws. Defendant MARC BOLDT, while acting as A Commissioner of the County of Clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant MARC BOLDT, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider(s), and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens,, and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws. Defendant BILL BARON, while acting as THE ADMINISTRATOR of the County of Clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant BILL BARON, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider(s), and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens,, and publicly announced by acting IN CONCERT the “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 that he will assist to enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws. Defendant ANTHONY F. GOLIK, while acting as the state Prosecutor of the County of Clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant ANTHONY GOLIK, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis qualifying patient(s), designated provider(s), and qualifying patients collective gardens, and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 “authorization”, that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws. Defendant BRONSON POTTER, while acting as A County CHIEF DEPUTY prosecutor advisor to the commissioners of the county of clark,AND all EMPLOYEES AND COUNTY AGENCIES has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant a gross misdemeanor of the Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175 and the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010, the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant BRONSON POTTER, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and has discussed privately to the “DISABLED” complainant and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 “authorization” that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws, as he believes ALL state(s) medical cannabis laws are preempted and interfere with the duties of the Drug Task Force(s) to enforce federal marijuana laws. Defendant CHRIS HORNE, while acting as A County DEPUTY prosecutor advisor to the commissioners of the county of clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant a gross misdemeanor of the Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175 and the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant CHRIS HORNE, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and has discussed privately to the “DISABLED” complainant and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 “authorization” that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws, as he believes ALL state(s) medical cannabis laws are preempted and interfere with the duties of the Drug Task Force(s) to enforce federal marijuana laws. Defendant CHRISTINE COOK, while acting as A County DEPUTY prosecutor advisor to the commissioners of the county of clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant a gross misdemeanor of the Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175 and the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010,the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant CHRISTINE COOK, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and has discussed privately to the “DISABLED” complainant and publicly announced by enacting “prohibition” ord. 2011-08-07 “authorization” that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws, as he believes ALL state(s) medical cannabis laws are preempted and interfere with the duties of the Drug Task Force(s) to enforce federal marijuana laws. Defendant AXEL SWANSON, while acting as THE County senior policy advisor to the commissioners of the county of clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant a gross misdemeanor of the Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the gross misdemeanor of official misconduct RCW 9A.80.010, the misdemeanor of rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.90 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant AXEL SWANSON, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s), medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider, and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and has discussed privately to the “DISABLED” complainant and publicly announced that he will seek to have the commissioners enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws, as he believes ALL state(s) medical cannabis laws are preempted and interfere with the contract duties of the Drug Task Force(s) to enforce federal marijuana laws. Defendant MIKE COOKE, while acting as A FEDERAL AGENT advisor to the Clark County Sheriff (drug task force under contract) and commissioners of the county of clark, has committed against the known “DISABLED” Complainant the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct, the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant RCW 9A.76.175, the misdemeanor of Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090 as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. Defendant MIKE COOKE, has failed to follow Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis use by “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s),medical cannabis “DISABLED” qualifying patient(s) RIGHTS TO CONTRACT WITH A designated provider(s), and RIGHT OF THE DISABLED TO form and participate in qualifying patients collective gardens, and has privately and publicly announced that he will enforce federal marijuana laws over the Washington State medical cannabis act laws, as he believes ALL state(s) medical cannabis laws are preempted and interfere with the contract duties of the Drug Task Force(s) to enforce federal marijuana laws of ILLEGAL “TRAFFICKING” in controlled substances. It is the function of the Legislature to define the elements of a specific crime. In this case, the Legislature defined the elements of the crime under RCW 9A.80.010; RCW 9A.76.175; AND RCW 9A.76.090. This Court SHOULD NOT ignore clear statutory language and SHOULD NOT strain to find an ambiguity where the language of the statute is clear. The Legislature has defined the elements of offenses in plain and unambiguous language. RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct. (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege: (a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or (b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law. © Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor. [1975-’76 2nd ex.s. C 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.80.010.] RCW 9A.76.175 Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. [2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.] Notes: Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.] Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.] Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900. RCW 9A.76.090 Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree. (1) A person is guilty of rendering criminal assistance in the third degree if he or she renders criminal assistance to a person who has committed a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor. (2) Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree is a misdemeanor. [2011 c 336 § 401; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.76.090 .] Defendant(s) have knowingly,intentionally, with reckless disregard of the state law(s) and their assigned duties in good faith under color of law (see e.g;Chapter 69.51A.130),and UNDER Chapter 69.51A.140 have deprived the known “DISABLED” Complainant of his Life, Liberty, Privacy, and Property without just cause, without lawful authority, WITHOUT JURISDICTION and have instead followed along with the FEDERAL PREEMPTION commandeering communications of Commander MIKE COOKE of the Clark-Skamania drug Task Force ( now known as the clark-vancouver regonal task force as of may 2012), suggesting HIGHLY they must ignore state medical cannabis act law as our federal government doesn’t recognize medical use of naturally derived THC from the cannabis plant, i.e. a schedule 1 drug so says the US supreme court. Contrary to this known reckless bald face fabricated assertion, in 2010 the DEA cheif deputy recognized the medical use of naturally derived THC from the plant Cannabis Sativa L is equal in efficacy as it’s synthetic THC counterpart and proposed FDA rule making for public distribution. Defendants and each of them committed the acts complained of above, willingly, knowingly, and recklessly, rendered in concert, relying on each others false or misleading material statements in the discharge of their official duties as well as others relying on the same all done under color of law, with the intention of depriving the known “DISABLED” Complainant of his life, Liberty, Privacy, Property, and ability to adhereto long-term life threatening medical treatment recommended by his health care practitioner, deprive known “DISABLED” complainant from ability to contract with a designated provider or ability too form and/or participate in ANY medical cannabis qualifying patient collective gardens, owed the known DISABLED Complainant as a matter of right under Chapter 69.50.308(e), 69.51A.025, 69.51A.040, 69.51A.085 RCWA, SSA ALJ order dated 10/28/2010 in the defendants possession prior to enacting rolling moratorium without notice, and the legislature debating and code reviser codifying non-vetoed sections of sb 5073. COUNT I: OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Under the alleged authority granted to them under RCW 69.51A.140 which is inoperable as a matter of law in relation to state wide concerns (see Governor Gregoire statement explaining her partial veto of the bill, she says it is meaningless as the vetoed sections are intertwined), lacking all jurisdiction over provisions .025, .040, .043, .045, .047, .055 1(a), (2) or .085 . Not having within the local public interest as required by law, not one of the defendant(s) has identified a public problem that the condition( rolling moratorium) is designed to address. Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 520.(see Chapter 69.51A.055(1),(2),*(3) RCWA) but, ONLY have identified strictly a private concern and interest, (see .025, .040, .043, .045, .047, .055 1(a), (2) or .085)( see also, Burton, 91 Wn. App. at 520.) which is not abatable under state or federal law, see RCW 7.48.160 Authorized act not a nuisance. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance. Defendant(s) STUART, MIELKE AND BOLDT passed a rolling moratorium without notice of a ban (FEDERAL PROHIBITION) on medical cannabis, growing,production, processing, dispensing which deprives; ALL medical cannabis TREATMENT FOR “DISABLED” qualifying patients (including the complainant), “DISABLED” qualifying patients from CONTRACTING WITH designated providers(including the complainant) and FORMING AND/OR PARTICIPATING IN qualifying patients collective gardens, privately, with no business license , non commercial use as defined under Chapter 69.51A.025, 69.51A.040, 69.51A.085 (including the complainant), while no such action is provided for or approved by ANY codified statute by the state legislature or the Governor for that matter as allegedly claimed by the defendants. By imposing first an illegal depriving emergency moratorium without notice (Where a county’s notice misleads citizens, it is defective. Barrie v. Kitsap County, 84 Wn.2d 579, 584-85, 527 P.2d 1377 (1974).) and then a depriving rolling ban(FEDERAL PROHIBITION) on medical cannabis TREATMENT FOR qualifying patients,( even known “DISABLED”) depriving ALL CONTRACTING WITH designated providers and depriving ALL FORMING AND/OR PARTICIPATING IN qualifying patients collective gardens, as defined under Chapter 69.51A.025, 69.51A.040, 69.51A.085,, is not authorized by CHAPTER 69.51A. et. seq., or RCW 69.50. et. seq., the Defendants wrongfully deprived the known “DISABLED” Complainant of his Life, Liberty, Privacy, and Property, in violation of RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a), a gross misdemeanor,as is proven under facts set forth in THE DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. and COUNT II: OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Defendants committed an unauthorized act and failed to perform a duty imposed upon them by law when depriving the known “DISABLED” Complainant of his statutory right to the lawful growing,production, processing, dispensing for medical treatment under state law and other federal laws ,lawful statutory rights in CONTRACTING WITH ANY designated provider and lawful statutory right in FORMING AND/OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY qualifying patients medical cannabis collective gardens as defined under RCW 69.51A.085,in violation of RCW9A.80.010(1)(a)-(b), a gross misdemeanor, as is proven under facts set forth in THE KNOWN DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein. COUNT III: MAKING A FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO A PUBLIC SERVANT. Defendants STUART, MIELKE, BOLDT, BARON, GOLIK, POTTER, HORNE, COOK, SWANSON, COOKE All persons whom knowingly made a false or misleading material statement either to EACH OTHER and other public servant(s) are guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties, as is proven under facts set forth in THE KNOWN DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein.[ see Exhibits ? ] The agenda has a false and misleading statement in the letter to Eric Holder in which he reasonably relied upon in the discharge of his official duties, other officials in Washington State in the discharge of their official duties have also reasonably relied on the false and misleading statements[ see Exhibits ? ] also see Judge WM. FREMMING NIELSEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE reconsideration of suppression order : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -vs- JERAD JOHN KYNASTON (1), SAMUEL MICHAEL DOYLE (2), BRICE CHRISTIAN DAVIS (5), JAYDE DILLON EVANS (6), TYLER SCOTT MCKINLEY (7), Defendants. NO. CR-12-0016-WFN ORDER Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 202). The Government reiterates and clarifies the position that Washington’s medical marijuana act does not decriminalize possession, manufacture, or delivery of marijuana. However, the Court continues to disagree with this analysis. The Court concurs with the Government that “it is axiomatic that plain language is to be given plain meaning and enforced accordingly.” ECF No. 203, p. 3. The medical marijuana statute clearly indicates that use of medical marijuana does not constitute a crime. Reading “use” to exclude possession, delivery, or manufacture would be in contravention to the entirety of the statute. It is impossible to imagine a scenario where a person could use without possessing.1 Further, the statute clearly indicates exactly how much a person can manufacture under the statute, so clearly the drafters anticipated that manufacture, under specific circumstances described by the statute, also is not a crime. Additionally, the statute permits a person to manufacture the medical marijuana for another, thus the statute addresses delivery of medical marijuana. The Court will not read the statute to be internally inconsistent. The Court has reviewed the file, briefing, and motions and is fully informed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Government’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed June 6, 2012, ECF No. 202, is GRANTED. The Court reconsidered the initial ruling to Defendants’ Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 157. 2. The Court’s initial ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, memorialized in ECF No. 186, is AFFIRMED. 3. The Government’s Motion to Expedite Hearing, filed June 6, 2012, ECF No. 204, is GRA NTED. The underlying Motion was considered on an expedited basis. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED this 11th day of June, 2012. 06-11-12 s/ Wm. Fremming Nielsen WM. FREMMING NIELSEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 In support of the Court’s reading, RCW 69.51A.045, entitled “Possession of cannabis exceeding lawful amount – Affirmative Defense,” creates an affirmative defense for possession of cannabis for medical use even when the amount possessed exceeds the decriminalized amounts listed in RCW 69.51A.040. Thus, the drafters clearly intended medical possession to be decriminalized by RCW 69351A.040 and did not intend to RCW 69.51A.040 to simply be a strengthened affirmative defense as argued by the Government during the suppression hearing. ORDER – 2 To sustain a conviction, the State must show that (1) a person made a false or misleading statement to a public servant and (2) that, in discharging his or her official duties, the public servant in question would reasonably rely on the false or misleading statement. This element is stated in the pattern jury instructions as: “That the defendant knew both that the statement was material and that it was false or misleading.” 11A Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 120.04, at 473 (3d ed. 2008). COUNT IV. Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree All named defendants have acted in concert with one another in rendering criminal assistance of the offense of Official Misconduct a gross misdemeanor; knowingly,recklessly, intentionaly have made many false or misleading material statements to each other as to reasonably rely on them in the discharging of their official duties. Thus, making it appear lawful in the eyes of the public. Knowing the whole time they are just assisting each other in criminal activity with which leaves no-one to complain to or stop them, as they are the gate keepers of enforcement of the laws.. If one was to complain, it falls on deaf ears as shown by this last year of communications between the complainant and most of the named defendants as is proven under facts set forth in THE KNOWN DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact and Chronology attached hereto. VERIFICATION. I, JAMES E. BARBER SR. , the known disabled Complainant hereto, do hereby verify and declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of Washington state that the foregoing accounting of facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I believe the acts complained of herein, and committed by the Defendants above named are those amounting to the gross misdemeanor of Official Misconduct as described and set forth in RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)-(b),and, the gross misdemeanor of Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant as described and set forth in RCW 9A.76.175 , and, the misdemeanor of rendering criminal assistance in the third degree RCW 9A.76.090, and it is my intent herewith to seek probable cause determination by said described court above that said described criminal offenses were committed against the known disabled Complainant and those similarly situated and the state in degradation of the peace, dignity. health, welfare, safety and morals of the people of the State of Washington by said Defendants. Declared by JAMES E. BARBER SR the known disabled Affiant/Complainant under penalties of perjury, under the laws of Washington, to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed: ________________________________ JAMES E. BARBER SR., Affiant/Complainant ————————————————- Considerations for Filing a Citizen Complaint ————————————————- To file a criminal citizen complaint, the court “must consider probable cause and may consider” elements (1) through (7) under CrRLJ 2.1©. Those issues are addressed seriatim: (1) Whether an unsuccessful prosecution will subject the State to costs or damage claims under RCW 9A.16.110, or other civil proceedings. (A): Civil liability will only attach if the prosecution commences in bad faith and without probable cause. The evidence plainly supports probable cause exists under Chapter(s) RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)-(b)Official Misconduct a gross misdemeanor; RCW 9A.76.175 Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant a gross misdemeanor; and RCW 9A.76.090 Rendering Criminal Assistance in the third degree a misdemeanor. RCW 9A.16.110 (Defending against violent crime – Reimbursement) presumably does not apply here. Any civil suit would likely be dismissed as frivolous. A finding of probable cause negates a claim for malicious prosecution as a matter of law. Jacques v. Sharp, 83 Wash.App. 532 (1996); Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552 (1993); Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wn.2d 485 (1942). (2) Whether the complainant has adequate recourse under laws governing small claims suits, anti-harassment petitions or other civil actions. (A): Civil litigation will not provide the required sanction of conviction, imprisonment, and/or fine. Nor will civil suit compensate for the undue pain,agony and suffering torture, by design endured by complainant and those similarly situated. (3) Whether a criminal