Today, Bill Scheidler, chief activist with http://www.CorruptWA.com filed his statement with the Kitsap County Auditor describing the ‘official misconduct’ and violations of law committed by Stephen Holman, Kitsap District Judge. As is the case, at the core of the rotten onion you find a lawyer, and Stephen Holman validates this claim.
To: Ms. Dolores Gilmore
Kitsap County Auditor
619 Division St.
Port Orchard, WA. 98366
Demanding the RECALL and DISCHARGE of Stephen J. Holman from serving as Judge, Kitsap District Court, Department 4.
I, the undersigned, William Scheidler, a resident and registered voter of Kitsap County, WA, make this sworn and verified complaint upon my personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances involved in demanding the recall and discharge of Stephen J. Holman from Judge, Kitsap District Court, by the provisions established in RCW 29A.56.110.
WA State Bar Associate, Stephen J. Holman, WSBA #8451, serving as Judge, Kitsap District Court, (a court not of record) committed the following acts that constitute malfeasance, misfeasance, violation of his oath of office, and violations of Constitutional provisions and WA State Law and his recall is demanded per Sections 33 and 34 of WA Constitution Article 1.
FACTS: On November 19, 2014, I delivered to the District Court of Kitsap County evidence that another member of the judicial branch, David Ponzoha, clerk of the court of appeals II, committed seven gross misdemeanor and one misdemeanor act to further a fraud upon the court in the racketeering enterprise consisting of WA State Bar Associates, Scott Ellerby, WSBA #16277, Jeffrey Downer, WSBA #12625, and Kevin Hull WSBA #23994. This was noted on the District Court Docket as Case Y14-04890. The complete file for this case is included as an additional offer of proof.
On December 5, 2014, Stephen J. Holman, WSBA #8451, as Judge, Kitsap District Court, conducted a motion hearing to determine my standing to file criminal charges against David Ponzoha, per Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, rule 2.1(c).
Stephen J. Holman, WSBA #8451, as Judge, Kitsap District Court asked two WA State Bar associates, who serve as state/county prosecutors, to attend the December 5th hearing for the purpose of supplying ‘evidence.’ The court record identifies Jeremy Morris, WSBA #28722, as one of the prosecutors, the other is unidentified. The duty imposed upon these Bar Associates, serving as prosecutors, is mandated by statute, RCW 10.16.110, which states,
“It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the proper county to inquire into and make full examination of all the facts and circumstances connected with any case of preliminary examination,…”
These WSBA associates, Jeremy Morris and one other, serving as prosecutors, deliberately withheld evidence and failed to examine all the facts as they are required by law to do. The evidence and facts were pivotal as Judge Holman inquired, repeatedly, about the existence of this ‘evidence’. This “evidence” and its existence was based upon my sworn testimony that the “evidence” existed as a public document, an “Opening Brief,” and was held by defendant, David Ponzoha, in a pouch found at the appellate court.
A public document, as this “Opening Brief” is, is clearly evidence and fact available to these WSBA lawyers, Jeremy Morris and one other, serving as prosecutors. This “failure” of these two prosecutors to perform a statutory duty imposed upon them by RCW 10.16.110, to obtain this document and examine its factual value is “official misconduct” – a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9A.80.010, and constitutes “concealing evidence” – gross misdemeanor under RCW 9A.72.150.
Stephen Holman’s blind-eye to the failure of these two prosecutors, Jeremy Morris and one other, whose lawful duty was to inquire into and make a full examination of all the facts, constitutes “complicity” in these gross misdemeanor acts by these prosecutors under the principles of liability codified by WA Statute RCW 9A.08.020.
As a consequence of the WSBA lawyers, serving as prosecutors, neglecting their duty by deliberately withholding evidence and fact, Stephen Holman penalized me and denied my ‘wish to file criminal charges’ against David Ponzoha for his crimes. Now, Stephen Holman and the two prosecutors, due to their “official misconduct” must be held complicit in the criminal conduct committed by David Ponzoha under the same statutory principles of RCW 9A.08.020. Said another way, one deliberate act of misconduct to protect another deliberate act of misconduct, which protects yet another deliberate act of misconduct, and so on … implicates them all in each and every criminal act committed by one or all.
Furthermore, Stephen J. Holman, irrespective of the evidence withheld, intentionally misstated the law and misstated court rules as yet another despicable tactic to save the fraud being committed by his colleagues of the WA State Bar, Scott Ellerby, Jeffrey Downer and Kevin Hull, and judicial colleague David Ponzoha. For Stephen Holman to misstate law and court rules constitutes filing a “false report”, which is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 42.20.040.
As an adverse consequence to me, by the gross misdemeanor acts by Stephen Holman and the two prosecutors noted above, my request to file criminal charges against David Ponzoha was denied. And David Ponzoha was permitted to escape his crimes and the fraud upon the court in the theft of $119,272.45 by WA State Bar Associates Scott Ellerby, Jeffrey Downer and Kevin Hull, and their misallocation of government tax money in funding this fraud, was consummated approximately 4 weeks later.
Nevertheless, in my civic duty to report and prosecute criminal conduct committed by David Ponzoha occurring within the judicial branch, I provided the needed evidence – a copy of the document, and re-submitted an additional motion to amend Stephen J. Holman’s findings and order denying the criminal prosecution of David Ponzoha.