investigation is pending. (A): No. Rather, it has completed. (4) Whether other criminal charges could be disrupted by allowing the citizen complaint to be filed. (A): No other criminal charges are pending. (5) The availability of witnesses at trial. (A): All witnesses are PRESUMED available for trial. (6) The criminal record of the complainant, potential defendant and potential witnesses, and whether any have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty as defined by ER 609. (A): On information and belief, neither the complainant nor potential defendants have been so convicted. The conviction status of ANY other witnesses is unknown. (7) Prosecution standards under RCW 9.94A.440 (now RCW 9.94A.411). (A): Prosecution is both technically sufficient and serves an important public purpose. RCW 9.94A.411 articulates reasons to decline to prosecute, which are negated in turn: (a) it is not contrary to legislative intent (official misconduct; public servants Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant to rely upon laws must be abided by those hired to prevent it; rendering criminal assistance as to cover it all up is never in the interest of the public purpose); (b) RCW 9A.80.010 is a 30+ year old statute; RCW 9A.76.175 is an 11 year-old statute, with amendments as recent as 2005; RCW 9A.76.090 is also 30 + year old statute, with amendments as recent as 2011 and certainly none of them IS antiquated; © the violation(s) IS/are not de minimis (Known disabled complainant as well as many others was tortured by design before complaining , and the evidence strongly supports the interpretation that the named defendant officers and officials are very delighted in their rigid design, contrary to the peace, dignity, health, welfare, safety and morals of the people of the State of Washington – exclamation coupled with high-fiving and pats on the back, unprofessional chuckling over the ability to dispose of ANY claimant and others property rights without due process of law under the threat of imprisonment and real property seizure ; and premeditated determination to kill ALL terminally ill qualifying patients before their time to die is up, all under the color of law undetected ) notwithstanding, THE ALLEGED CLAIM IS RCW 69.51A.130 IS THEIR SHIELD TO DO AS THEY WANT ; (d) the purported defendants are not confined on other charges; (e) there is no pending conviction for another charge; (f) the cost of not prosecuting is highly disproportionate to the efforts undertaken to obtain and preserve evidence, as well as the monumental reaction by the affected qualifying patients, who demand accountability and vindication; (g) the only motivation of the known disabled complainant is to punish needless reckless intentional human harm, pain, torture and extreme suffering; (h) no immunity issues arise here; (i) one of the victim(s), known disabled complainant James E. Barber Sr. , if he had a human spokesperson or guardian ad litem would assuredly want to avoid intentional reckless cruel treatment, punishment, pain and torture, as all sentient beings (except the masochistic) would; this motivation is necessarily implied from our cruelty laws, which permit prosecution of those who illegally and criminally harm others or criminally violate their property rights, REGARDLESS OF WHOM THEY ARE. RCW 9.94A.411 also speaks to standards favoring prosecution. For property crimes, they will be filed “if the admissible evidence is of such convincing force as to make it probable that a reasonable and objective fact-finder would convict after hearing all the admissible evidence and the most plausible defense that could be raised.” The evidence provided herein amply convinces under this standard. The Affidavit of Complaining Witness, as required by CrRLJ 2.1©, is attached. “Criminal negligence” is a culpability state defined as one who “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.” RCW 9A.08.010(1)(d). As officers putatively trained in use of force,and policy making for the health, safety, welfare and morals, the risk of depriving statutory rights linked to any property and causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the level of torture is substantial, if not certain, under the circumstances. “Knowledge” is a culpability state defined as one who “is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense,” or “has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.” RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b)(i-ii). ALL defendants had plenty of time to assess the situation and become aware of undisputed facts and circumstances that (a) the known “DISABLED” complainant presented no imminent threat to anyone prior too or when deprived; (b) the known “DISABLED” complainant had not threatened any of the defendants; ©the known “DISABLED” complainant was relying on state law within his statutory and constitutional rights and known SSA ALJ ORDER under “OTHER FEDERAL LAWS”; and (d) assuming arguendo [IF] the known “DISABLED” complainant exhibited any alleged “vicious” propensities, he did so at the fear of possibly dying from a unmitigated seizure, after provocation, encroachment onto and hereby eliminating his statutory medical treatment rights, property rights and interest, and Federal SSA ALJ 100% disability benefit(s) order and in a completely different non crime environment; (e) no split-second decision needed to be made in response to a rapidly escalating and evolving situation, such as where an “illegal” drug trafficker an officer has evidence of, giving him more than a reasonable suspicion or two to enlighten himself; and (f) the officers and officials acting in concert made the conscious decision to design such illegal activity even after spoken too the first time. ALL the assertion(s) made by defendants were and are knowing, intentional,reckless falsehoods to deprive the known disabled complainant, and others similarly situated. See letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder from Clark County Commissioners Office dated December 2, 2011. Quote : Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073 in part became Washington law on July 22, 2011. Section 403 (now codified as Chapter 69.51A.085 RCWA)of the new law allows qualifying patients and designated providers to “create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting and delivering cannabis for medical use.” Gov. Chris Gregoire, in her statement explaining a partial veto of the bill, wrote the gardens “should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications.” The letter sent to Gov. Chris Gregoire on April 14, 2011 by the WA. State USAAG in reference to Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073 was in part due to the huge amounts of cannabis plants and product to be located on one tax lot known as “FACILITIES” which would be then sold on an open market involving many state agencies which could pose criminal liability for employees depending on the circumstances. The letter made no reference to qualifying patients collective gardens located in section 403 now codified under .085 which as noted by the plain language is not for designated providers as claimed by the county commissioners letter dated December 2, 2011 to USAG Eric Holder which he relied upon in his official duties. Gov. Gregoire never wrote in her statement explaining a partial veto of the bill: the gardens “should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications.” (see Gov. Gregoire’ veto statement below) April 29, 2011 To the Honorable President and Members, The Senate of the State of Washington Ladies and Gentlemen: I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 101, 201,407,410,411,412,601, 602,603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104, 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 entitled: “AN ACT Relating to medical use of cannabis.” In 1998, Washington voters made the compassionate choice to remove the fear of state criminal prosecution for patients who use medical marijuana for debilitating or terminal conditions. The voters also provided patients’ physicians and caregivers with defenses to state law prosecutions. I fully support the purpose of Initiative 692, and in 2007, I signed legislation that expanded the ability of a patient to receive assistance from a designated provider in the medical use of marijuana, and added conditions and diseases for which medical marijuana could be used. Today, I have signed sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that retain the provisions of Initiative 692 and provide additional state law protections. Qualifying patients or their designated providers may grow cannabis for the patient’s use or participate in a collective garden without fear of state law criminal prosecutions. Qualifying patients or their designated providers are also protected from certain state civil law consequences. Our state legislature may remove state criminal and civil penalties for activities that assist persons suffering from debilitating or terminal conditions. While such activities may violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. However, absent congressional action, state laws will not protect an individual from legal action by the federal government. Qualifying patients and designated providers can evaluate the risk of federal prosecution and make choices for themselves on whether to use or assist another in using medical marijuana. The United States Department of Justice has made the wise decision not to use federal resources to prosecute seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana. April 29, 2011 Page 2 However, the sections in Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 would direct employees of the state departments of Health and Agriculture to authorize and license commercial businesses that produce, process or dispense cannabis. These sections would open public employees to federal prosecution, and the United States Attorneys have made it clear that state law would not provide these individuals safe harbor from federal prosecution. No state employee should be required to violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill duties under state law. For these reasons, I have vetoed Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608,609,610,611,701,702,703,704,705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. In addition, there are a number of sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that are associated with or dependent upon these licensing sections. Section 201 sets forth definitions of terms. Section 412 adds protections for licensed producers, processors and dispensers. Section 901 requires the Department of Health to develop a secure registration system for licensed producers, processors and dispensers. Section 1104 would require a review of the necessity of the cannabis production and dispensing system if the federal government were to authorize the use of cannabis for medical purposes. Section 1201 applies to dispensaries in current operation in the interim before licensure, and Section 1202 exempts documents filed under Section 1201 from disclosure. Section 1203 requires the department of health to report certain information related to implementation of the vetoed sections. Because I have vetoed the licensing provisions, I have also vetoed Sections 201, 412, 901, 1104, 1201, 1202 and 1203 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. Section 410 would require owners of housing to allow the use of medical cannabis on their property, putting them in potential conflict with federal law. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 410 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. Section 407 would permit a nonresident to engage in the medical use of cannabis using documentation or authorization issued under other state or territorial laws. This section would not require these other state or territorial laws to meet the same standards for health care professional authorization as required by Washington law. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 407 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. Section 411 would provide that a court may permit the medical use of cannabis by an offender, and exclude it as a ground for finding that the offender has violated the conditions or requirements of the sentence, deferred prosecution, stipulated order of continuance. deterred disposition or dispositional order. The correction agency or department responsible for the person’s supervision is in the best position to evaluate an individual’s circumstances and medical use of cannabis. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 411 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. April 29, 2011 Page 3 I am approving Section 1002, which authorizes studies and medical guidelines on the appropriate administration and use of cannabis. Section 1206 would make Section 1002 effective January 1, 2013. [have vetoed Section 1206 to provide the discretion to begin efforts at an earlier date. Section 1102 sets forth local governments’ authority pertaining to the production, processing or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdictions. The provisions in Section 1102 that local governments’ zoning requirements cannot “preclude the possibility of siting licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction” are without meaning in light of the vetoes of sections providing for such licensed dispensers. It is with this understanding that I approve Section 1102. I have been open, and remain open, to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their designated providers from state criminal penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative organizations to share responsibility for producing, processing and dispensing cannabis for medical use. Such exemption from state criminal penalties should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications. I am also open to legislation that establishes a secure and confidential registration system to provide arrest and seizure protections under state law to qualifying patients and those who assist them. Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 901 that would provide a registry for qualifying patients and designated providers beginning in January 2013 are intertwined with requirements for registration of licensed commercial producers, processors and dispensers of cannabis. Consequently, I have vetoed section 901 as noted above. Section 101 sets forth the purpose of the registry, and Section 902 is contingent on the registry. Without a registry, these sections are not meaningful. For this reason, I have vetoed Sections 101 and 902 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. I am not vetoing Sections 402 or 406, which establish affirmative defenses for a qualifying patient or designated provider who is not registered with the registry established in section 901. Because these sections govern those who have not registered, this section is meaningful even though section 901 has been vetoed. With the exception of Sections 101, 201, 407,410,411,412, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608,609,610,611,701,702,703,704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104, 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 is approved. Respectfully submitted, Christine Gregoire Governor Chapter 69.51A.055 RCW provisions below in section(3) clearly show in plain language the legislature and the Governor never intended any local authority located in Chapter 69.51A.140 over ANYTHING to do with the “USE” by Qualifying Patients be it alone or in association of such “USE” with “Collective Gardens or designated providers. The language relating to producer, processor and dispenser in .055(3) is the same language and common-sense meaning in reference to in section .140 Section 1102 sets forth local governments’ authority pertaining to the production ( licensed producer), processing( licensed processor) or dispensing( licensed dispenser) of cannabis or cannabis products within their local jurisdictions. RCW 69.51A.055 Limitations of chapter — Persons under supervision. (1)(a) The arrest and prosecution protections established in RCW 69.51A.040 may not be asserted in a supervision revocation or violation hearing by a person who is supervised by a corrections agency or department, including local governments or jails, that has determined that the terms of this section are inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision. (b) The affirmative defenses established in RCW 69.51A.043, 69.51A.045, 69.51A.047, and *section 407 of this act may not be asserted in a supervision revocation or violation hearing by a person who is supervised by a corrections agency or department, including local governments or jails, that has determined that the terms of this section are inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision. (2) The provisions of RCW 69.51A.040, 69.51A.085, and 69.51A.025 do not apply to a person who is supervised for a criminal conviction by a corrections agency or department, including local governments or jails, that has determined that the terms of this chapter are inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision. (3) A person may not be licensed as a licensed producer, licensed processor of cannabis products, or a licensed dispenser under *section 601, 602, or 701 of this act if he or she is supervised for a criminal conviction by a corrections agency or department, including local governments or jails, that has determined that licensure is inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision. [2011 c 181 § 1105.] Notes: *Reviser’s note: Sections 407, 601, 602, and 701 were vetoed by the governor. Article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees that “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, [being responsible for the abuse of that right].” Although article I, section 5 generally “provides broader free speech protection than the first amendment to the United States Constitution,” JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle, 126 Wn.2d 1, 8 n. 6, 891 P.2d 720 (1995), “the inquiry must focus on the specific context in which the state constitutional challenge is raised,” and “it does not follow that greater protection is provided in all contexts,” Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103, 115, 937 P.2d 154 (1997). The nature of this case requires holding that state constitutional free speech protection in the above context is no greater than that provided under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has never directly addressed federal free speech protection in this type of context, but its case law in the commercial context is instructive. Commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is either unlawful or misleading. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub.Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). Similarly, false and misleading statements made to public servants in the any context are not protected under federal and state constitutional free speech provisions. This [is] because there is even greater public interest in deterring false statements to ALL public servant context than there is in the commercial context. As the Court of Appeals aptly noted in State v. Budik, “[W]hile Mr. Budik may not have had any obligation to speak, … if he chose to speak, [he was not privileged to mislead] police.” State v. Budik, 156 Wn.App. 123, 128, 230 P.3d 1094, review granted, 170 Wn.2d 1008, 249 P.3d 624 (2010). Washington courts have consistently held that “`slight corroborative evidence\'” is “all that is necessary to establish guilty knowledge.” State v. Womble, 93 Wn.App. 599, 604, 969 P.2d 1097, review denied, 138 Wn.2d 1009 (1999); see State v. Couet, 71 Wn.2d 773, 776, 430 P.2d 974 (1967). RCW 9A.08.010(4) provides that willful misconduct is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the offense’s material elements, barring some plainly evident purpose to impose further requirements. Accordingly, for purposes of knowledge proves willfulness. Clark County does not adopt all the state’s codified principles of liability when it comes to government employees. “Recklessness” is a culpability state defined as one who “knows or and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.” RCW 9A.08.010(1)©. For the reasons stated as to criminal negligence, aside from gross inattentiveness that would justify conviction under RCW 9A.80.010 (a)-(b); RCW 9A.76.175; and RCW 9A.76.090, the actions of these defendants showed tremendous deliberate indifference to the sensibilities of the known “DISABLED” complainant, as well as those others similarly situated. “A person acts with intent or intentionally when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.” RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). “Specific intent cannot be presumed, but it can be inferred as a logical probability from all the facts and circumstances.” State v. Wilson, 125 Wn.2d 212, 217, 883 P.2d 320 (1994). And “a trier of fact may infer that a defendant intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her acts.” State v. Caliguri, 99 Wn.2d 501, 506, 664 P.2d 466 (1983). This court should find probable cause does exist and also, recognize a true conflict exists in regards to the entire prosecutors office. Therefore, in it’s above cited lawful discretion, sign an order to conflict the entire county prosecutors office and replace them with a special prosecutor in the public interest to seek justice and prosecute the crimes . THE KNOWN DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact & Chronology ————————————————————— THE KNOWN DISABLED Complainant’s Affidavit of Fact & Chronology in support of finding as to all defendants and limited listed offenses; prima facia of probable cause exits, and a real and true conflict of interest with the county prosecutors office exists enough to garnish a signed order stating such . Herein, Chronology Order to meet minimal element requirement(s) of each offense. This affidavit is intended to establish probable cause and does not set forth all of my communication(s) and/or knowledge about this matter. For the reasons stated in this affidavit, inter alia, I the known disabled complainant therefore have probable cause to beleive that defendants, each and everyone of them has committed the criminal offenses of RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct, RCW 9A.76.175 Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, and RCW 9A.76.090 Rendering criminal assistance in the third degree in the manner set forth in the criminal complaint. BACKGROUND FACTS On March 17th, 2011 the known disabled complainant served upon the board of county commissioners a $20 million dollar tort claim notice with many documents attached in relation to the known disabled complainants disabilities found by a federal law judge dated Oct. 28th, 2010, medical record documents from the clark county jail dated 2000-2004, and disabled persons property tax exemption status dated 1999-2001 the county removed without just cause as complainants disabled wife lived in the home of the trust while complanant was in custody. Complainants known disabled wife did not vacate the home until complainant whom had his disablity rights removed by said clark county sheriffs dept. jail doctor in the medical records above was released from custody in 2002. [see Exhibit 1 ] On June 2nd and 3rd this was the first federal commandeering communications to be reasonbly relied upon in regards to discharging his or her official duties in relationship to the new law the governor partially vetoed by any of the named defendants. From: Cooke, Mike Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:38 PM To:Snell,Marty; Cook,Christene; Orjiako, Oliver cc: Gaya,Holly; Swanson, Axel Subject: RE: Marijuana dispensaries and county code The bill did not ban dispensaries. In fact, the bill contains language that counties and cities can zone dispensaries, but they can’t outright preclude them. It’s more complicated then this so we all need to meet sometime soon. I think the fix is to put into county code a section which prohibits any business from opening which conducts activity which is illegal under state and federal law. I know this sounds obvious but the fear is that now a dispensary could open and then it would take a costly undercover investigation to make arrests, and even with arrests, we don’t have the authority to close a business. The neighborhoods, and law enforcement, would rather have language on the front end which will prevent illegal businesses from opening in the first place. This is why we need to meet so we can get the expert opinions on how to do it. From: Cooke, Mike Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:52 AM To: Cook, Christine; Snell, Marty; Orjiako, Oliver Cc; Gaya, Holly Subject: Marijuana dispensaries and county code Christine, Marty, and Oliver I am currently working with a group of neighborhood associations and neighborhood leaders on drafting some type or ordinance or addition to county code to deal with any potential marijuana dispensaries which may attempt to open in the county. I’ve recently received two inquiries from potential dispensary owners who want to open up shop in Clark County. All of us are interested in not allowing a business which conducts an illegal activity from opening it’s doors in the county. We would rather prevent it on the front end rather than having to deal with it after it opens. We’ve had some preliminary discussions on what we think needs to be done with the code but we really need to sit down with the experts(you) to work this out.(Edited out a time they didn’t meet) Here’s the basic problem in a nutshell: 1. Marijauna is illegal under federal law in all cases, regardless of what states say. The US Supreme Court has affimed this. 2. Unfortunately, local prosecutors don’t prosecute federal laws so on the local level medical marijuana is a legal defense which has allowed some individuals to avoid prosecution. 3. Marijuana dispensaries have been sprouting like weeds (pun intended) in all the states which have medical marijuana law. Cities and Counties have been passing emergency moratoriums and ordinances banning dispensaries but have found it extremely difficult to deal with them once they open. It’s been much easier to have ordinances in place prior to the first one opening it’s doors. Spokane County had in excess of 50 dispensaries at one point. 4. There appears nothing in the Clark County Code which would prevent a dispensary from opening it’s doors. 5. The neighborhood associations are interested in a county code addition which would prevent any business, including dispensaries, from being permitted in the county when that business is engaged in activity which is illegal under state OR federal law. This is a priority for neighborhoods so I told them that we would meet soon and come up with a solution. Thanks.. Mike. Commander-Mike Cooke Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force The federal government may not compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations. “[T]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) In early July of 2011 before sb 5073 took legal operational effect, the board instead of electing to file for injunctive and/or declaratory relief in the courts, they elected to use their alleged emergency moratorium authority under RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 without public notice under the auspice in good faith and within the scope of their ASSIGNED duties under Chapter 69.51A.140 RCW intertwined with (if not bootstrapped to) 69.51A.130 RCW of land use and zoning districts on the use of cannabis by qualifying patients and designated providers, as well as qualifying patients collective gardens as necessary to further the public interest, for their health, safety, and welfare. Resolution 2011-07-04 [ see Exhibit 5 pg. 4-6 ] On July 20th, 2011 before the law went into operational effect, the known disabled complainant sent an email to the full board of county commisioners in regards to the (FULL MONTY) prohibition moratorium.[see Exhibits 2 and 3 ] On August 8th, 2011 the known disabled complainant recieved an email from Tina redline of the commissioners office in relation to my requests submitted. The response made claim the known disabled complainant would recieve the requested information by August 12th, 2011.[see Exhibit 2 ] On August 16th, 2011, the board of Clark County Commissioners adopted and enacted resolution/ordinance No. 2011-08-07, after an invitation of special interested persons with prior notice of the public hearing. A true and correct copy of the resolution/ ordinance is attached to this complaint as exhibit 5 pg 4-6 and is incorporated by this reference. Notice was given to the public for the hearing by the local media outlet. No copy of the emergency moratorium resolution was included to make the public aware of : the actual facts of why an emergency moratorium was necessary and/or used, nor why a design to assault qualifying patients resolution was being promulgated , nor a planned resolution to disenfranchise the voters of the state and property owners or those whom have interests in property by the clark county-Skamania drug task force agency commander Mike Cook and the defendants political and legal advisors. The federal government may not compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations. “[T]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) The resolution/ordinance defines by reference relating to land use and zoning, continuing the temporary “prohibition“ of “any facilities for the growing or production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana prior to further study and public analysis” . The resolution also makes reference to the board needing more time to establish local criteria from churches, schools, bus stops, and other public gatherings sites to ensure that the public is properly protected. The resolution further states by reference the production, processing, dispensing of medical marijuana is an important public interest issue and the improper location of such “facilities” could cause serious harm to the public generally and particularly “VULNERABLE” populations, including youth. The resolution also makes by reference in 2011 the legislature has sought to expand the opportunities to grow, produce, process, and dispense medical marijuana in the state of Washington. On August 21st, 2011 the known disabled complainant recontacted the board of county commissioners by email again re-requesting information on the moratorium. Complainant also submitted new requests also. [ Exhibit 3 ] On August 21st, 2011 the known disabled complainant sent an email to the clark county prosecutor Tony Golik in regards to resolution NO. 2011-07-04 [see Exhibit 4 ] The defendant(s): (1) Claim they do have legal good faith authority under land use and zoning moratorium statutes to regulate and/or abate any medical use of cannabis by qualifying patients located in RCW 69.51A.025, RCW 69.51A.040, RCW 69.51A.045, RCW 69.51A.085 as it is not state law only regulated but, is federally regulated only , nor does the handicapped/disabled statute under RCW 36.70A.410 apply. [see above communications from commander mike cooke of the drug task force(s)dated June 2nd and 3rd of 2011 before the law went into operational effect] (2) Admits and acknowledg LikeLike