Now Stephen Holman had the evidence he needed. I also, in the motion to amend, corrected Stephen Holman’s errors of law and errors in citing court rules. I specifically reminded Stephen Holman that the people determine governments “just powers” not public servants determining their own power. I noted that this mandate reserved to the people is enshrined in WA State’s Constitution Article 1, Section 1. However Stephen Holman has ignored all that I have done, ignored all that I have provided and argued, so his colleague of the judicial branch, David Ponzoha, can escape the law and the racketeering scheme of Ellerby, Downer, Hull and Ponzoha can proceed to completion.
These unlawful things that Stephen J. Holman did are done to save a fraud being perpetrated upon the court by his colleagues of the judicial branch — David Ponzoha, Scott Ellerby, Jeffrey Downer and Kevin Hull – and constitute violations of Stephen Holman’s oath to be impartial and to faithfully perform the duties of his office – NOT to be complicit in the gross misdemeanor acts of Ponzoha, or to further a racketeering scheme by Ellerby, Downer, Kevin Hull and the two prosecutors – Jeremy Morris and one other.
Oath — District judges — Court commissioners.
Each district judge, district judge pro tempore and district court commissioner shall, before entering upon the duties of office, take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and to perform the duties of the office faithfully and impartially and to the best of his or her ability.
Additionally, during the motion hearing of December 5th, I raised the obvious fact that my wish to institute criminal charges against David Ponzoha, Clerk of the Court of Appeals II, concerns a judicial colleague of Stephen Holman. In addition my criminal complaint against David Ponzoha has at its vortex the “Official Misconduct” statute, RCW 42.20, which Stephen J. Holman must also abide by. These conflicts were of concern to me in that a colleague of and the laws governing David Ponzoha are shared with Stephen Holman. For these conflict reasons I indicated the “disqualification” of Stephen Holman was required – by law! I suggested an alternative to resolve this ‘conflict’ by having an impartial “jury” address the evidence and crimes of David Ponzoha. This alternative suggestion of mine, for an impartial decision-maker, is authorized by statute, RCW 2.28.150. Stephen Holman refused to disqualify himself for conflict and refused a lawful alternative to resolve the conflict. Clearly Stephen Holman’s direct interest was not to abide by the law, but to insure his colleagues, Ponzoha, Ellerby, Downer, and Hull, escaped accountability. Stephen Holman’s refusal to ‘disqualify’, which is mandated by law – RCW 3.34.110, are gross misdemeanor violations per RCW 9A.80.010 and RCW 42.20.080 and a misdemeanor violation per RCW 42.20.100. Full citations are noted below. Furthermore, Stephen Holman’s unlawful conduct to let Jeremy Morris, and the other WSBA lawyer serving as prosecutor, and David Ponzoha escape accountability for their misconduct is in effect a legislative act to legalize or grant immunity to these wrongdoers when he is without such legislative power notwithstanding such legalization or immunities are prohibited by WA Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, and Article 2, Section 28(12).
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED AND VIOLATED BY STEPHEN J. HOLMAN, WSBA # 8451
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 28 SPECIAL LEGISLATION. The legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases:
12. Legalizing, except as against the state, the unauthorized or invalid act of any officer.
District judicial officers — Disqualification.
(1) A district court judicial officer shall not preside in any of the following cases:
(a) In an action to which the judicial officer is a party, or in which the judicial officer is directly interested, or in which the judicial officer has been an attorney for a party.
(b) When the judicial officer or one of the parties believes that the parties cannot have an impartial trial or hearing before the judicial officer. The judicial officer shall disqualify himself or herself under the provisions of this section if, before any discretionary ruling has been made, a party files an affidavit that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing by reason of the interest or prejudice of the judicial officer. The following are not considered discretionary rulings: (i) The arrangement of the calendar; (ii) the setting of an action, motion, or proceeding for hearing or trial; (iii) the arraignment of the accused; or (iv) the fixing of bail and initially setting conditions of release. Only one change of judicial officer is allowed each party in an action or proceeding.
(2) When a judicial officer is disqualified under this section, the case shall be heard before another judicial officer of the same county.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “judicial officer” means a judge, judge pro tempore, or court commissioner.
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 or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
Other violations by officers.
Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall willfully disobey any provision of law regulating his or her official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.
Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their wilful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.
Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
Statement of prosecuting attorney if no information filed — Court action.
It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the proper county to inquire into and make full examination of all the facts and circumstances connected with any case of preliminary examination, as provided by law, touching the commission of any offense wherein the offender shall be committed to jail, or become recognized or held to bail; and if the prosecuting attorney shall determine in any such case that an information ought not to be filed, he or she shall make, subscribe, and file with the clerk of the court a statement in writing containing his or her reasons, in fact and in law, for not filing an information in such case, and such statement shall be filed at and during the session of court at which the offender shall be held for his or her appearance: PROVIDED, That in such case such court may examine such statement, together with the evidence filed in the case, and if upon such examination the court shall not be satisfied with such statement, the prosecuting attorney shall be directed by the court to file the proper information and bring the case to trial.
I certify and swear, under oath, that the facts set forth in this statement are true and correct and I believe the charges to be true and have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the stated recall grounds are based.
Submitted this 5th day of February 2015.
1515 Lidstrom Place E.
Port Orchard, WA 98366
State of Washington
County of Kitsap
Signed and sworn to before me on February 5, 2015 by William Scheidler.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
(Seal or stamp)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
My appointment expires . . . . . . . . . . . .