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 14, 2014, 12:01 am
  9. (con’t from above)

    (2) Admits and acknowledges the known disabled complainant is handicap/disabled as defined by state and federal laws.[Exhibit A ]

    (3) Admits and acknowledges the known disabled complainant has a No. 1 disability exemption rating in relation to real property taxes due to complainants federal disability status. [ Exhibit B ]

    (4) Admits and acknowledges to be in receipt of a $20 million dollar claim filed with clark county risk management dated March 17th, 2011 with the known disabled complainants retroactive social security disability ruling and order [backdating to Jan., 1st 1999] with finding of facts and conclusions of law by a federal administrative law judge containing 8 debilitating medical conditions under state and federal disability laws while using cannabis authorized under state law for complainants suspect class complex seizure disorder as defined as a HIGHLY protected class by congress and as clearly implicated in the judges order. Attached is also known disabled complainants medical records from the clark county sheriffs dept. showing complainants known disabilty status was removed by jail hired staff without cause . These records also show complainants medication was switched causing complainant to overdose contracting a seizure disorder and given no further medical treatment [Exhibit 1 ]

    (5) Admits and acknowledges the known disabled complainant lives in a dwelling as described in RCW 36.70A.410 as defendant Clark County Code Enforcement has already attempted to abate complainant due to his disability status.[ Exhibit c ]
    [Exhibit c] sent with public disclosure request of county files.

    NOTICE AND ORDER

    Attn: James Barber

    You are notified pursuant to clark county ord. no. 19757-12-51 and amendments thereto, that an “investigation” of the herein described premises has “revealed” the following “violations” of the clark co. code:

    1. OCCUPANCY OF A TRAVEL TRAILER IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R5) ZONING OR. NO. 40.210.020

    YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE OCCUPANCY OF THE TRAVEL TRAILER WITHIN TEN(10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE AND ORDER.

    A penalty of $100 per day for each violation will be assessed, beginning ten(10) working days from the date this notice and order is served, until the herein mentioned corrections have been made. In addition, a “criminal” citation may “ordered” if this violation is not “ABATED”.

    From: Ellinger, Susan (Susan.Ellinger@clark.wa.gov)
    Sent: Tue 4/19/11 11:50 AM
    To: james sr
    6 attachments
    Case # CD PDF

    content from Susan.Ellinger@clark.wa.gov
    Mr. Barber –

    Please find the additional information we received from archives with the exception of one file. Due to the size of the documents, I will second a second e-mail with the last file. If you desire data that has not been provided or find that the files do not contain the information you requested, please contact me immediately. Otherwise, please accept the additional attachment as a formal close of your records request for the county.

    Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of these materials. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Susan Ellinger
    Administrative Services Manager
    Clark County Community Development
    1300 Franklin St.
    Vancouver, WA 98660
    360-397-2375 ext 5122
    susan.ellinger@clark.wa.gov

    Well Susan,

    1) we are missing “ALL” police and court reports from the “sheriffs” office purtaining to the address and “names”.

    2)We are missing “ALL” the FEDERAL FUNDING contracts request.. drug task force of the “sheriffs” office..AND “ALL” REPORTS ABOUT ADDRESS AND NAMES ALSO.

    3)We are missing “ALL” the financials of the “CLAIMED” liens you sent..i.e. where did the money go in which “satisfied” the liens per “regulations” .. and whom paid them.

    4) Information in the file was redacted without “identifying” what was redacted by statute. it can be clearly seen but, it is whited out and not “blacked” out.

    Is the county “attempting” to use the “public disclosure request” email as a source of “legal service/notice” for the most “recent” /living/dwelling discrimination issues, without just cause[except “retaliation” for filing a “claim” against the “commissioners” and other county “elected” officials.]? I noticed a letter of a violation “claimed” … but, never found the “source” of the “complaint”.. except in the 2008 “reasonable accommodation” documents, it makes claim of a violation then but, resolved… I have never moved from my motorhome to any other dwelling…and most “recent” request for county ADA regulations officer compliance with federal law… The info. I received said to give the county my medical “evidence” … The SSA order “speaks” for itself..

    I believe the “COUNTY” has my federal SSA “DISABILITY” order RETROACTIVE TO JAN. 1, 1999… UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

    Common Sense would dictate the county is violating “FEDERAL LAW” …and may be “good” cause for “contempt charges” to be brought.

    I guess I will have to reform to filing another “risk management” claim…on different ground. and then contacting the judge whom signed the order.

    Thank you for your swift attention.

    Sincerely,

    James Barber Sr.

    Mr. Barber –

    To the extent your request asks for additional documentation, we are reviewing the records already provided to ascertain whether there may be additional documents responsive to your request. We anticipate responding on or before Friday, April 29th. If you have any questions before that time, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Susan Ellinger
    Administrative Services Manager
    Clark County Community Development
    1300 Franklin St.
    Vancouver, WA 98660

    On December 2nd, 2011 the board of clark county commissioners with the assistance of the clark county prosecutors office and Axel Swanson wrote a letter to and sent US Attorney General Eric Holder [ Exhibit 5 pg. 10 ];

    Quote : Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073 in part became Washington law on July 22, 2011. Section 403 of the new law allows qualifying patients and designated providers to “create and participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting and delivering cannabis for medical use.” Gov. Chris Gregoire, in her statement explaining a partial veto of the bill, wrote the gardens “should be conditioned on compliance with local government location and health and safety specifications.”

    As pointed out above in the governors letter she never ever made the claims the defendants make to the Attorney General of the United States of America knowingly, willingly, recklessly, disregard of the material facts. Our own Wa. State Assistant
    Attorney general letters to the governor do not refer to the collective gardens but, only the conduct under the Dept. of Agriculture and DOH licensing schemes which conflict with federal laws. It was specific to licensing of producers, processors and dispeners of cannabis and cannabis products. Their was no relation to provisons of the new law .025, .040, .045, .085 being criminal or in conflict with federal law enforcement duties. The Federal prosecutors under their distict charging discretion have choosen not to prosecute qualifying patients following state law. This reasoning is solitified by the federal court suppersion ruling noted above.

    On Jan. 17th, 2012 the DEA received the letter dated December 2nd, 2011 sent to Eric Holder for a response. This is now the 2nd United States of America public offical relying on such known, willful, reckless false and misleding statements in the discharge of their official duties. [Exhibit 5 pg. 11]

    On Feb. 2nd, 2012 the entire board of clark county commissioners recieved the response letter from Deputy Assistant Administrator of office of Diversion Control Joseph T. Rannazzisi in the discharge of his official duties. [Exhibit 11]

    Both letters sent and recieved have now been sent to all of the local jurisdictions and is also being relied upon in the discharge of their official duties of other officals in the state of Washington. [ Exhibit 14]

    On March 14th,2012 the known disabled complainant had a meeting with county prosecutor Chris Horne and Axel Swanson in which they supplied the complainant with the first of any prior requested document(s) in July of 2011 entitled “AGENDA” DATED 03/14/2012. [Exhibit 5]

    On March 26th, 2012 after sending multiple emails to Axel Swanson in regards to the known, willful, reckless disregard of the facts, he wished to meet again with the known disabled complanant to discuss my legal analysis of varing sections of rcw 69.51A as CODIFIED and my opinion on how they should be best implimented( or not implimented) by local government. The known disabled Complanant agreed to meet with Mr. Swanson. [Exhibit 6]

    On March 31st, 2012 the known disabled complanant sent an email to Clark County Administrator Bill Baron, Bill Baron has never replied except to continue on the same path. [Exhibit 7]

    On May 6th, 2012 the known disabled complainant sent an email to Axel swanson in regards to a question asked of the known disabled complainant in regards what to tell his special interest groups and friends of the homeowners assocation about the county not having any jurisdiction to ban non commercial, private use related to the qualifying patients collective gardens or discriminate against the disabled qualifying patients whom use or grow cannabis in their homes or yards out of the public view.[ Exhibit 8 ]

    On May 14th and resent on the 17th, 2012 at the request of Axel Swanson, the known disabled complainant sent an email to Axel Swanson in regards to a prudently non discriminatory proper ord. which should have been passed and also some caselaw in regards to willfully, malice, denial of sustantive due process under 42 usc 1983, passing ord. in the interest of the public ONLY, i.e reasonablness [Exhibit 9 ]

    On May 30th, 2012 the known disabled complainant sent an email to Broson Potter in regards to illegal county policy and no lawful local authority under the new codifed cannabis act in regards to the qualifying patients collective gardens and qualifying patients use. On June 6th, 2012 Mr. Potter responded he believes the county has the legal authority to to enforce zoning, business licensing, and health/safety regulations pertaining to the production, processing or dispensing of marijuana. He completely ignores and brushes off the known disabled complainants issues brought forth. [Exhibit 10 ]

    On June 9th, 2012 the known disabled complainant sent an email to the board of clark county commissioners and Axel Swanson in regards to the federal case in spokane marijuana suppression hearing order. On June 11th, 2012 commissioner Mielke replied and also cc’ others . Maybe we should have our “own” legal opinion too.tom [Exhibit 11 ]

    On June 12th, 2012 the known disabled complainant sent an email to the all 3 commissioners, Axel Swanson, Chris Horne, and Linda Roberts in regards to secion rcw 69.51A.055 showing the jurisdiction and authority is over licensed producers, prosessors, and dispensers located in subsection provison (3), not collective gardens located in provion .085, .040, .025, nor provisions located in .043, .045, .047. [Exhibit 11]

    On June 13th, 2012 @ approx. 10 am the board of clark county commisioners held a workshop in which prior to the work shop the known disabled complainant spoke with civil Deputy prosecutor Chris Horne in regards to the moratorium and lack of authority. Mr. Horne responded it was his belief the state laws are preempted by federal laws because they interfere with the federal duties if the drug task forces. In response, the known disabled complainant sent an email to Mr. Horne rebutting his assumtive beliefs, which was also cc’ to the board of county commissioners. [ Exhibit 12 ]

    On June 15th, 2012 the known disabled complainant contacted the clark county cheif deputy prosecutor for the clark county district court in regards to filing misdemeanor charges on the defenants herein. On june 15th, 2012 Mr. Jeff McCarty responed. [Exhibit 13 ]

    This complaint followed as the WSP is conflicted in interest by contract with the clark county prosecutors office and the drug task force contracts.

    [EXHIBIT 14A ]
    Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.
    RCW 9A.76.175
    A gross misdemeanor

    To sustain a conviction, the State must show that (1) a person made a false or misleading statement to a public servant and (2) that, in discharging his or her official duties, the public servant in question would reasonably rely on the false or misleading statement. This element is stated in the pattern jury instructions as: “That the defendant knew both that the statement was material and that it was false or misleading.” 11A Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 120.04, at 473 (3d ed. 2008).

    As the Court of Appeals aptly noted in State v. Budik, “[W]hile Mr. Budik may not have had any obligation to speak, … if he chose to speak, [he was not privileged to mislead] police.” State v. Budik, 156 Wn.App. 123, 128, 230 P.3d 1094, review granted, 170 Wn.2d 1008, 249 P.3d 624 (2010).

    http://www.awcnet.org/LegislativeAdvocac…juana.aspx

    Marijuana

    All articles | Archives
    Medical marijuana – 2/17/12

    The medical marijuana legislation, SB 6265, failed to advance out of the Senate before Tuesday’s cutoff. The bill included some provisions clarifying local government’s authority over collective gardens. It also prohibited cities from precluding the siting of collective gardens. That provision sparked serious disagreement among cities. The bill was subject to some potential floor amendments, and the time necessary to negotiate the amendments, coupled with the rush of cutoff, meant that the bill did not make it to the floor for a vote before the deadline. This means that there will not be any additional guidance from the state on medical marijuana for cities, and we must continue to operate under the existing law that took effect in 2011.

    Additionally, Clark County has been considering the issue of collective gardens and recently asked the Department of Justice for further clarification on the federal stance. The Department of Justice reiterated its position that marijuana is illegal and those facilitating illegal activity may be subject to legal action.
    For more information, contact Serena Dolly or Candice Bock.
    ———————————————————–

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac…QiYwivneXQ

    clarkcountylettertoDOJ.pdf
    ————————–

    http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs082…41395.html

    WSAC Legislative Steering Committee Members updated on medical cannabis

    On Wednesday evening, February 15th, WSAC Legislative Steering Committee members received an update on what counties were doing to implement SB 5073 – Medical Cannabis Collective Gardens that was passed during last year’s legislative session.

    To date, only one county (Lewis) has adopted an ordinance outlining the requirements to site/permit a Medical Cannabis Collective Garden. Several counties have put in place a moratorium and are developing and/or considering ordinances consistent with the new statute. The vast majority of counties have decided to not act at this time. The following links will provide you:

    A PowerPoint presentation prepared by Brian Enslow provided to members of WSAC Legislative Steering Committee on Wednesday night.
    A copy of a letter from Clark County Board of Commissioners to the Department of Justice.
    A copy of a letter from the Department of Justice in response to the letter from Clark County Board of Commissioners
    A summary of a survey that provides a status for what counties are doing in response to SB 5073.
    Lewis County’s Ordinance permitting such collective gardens providing a “federal license” has been issued.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact WSAC Executive Director Eric Johnson or WSAC Policy Director Brian Enslow.
    —————————–

    http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs082…41395.html

    A PowerPoint presentation prepared by Brian Enslow provided to members of WSAC Legislative Steering Committee on Wednesday night.

    Medical Cannabis:
    County Implementation Issues
    February 15, 2012
    Brian Enslow
    WSAC Policy Director
    (360) 489 8121 or
    8121-
    benslow@wacounties.org
    02/15/2012

    5
    Clark County and the DOJ
    Clark County asked the U.S Attorney General:
    “Would the Board…..or county employees b
    “W ld th Bdtl be immune from arrest and liability when, in the
    course of their jobs they do work related to
    jobs, zoning, review of permits and inspection of these
    facilities?”
    02/15/2012
    6
    Clark County and the DOJ
    U.S Attorney Response Back to Clark County:
    “anyone who knowingly carries out th marijuana
    “ h ki gl it the ij
    activities contemplated by Washington state law, as
    well as anyone who facilitates such activities or
    activities, conspires to commit such violations, is subject to
    criminal prosecutions…”

    “Such persons may also be subject to money laundering statutes”
    g
    02/15/2012

    Contact Info
    Washington State Association of Counties
    206 Tenth Avenue SE
    T hA
    Olympia, WA 98501
    (360) 489-8121
    http://www.wacounties.org/wsac
    ————————–

    —————————————————————————————-

    I have found this process to be the easiest, fastest, most citizen based way of fighting the machine.. with it’s own sword. The criminal un-justice system.

    I also through some extensive research found, one is not going to have a motion of attorney fees or CR 11 sanctions in the mix.. no such thing in this citizen criminal complaint process.. it is a constitutional wtit of sorts.. embedded in court rules.

    The process is a proven valid process, more than once.. and damage claims have been paid using it.. for harm to animals by public servants, namely the police.

    Adam Karp http://www.animal-lawyer.com/ has pioneered this process in vindication of voices which can not be heard.. the animals!

    Whom better to represent.. in a criminal process of PC.. the dead.. and severely injured..

    Regards,

    James Barber Sr.

    Like

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 14, 2014, 1:05 pm
  10. http://www.thenewtakhoman.com/Tooley%20aff.pdf

    Here is a 4 page CrRLJ 2.1 (c ) complaint by a person from out of state

    Like

    Posted by James Barber Sr. | February 14, 2014, 3:08 pm
  11. One of the smartest things we all could do is, tread the path Tim Iman has wandered down and initiate laws that force the judiciary, and the Bar, to be subject to Washington’s Public Records Act, originally codified at chapter 42.17 RCW, but now spit (only the codification) so the records portion may, now, be found under chapter 42.56 RCW.

    It would be a safe bet a large percentage of the judiciary would be scrambling like cockroaches under light, once their records became public. An equally safe bet is, many of them would go the way many went subsequent to the Cook County (Operation Graylord) group went when they were charged under the RICO Act.

    Like

    Posted by Kelly Craig | February 27, 2014, 8:47 am
  12. I also agree, this could very well represent the other avenue to proceed down that I mentioned to Bill the other day. Staying with both endeavors , including the criminal complaint I am currently preparing for U.S. District Court that clearly demonstrate the undeniable employment of RICO.

    As Bill pointed out, “the force of Internet communication” to bring us all together is a major fear for them all. Having in the past been able to single us out, gang up on us, over shadow our issues with the illegal manipulation or altercation of statute.
    The drowning of our individual voices by the RICO enjoinment of all of theirs. having this encompass the CJC, WSBA, AGO, Superior Court, Supreme Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, U.S. District Court, U.S. Attorneys Office in Seattle Wa. and the Seattle & Tacoma Offices of our FBI.

    Like

    Posted by Bruce Gambill | February 27, 2014, 1:37 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: list 236 | My Blog - January 17, 2014

  2. Pingback: Judge tells the truth… you want a fair venue, try the moon or Mars. | Corrupt New York - April 26, 2014

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please Consider a Donation

We couldn't do this without you!
wordpress visitors
Snohomish County Sheriff's Watch

Keeping An Eye On Those In Power

Research Advocates NW

Finding Answers To Life's Mysteries

Trump Tracker

Keeping Track of the 45th's Alternative Facts

Missing and Murdered of Snohomish County

Because all life matters and none should be forgotten

Washington Activist

Private Information Sharing for Washington Activists

Real Estate Scams

Broken Dreams... Broken Lives

Political Fails

When politics, government and Social Media collide

Snohomish County campus News

The back story you don't get from mainstream news

WA Social Justice Initiative

A grassroots community to help attain "Justice" for those unable to go it alone.

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks")

John Wills Lloyd

These are some personal views about living, loving, hoping, and such.

Fighting Corruption In Stevens County

The struggle for freedom lives here

Rose Marie Adams

The Evil That Lurks Within

Corrupt Washington

Fighting For Change

Did You Check First?

It's fine to have an opinion. It's better to know the facts.

Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and our Children who Want to Come Home

FAMILY COURT FRAUD AND CPS CORRUPTION, MATERNAL DEPRIVATION, GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, WAR ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ATTACK ON AMERICAN FAMILY

The Lizard Farmer

"You can't starve us out and you can't make us run 'cause we're them old boys raised on shotguns" -Bocephus

www.TheReaganWing.com

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”~ Ronald Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981

cultiv8hopedianawinslowmsw

Call for compliance with 2010 UN Human Rights Sexual Assault Response

Protecting Peoples Rights

The sworn duty of all public servants

wjr5006's Blog

Police Accountability

Rcooley123's Blog

Rick Cooley's Blog

plsef

Social Justice

No Loss for Words

Thoughts from a Back Bencher!

moviejoltz

The website where movies count

We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident

that all men are created equal

Boomerang Zone

the score is oogy to boogy

Corrigan's Cookday

Economic Gourmet Meal Experiences

Free Obituaries & Memorials

In Loving Memory of Those We Have Loved & Those We Have Loved

The Unraveling

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Spokane Police Abuses: Past to Present

The People of Spokane vs. Law Enforcement Abuse, Impunity, Corruption, and Cover-up

Spiritual Man

The Journey to a Spiritual Life

bmr250

A topnotch WordPress.com site

WatchBlog: Official Blog of the U.S. Government Accountability Office

GAO provides fact-based, nonpartisan information to Congress. The WatchBlog offers short, shareable insights from GAO reports on a wide variety of topics.

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

Tuck The Law Dog

TuckTheLawDogWordPress.com site

Corrupt WA

"At the core of the rotten onion is a corrupt lawyer"

Snohomish County Reporter

Standing for those who cannot stand for themselves

Stop Corrupt DSS

Corruption in the Department of Social Services System

lsnewsspot

Lake Stevens news source. Your community news source by choice. On Twitter @LSNewsSpot. Send news tips to: Lsnewstips@gmail.com

Queen City +Addendum

Years ago, I thought up the name Queen. It's just a name. But it's regal, obviously, and -sounds splendid. ~ Freddie Mercury

Roger Goodman - Not A Good Man

The truth has finally come out... and it's not pretty.

Straight from the Horse's Heart

A Spiritual Ride through Love, Loss and Hope

Animal Law News & Abuse

Animal Rescuer & Owner resource site: news, views, civil rights, & politics

Dairy Carrie

Live, Love, Eat Cheese

%d bloggers like this: