Exposing corruption regardless of the cost

74497___gustavorezende___Kids_6_03

Washington State Bar lead counsel Linda Eide is linked to several racketeering scandals.  We are in the process of breaking one of the largest RICO scandals in Washington State history.  The Racketeering Enterprise involves Snohomish County public officials, two WA Court of Appeal Judges, a former Governor, prominent law firm in Everett, Gold Bar city attorney Michael Kenyon, and the Washington State Bar.

We called several public officials from several of the above agencies, but all refused comment as of today.  To give our readers a little taste as to what’s coming.  Here goes.  Washington one time had an attorney general who cost the taxpayers of Washington State 19 M dollars because she failed to supervise an associate.  Because we’re still waiting for the Washington State Bar and two Judges from Washington State Court of Appeals Div I. To comment, we will hold off on our story.

Until next week, read below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Our readers are going to love it, while the taxpayers may not.  Stay tuned.

Snohomish County Washington; Domestic Spying

65-Free-Conceptual-Retro-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Curious-Man-Spying-With-Binoculars

In early 2009 when I filed a public records suit against Snohomish County and the City of Gold Bar, I had no clue that what I was about to uncover was the largest RICO scandal in Washington State history until a few months ago.

Things changed when I discovered that a Washington State Bar hearing officer’s convicted killer boyfriend Mark Plivilech set up a post office box in Duvall Washington within months after his girlfriend and a Washington State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel Hearing Officer Lin O’Dell was assigned to adjudicate John E. Pennington’s ( a political appointee here in Snohomish County Washington) witness statement he filed against the Gold Bar Reporters in retaliation for its (in furtherance of the Enterprise efforts) six year investigation of John Pennington’s last 30 years of crimes against women and children.

From our six year investigation we are confident to report that John E. Pennington is a pedophile, a wife beater, a child abuser, a prime suspect in a child rape case, a pathological liar, a sociopath, and his county travel records indicate that there are missing children cases that he should be investigated for in Alaska, Maryland, and Washington State.

The biggest blunder the Enterprise made was when we discovered that Washington State Bar’s hearing officer Lin O’Dell’s  killer boyfriend Mark Plivilech set up a post office box within three blocks of John and Crystal Hill Pennington’s home in Duvall Washington.

We recently learned that the Washington State Supreme Court does not monitor the Office of Disciplinary Council members. If they had, they would have discovered what we uncovered about attorney Lin O’Dell – she’s a thief, was cited by Judge Monasmith for stealing from Paula Fowler in Stevens County, has major problems with IRS tax liens, and Spokane County records document that Lin O’Dell and Plivilech have a hell of a lot of shady businesses and are taken advantage of elderly adults. Simply put, attorney Lin O’Dell is a criminal, as is John Pennington.

“Birds of the same feathers flock together as do pigs and swine…”

How we learned that Washington State Supreme Court was not monitoring its Disciplinary Board  was very simple; Supreme Court Clerk Carpenter wrote an email letter to a concerned Washington State resident stating that the Supreme Court does not concern itself with the Office of Disciplinary Council. A legal issue that the US Supreme Court just held in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission  that if the overseers of the Board are not monitoring its Board members they open themselves up for $$$ liability. Stupid is as stupid does.

Now back to convicted killer Mark Plivilech; Plivilech has never had any business dealing on this side of the state until his girlfriend who is also a WA State Bar hearing officer named Lin O’Dell was handpicked by WA State Bar Chief Hearing Officer Joseph Nappi Jr.  (who violated Professional Rules of Conduct) assigned his direct business associate Lin O’Dell as the hearing officer to adjudicate pedophile John E. Pennington’s complaints ( written by our wonderful RICO Enterprise members from Snohomish County’s Prosecutors Office, an issue that Sean Reay and Margaret King are being sued for under RICO, Hobbs Act and Sherman Anti-Trust).

How I discovered the domestic spying ring here in Snohomish County Washington was a direct result of John E. Pennington’s ex-wife’s divorce records in King County Washington.   After John Pennington was charged with assaulting ( police reports confirm that Pennington kicked and punched Anne in her uterus) his 3rd trimester ( three weeks from delivery) pregnant wife Anne in King County, he got sloppy in his illegal retrieval of sealed court records. In 2009 after being charged with criminal assault for the second time ( first criminal assault lead to a guilty plea in Oregon in the early 1990s), John Pennington misused his Homeland Security Clearance to access sealed criminal convictions records of his soon to be former spouse’s friend. Unfortunately, John Pennington used Snohomish County fax machines and disseminated his illegal searches into his King County divorce records.

Soon after the illegal dissemination of sealed criminal records he should not have had access to, John Pennington’s Homeland Security was revoked. But not before Pennington managed to retrieve a “ spider” of files on Gold Bar Reporter Anne Block and her family members.

According to one Gold Bar council member, John E. Pennington illegally accessed Block’s family information including her sister’s mental health records and disseminated those via email to Gold Bar’s governing body in early 2009. Further evidence of John Pennington’s domestic spying was confirmed by the Massachusetts FBI in Boston in August 2012.

Gold Bar’s former City attorney Jeffrey Myers deposition of Anne Block was telling. Instead of asking questions about what public records Anne Block had in her possession, Mr. Myers started with an improper line of questioning about whether Block had changed her name, whether she files her taxes,  how many children she had, what her income was, etc. all non-permissible questioning in a public records case.

Three months ago, the IRS confirmed that an illegal  IRS check was made on Block after she started reporting on John E. Pennington’s criminal conduct. John E. Pennington is being sued under RICO after county records confirmed that he was one of many county employees posting threats to physically harm Gold Bar activist Block on his blog spot titled ” The Sky Valley Chronicle.”

What Gold Bar Reporter Block noticed from attorney Jeff Myers deposition questioning was that he was writing on the side of Block’s deposition testimony “LODS.” For those of our readers who do not understand what “LODS” means it’s an acronym for “ Lying on Deposition Statement.”

I suspect whatever attorney Jeffrey Meyers saw, he must have believed it, or as Gold Bar resident Noel Frederck said “ he (Myers) wanted to believe it !”

Anne’s so sorry Jeffrey Myers, but she has never been treated at a mental health facility nor has she ever been treated for mental health issues of any kind. But she does know someone close to her that has been.

Did you know that retrieval and dissemination of mental health records in Massachusetts is a felony? Did you know that Mass laws prohibit the retrieval and dissemination of mental health records by anyone including medical doctors? Stupid is as stupid does!

As for me, I believe that people who do have mental health problems have an absolute right to privacy that should not be evaded simply because a relative who lives 3,000 miles away exercises her legal right to access John Pennington’s email communication in 2009.

And just how a sister and brother of mine in Mass got involved, we’re working on that story . . . and let’s just say that John E. Pennington is a fuckin sociopath who belongs behind bars.

John Pennington, Joe Beavers and Crystal Hill should be extradited  back to Mass for criminal prosecution, noting that Mass Statute of Limitations toll when its out of state residents. So sad for the RICO gang; Mass has the strictest laws on disseminating mental records ( not even doctors are permitted to disseminate mental health records).

So there you go, the story of why Gold Bar’s Mayor Joe Beavers stole over 1M dollars of water and street money to hide public records and why Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe is protecting John Pennington. Criminal RICO in its finest.

And they think I’m a thorn in their sides, they haven’t dealt with my sister and her husband yet.  But they will be soon.

John Pennington will be brought to justice for his crimes regardless of whether it takes me 30 days or 30 years.  Pennington and those who assisted him in committing crimes are the real threat to a free society and must be brought to justice regardless of the time or money.  Just think of how different Our World would be today if someone exposed Adolf Hitler long before World War II.

Atifete Jahjaga said:

Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation.

 

Gold Bar’s pot smoking Mayor pushes growing farms to generate revenue

4T9Ej7rTE03-03-15  CC Agenda (2)

MARCH 3, 2015, 7 PM; LIMITED SUPPLIES SO DONT BE LATE FOR THIS COUNCIL MEETING 

Residents are asked to bring your pot pipes, rolling papers, and bongs to the next Gold Bar City Council Meeting, March 3, 2015.

Gold Bar’s Mayor Linda Loen will be providing one of the best marijuana strains we’ve ever tried called ” Fuckin Incredible.”   Also, free pizza, Redhook brews ( on tap so bring your cups) and free coke ( roll up those dollar bills and snort, snort, snort away) to help curve your craven for munchies.

Its going to be a family event, so don’t be late. Limited seating.

74497___gustavorezende___Kids_6_03

All in good humor, satire 100 % for sure. For those of you who know no humor, get a life, or take a toke and get the joke.

23 Gay People are Citizens too and are entitled to the same Constitutional Rights

goldbarreporter:

Keep up the great work Idahoans’

Originally posted on CBS Seattle:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Police arrested roughly two dozen gay rights activists Monday after protesters refused to leave the Idaho Senate and House chambers in an attempt to pressure lawmakers into passing anti-discrimination protections.

Idaho State Police said they arrested 23 people on suspicion of misdemeanor trespassing, two of whom were juveniles.

Activists taking part in the demonstration warned beforehand they would not voluntarily leave until legislators consider adding four words — sexual orientation and gender identity — to the Idaho Human Rights Act. They wore black-and-white “Add the 4 Words Idaho” T-shirts and stood silently by covering their mouths with their hands.

“Plain and simply, it is time the Idaho Legislature to use its voice to set the field level for those who live quiet lives in all our communities, those who are your own daughters and sons, those who deserve for our state to set in law that…

View original 206 more words

Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Public Records Officer violates RCW 42.56

080917-131233-460007  Over the past 5 months, the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office has gone through three public records officers, Jamie Jardine, Stacey Malstead and Caroline Darrow.

Jamie Jardine obstructed access to OUR records time and time again before she simply threw in the towel and  retired at the ripe age of 49.

Stacey Malstead came and went in a matter of three months.  One source inside Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office stated to the Gold Bar Reporters that Mark Roe destroyed records involving Kevin Thomas Hulten and ordered Ms. Malstead to commit a felony ( destruction of public records). Ms. Malstead refused and resigned after only 5 weeks on the job, and only after Mark Roe intentionally destroyed records knowing that there was a litigation hold on all records.

Now, Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office has a new law breaker answering public records, Ms. Caroline Darrow. Ms. Darrow is not new to Snohomish County’s illegal activities, she comes from Snohomish County Public Works. Let’s not forget that Public Works is partly responsible for causing the deaths of 44 Oso mudslide residents in March 2014.

We are in the process of providing a full investigative blog on Ms. Darrow and will update our readers once our final report is finished.  What’s more interesting is how Snohomish County shuffles its internal lawbreakers to the Prosecutor’s Office.  Stay tuned

Open government, and the principles of Our founding fathers, means more to me than life

74497___gustavorezende___Kids_6_03

” I have but one life to live and shall be for the betterment of my society as a whole.”  Anne Block, Gold Bar Reporter, journalist and author.

In 2014, when Gold Bar’s former Mayor Joe Beavers offered me money to go away, I said ” not until you comply with the Public Records Act.”  So here we are six years later; after attorneys Michael Kenyon, Margaret King, Ann Marie Soto and Gold Bar’s Mayor Joe Beavers misused over $1,000,000.00 of taxpayer monies covering up crimes committed by two government thugs, John E. Pennington and Crystal Hill.

The sun is starting to shine again inside the little community of Gold Bar.  Joe Beavers and Crystal Hill are about to be exposed in one of the largest RICO scandals in Washington State history, and involves a fake online news paper set up to criminally harass anyone who questions local government here in Snohomish County.

But all is not lost!  Today the United State Supreme Court just held that the Board of Dental Examiners is liable for the actions of its directors if they failed to actively  supervise their employees.  Sound familiar?  Well it should, because this issue correlates with the WA State Supreme Court’s inactions in monitoring several political attacks that WA Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel attorneys Linda Eide, Lin O’Dell, Joseph Nappi Jr., Craig Bray, and Scott Busby are doing to any Bar member who speaks out or tries to tackle corrupt activities of agency employees or judges. Simply put, we have enough evidence to say they are guilty of RICO.

For those of you interested in following what’s going to happen to the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel, you should read http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/north-carolina-board-of-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commission/

Lets just say reform for the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Council is coming from the 9th Circuit!  We say ” Let the sunshine in and let it shine until the cockroaches are removed from their positions!”

The sooner citizens say ” we’ve had enough, the sooner the corrupt bastards ruining our home land will be gone from public office.

Let the sunshine through the walls of corruption

74497___gustavorezende___Kids_6_03

It’s been six years and the sun is about to shine through the corrupt public walls inside Snohomish County public offices.  From John E. Pennington misappropriating our monies hiding his crimes, which we believe amounts to domestic terrorism, domestic spying, racketeering threats to our lives, sending us threats to burn crosses on our lawn, racist comments he emailed in 2009 to  Gold Bar’s then Mayor and his mistress Crystal Hill, and exposing his pedophilia ring,  sunshine for the corrupt scums ruining our County is coming in 2015.

Once we crack the safe, we are going to keep the flood lights shining on Snohomish County until every single government cockroach, like John E. Pennington, find new homes, preferably in Tennessee.

The men in blue, make us all proud to be Americans! Bravo to Albuquerque news reporters for exposing this bastard who betrayed the public’s trust.

Byers_taped_threats1

Another Recall coming against Snohomish County Prosecutor And Executive

Snohomish County turns over more public records confirming that not only is Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe misappropriating public funds but Executive John Lovick is too.

Stacey Malstead, a public records officer, turned over checks signed by Executive John Lovick confirming that Lovick is also funding convicted criminal and former Executive employee named Kevin Hulten.

As such, more Recall Petitions will be filed, one against John Lovick and another one against Mark Roe. Roe was recently caught misappropriating public resources and funds to fight off a Recall Petition filed against him. Records show that Mark Roe illegally used Snohomish County Prosecutor Lyndsey Downs in violation of Wa State laws.

A local Gold Bar resident Noel Frederck said ” I’m going to file another Recall Petition against Roe for unlawfully misusing Our prosecutors for his own personal gain. Another Recall will be filed by Friday. I also saw checks signed by Executive John Lovick misappropriation of public funds, so I will also file a Recall against Lovick.”

Gold Bar Reporters purchase new websites and plans to expand horizons

The Gold Bar Reporters are proud to announce the purchase of several new domain names and our plans to expand our services.  In an effort to combat Washington State corruption, and knowing that the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel is at the eye of this storm, we decided to purchase several members names.

The purpose  is to expose corruption within our system of government here in Washington State. Every site we purchased will be not for profit and will allow victims of any agency to post public records on any issue involving the members.

LIndaEide, Linda ODell, JosephNappiJr, MonicaMasson, and SethFine are just four of the names of WA State Bar members names we purchased in our effort to expose the corrupt thugs stealing from our elderly, the poor, and their efforts to further the goals of RICO Enterprise.

More RICO allegations against the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel

COMES NOW Appellant ALAN F. HALL, by and through ALAN F. HALL, Pro Se and submits this Pro Se brief pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Sui Generis Jurisdiction.

My name is Alan F. Hall. I am the Petitioner in the captioned matter. I am also a lawyer who has been practicing law in Washington State since 1974. I am 70 years old.

The first 25 years of my practice centered in litigation. As a litigator I have approximately 40 trials to my credit. Most of those trials occurred in King County Superior Court and Snohomish County Superior Court. The cases in those courts of general jurisdiction were before juries. I also have four reported cases at the appellate level the most notable of which established the current ruling on landlord/tenant law in Washington State. (Muci v. Graoch)

As a litigator in Washington State’s Superior Courts I experienced the importance of court rules, how they apply to both sides of a case and the consequences of when a participant does not follow those rules. A litigator can do damage to himself, his client and our system of jurisprudence without strict compliance.

I respected this system very much and found I could successfully operate within it.

Then, around 2002, I was confronted with a grievance against me   and I became intimate with the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules relating to lawyer discipline. That is not to say I was not familiar with them before this event. It is that a grievance makes you want to reexamine them. I also reviewed the oath I took upon being admitted to the practice of law.

I did a little more digging on these issues and found that the Washington State Supreme Court is the branch of our State government that is responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct and indirectly our oath as attorneys. Those rules were created by the Supreme Court pursuant to legislative authority from another branch of our government, the Washington State Legislature.

I also learned that the scheme of jurisdictional procedure that the Supreme Court imposes on the discipline of lawyers is called Sui Generis. Black’s Law Dictionary (1968 edition) defines Sui Generis: “Of its own kind or class, i.e., the only one of its own kind, peculiar.”

At this stage of my quest to learn more about the process of disciplining lawyers in Washington state, I felt comfortable with the system. After all, doctors are regulated; dentists are regulated, as are the police.

But then an interesting thing happened. I learned how the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court, defines sui generis and I did not like it. If fact I found it frightening as a threat to our democracy, disingenuous, unfair and likely to promote a cadre of minions capable of staffing potential governmental enforcement agencies capable of doing great harm to our democracy.

Respectfully, the history of enforcement agencies is replete with similar phenomenon of Sui Generis at various stages of development that compare with the stage of development that our Sui Generis system is now in. One has to look no further than pre WW II Germany. If you want to see how a fifth stage Sui Generis system operates watch the Movie Sophie Scholl one of the most famous members of the German World War II anti Nazi resistance movement, The White Rose. Pay close attention to how the lawyers behave in that movie.

Very harsh words, but they are carefully chosen particularly after my substantial observations stemming from two Washington State Bar Association ODC hearings on grievances filed against me. In fact I would say the referenced post 1933 Weimar Republic Germany model only differs from the Washington State’s Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system in that the Washington State’s Sui Generis system does not allow for torture and execution. Yet.

I make these bold statements on observed verifiable and well documented facts.

The first hearing in which I was involved the Grievant was represented by her personal attorney Elizabeth Turner Smith. The problem was that Ms. Smith was either applying for employment with the ODC or working for the ODC at the same time she was representing the Grievant. I learned about this half way through the hearing and did not know what to make of it at the time. Then I thought about it after the fact and believed it to be a clear violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine and the RPCs relating to conflict of interest and candor to the Court. If Ms. Smith was applying for a job with the ODC, then how could she possibly make impartial decisions relating to her client?

It occurred to me she was using her representation of the grievant as part of her job application with the ODC. And the ODC was condoning her violation of rules relating to conflict of interest. She should have told the hearing officer of her status with the ODC.

I also learned that my insurance company would mediate the claim the grievant had but that if I pled guilty to the grievance I would lose coverage. So the Bar Association offered to mediate this case but Ms. Smith refused. Was she acting in the best interest of her client or was she continuing her job application?

I was found to have violated the rule relating to diligence. And in fact my diligence had cost my client $10,000. An honest mistake that I would have admitted to if I would not lose coverage. I was paying approximately $500 per month for coverage. I maintained coverage for my entire career. So, instead of settling this case, Ms. Smith choose to go thru three days of hearing with her client, use the resources of the Bar Association and waste my time.

My response to this was to file a complaint against Ms. Smith. She replied on Bar Association letter head. You can guess how that turned out.

I claimed she had violated the RPC rule requiring ODC lawyers to act in good faith. At one time there was a rule that stated ODC lawyers had to act in good faith. I learned that the ODC had that language removed from the rule without any hearing.

That event caused me great stress to think that a State Supreme Court authorized agency could violate their own rules like that and get away with it. Further it appears they can modify the RPC rules to suit their own behavior without a hearing.

One positive was that I began to learn what the Office of Defense Counsel’s definition of Sui Generis was.

But there was more.

A grievance was filed against me in 2010. The ODC sat on the issues for about 5 months. I called and asked for my files back. They had asked for the original documents when the grievance was filed and, in writing, promised to return them upon request.

I called up and asked for the files back and was told by Francesca D’Angelo, an attorney with the ODC, that I would be lucky if I got a copy of them back. At this point I had been paying dues into this organization for approximately 38 years. I expected more professionalism.

And so the definition of Sui Generis starts to flesh out.

The grievance that was filed against me is the subject of the captioned petition. By that point both of my clients had passed away and, interestingly, the ODC never statementized them.

During the first hearing I began to get an in depth observation of the ODC Sui Generis.

  1. The ODC has access to volunteer lawyers. I did not.
  2. The ODC has access to volunteer experts. I did not.
  3. I requested the hearing officer to allow me access to the volunteer experts so that I could find an expert. Denied.
  4. The Hearing Officer on oral spontaneous motion grated ODC’s motion to prevent any of my testimony of my relationship with the grievant based on the dead man’s statute. This was overturned in the second hearing.
  5. I tried to hire counsel. They all wanted $350 per hour. I could not afford that.
  6. Randolph Petgrave was the Hearing Officer. He should have recused himself because his father and I were friends from college. I asked him to do this in the first trial. He refused.            In fact, Mr. Petgrave the elder coincidently was nominated to be the hearing officer in my first grievance. He recused himself.

Whatever Petgrave the younger is, he is not a jurist.

  1. The ODC has institutional knowledge as to the proclivity of the hearing officers. Are they plaintiff oriented or defense oriented? This is vitally important information. Lawyers do not have access to that information.

The whole sui generis thing was turning into a farce.

I learned that I could have a lawyer appointed for me if I could not represent myself. As that point what choice did I have?

Even then Sui Generis gets more farcical.

At the second hearing I had counsel. He was intimately tied to the Bar Association. In fact as far as I know the Bar Association is his only source of income

  1. My lawyer tells me that the volunteer expert for the state is lawyer Barbara Isenhower. He further tells me that her husband is John Strait an ethics professor at one of the local law schools. I also learn that Barbara and her ethics professor husband want to use my case, assuming I am found guilty, in Mr. Strait’s ethics class.
  2. The Will and the Trust agreement admitted into evidence name Nancy Caputo, the grievant’s niece as contingent beneficiary of an estate worth about $400,000. It also comes out that the client’s ex-wife, Linda Orf, the one who files the grievance, through the help of Jamie Clausen ends up with every penny of the estate pursuant to Jamie Clausen’s legal work. Ms. Clausen names herself as Trust Protector which is exactly what she claims I did in my documents.
  3. Jamie Clausen testifies. But there is no testimony from Lind Orf, or any affidavits from the clients. In fact the grievance is not even entered into evidence. That is because it was filed by Linda Orf.
  4. The Hearing Officer finds that my testimony is not credible even though the ODC never put my credibility in issue.
  5. ER Rule 608 governs the procedure for attacking credibility. It was not followed by the ODC or the Hearing Officer. In fact the highly respected research tool BING responds vary favorably to the query: “How to impeach witness’s credibility before an administrative agency?” The internet tome on impeaching credibility is found in

E-How and the article is “How to Challenge Witness Credibility before MSPB.” Therein lies the step by step process for impeaching credibility before any agency including the ODC. Again Mr. Petgrave’s reasoning is unsupported by any legally recognized rule relating to this issue.

In a word what I observed was a genetic mutation in the fabric of our democracy, our judicial system and our constitution. The Washington State Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system has the potential to spread into a very destructive cancer and apoptosis is in order.

Conclusion:

There is a very compelling saying: “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Sui Generis as it is practiced by the Washington State Bar Association should be removed. But that is not enough.

Lawyers must organize. The police have a guild, why can’t lawyers? Right now they have the highest rate of suicides amongst any profession. They are easy targets for any malcontent client and of course sole practitioners are the low hanging fruit of choice for the ODC. Further, lawyers are losing ground in the fields that they can practice in.

As I mentioned I am 70 years old. I do not want to get suspended or disbarred. Yet at my age what the hell difference does it make?

What I am most concerned about is our democracy. I am equally concerned about the younger lawyers. In fact I think they have a good cause of action against their so called ethics professors for not teaching Sui Generis in law schools. I suspect if potential law students were told about Sui Generis they would not want to even go to law school.

I wouldn’t.

I request that you think about it. Imagine yourself as a beginning lawyer, you are married and maybe have a child or two. Then you are confronted by Sui Generis. If you are reprimanded your reputation is ruined forever. It is just too easy for the ODC to win and bully you into submission.

Finally, it is noted I am on non-disciplinary suspension and have been for approximately three years even though the ODC stipulated I could continue to practice during the course of this Sui Generis process.

As soon as I went on non-disciplinary suspension the Bar Association stripped me of my Bar membership without any hearing. I no longer had access to the Bar News or research facilities that I had paid dues for 38 years to support. This greatly hindered my effort to do research and keep up on lawyer news that might have been helpful to my case.

Because of all this I believe that there should be an innocence project. I suggest that any lawyer either living or dead who as ever been admonished, reprimanded of disbarred have their case reviewed. If they were not afforded adequate representation or were subject to abuses spelled out herein, then the decision should be reversed.

One final observation: The ODC lawyer handling the opposition to my appeal, Scott Busby, continues to mislead the tribunal. He claims I was being paid to $2,000 per quarter to administer a Trust with only $49.00 dollars in it. This is totally false and misleading. All one has to do is read the Trust to find out what my very substantial duties were.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS        day of _______ 2014.
By_______________________________________

Alan F. Hall JD

cc. Individual Members of the Board of Governors, WSBA


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ___ day of February, 2015, I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing petitioner’s pro se brief by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the following:

Allison Sato Clerk of the Disciplinary Board Washington State Bar Association 1325 Fourth Avenue – Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 £ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy
Francesca D’Angelo

Disciplinary Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 90101-2539

£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy
Scott G. Busby ( another piece of shit from WSBA ODC)

Washington State Bar Association

1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101-2539

£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail:   £ Telecopy:   206-682-2305
Randolph O. Petgrave Petgrave & Petgrave PLLC P.O. Box 4142 100 S King St Ste 405 Seattle, WA 98104-2817 £ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail:   randgrave@msn.com £ Telecopy:   206-583-0422

                                                                        Stephen C. Smith

Snohomish County public records confirm Aaron Reardon and Jon Rudicil involved in Racketeering scandal, Kevin Thomas Hulten did not act alone

From: Reardon, Aaron

Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:47 PM

To: Hulten, Kevin

Cc: Rudicil, Jon

Subject: Re: DRAFT legislative agenda/PDR law

Any change that is pursued must be constructive. Going after requesters is punitive.

I’ve talked I Dow and Pat at length about slight modifications. The PDR is a public right and serves a public interest. Any change must do the same.

Politicians and bureaucrats serve the public. Thus, if a change is pursued intended to make the life of a public employee easier and make the publics access to public information more difficult then it is inherently contradictory to the act.

I hate to sound like I’m taking a “suck it up, butter cup” approach” but the fact is any change pursued must be premised on improving the act, maintaing the publics access and minimizing abuse.

We’re on the same page.

BTW, I had to laugh about the issue of newspapers. That’s actually more interesting than funny. One could write a term paper on the differences based on ownership and audience – ie local weeklies v dailies owned by out of state corps. And, dailies locally owned v out of state corporate ownership.

Reminds me of the the age old question “What’s in a name?” ST is Seattle based but locally owned. The Herald is a local office but driven and owned by DC. Further, it would be interesting to see what their respective corporates target as their profit percentage. There’s your Masters thesis.

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This message may contain protected information by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or

distribution of its contents is prohibited.  If you receive this

message in error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail

address listed above and delete this message without printing,

copying, or forwarding it.  Thank you.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 8:48 PM, “Hulten, Kevin” <Kevin.Hulten@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Great stuff. I agree that requiring verification for PDRs as a legislative agenda item would be a waste of a chit and an invitation for enemies to incorrectly smear our office as opaque. Further, the fact that the example given to illustrate the supposed problem involved a named requester – “Our friend Edmond” – illustrates what opponents will label as the true motivations behind this idea: the ability to question the identity of a requester based on the objectionable or politically inconvenient subject matter of the request. Would staff be questioning the identity of this requestor if the request was for, say, Charter Review documents? Doubtful. Which is why we’d be laughed out of Olympia and skewered in the press. I think you are right on.

I did tell Gage about my conversations last session with major left-leaning Open Government stakeholders who voiced an interest in working with municipalities in the background to address some serious issues before an inevitable whiplash occurs. They know that the public isn’t going to like reading about another small town that can’t afford to plow its streets or light its Christmas tree because of individuals with vendettas and the ability to request  thousands and thousands of documents at a time, often with no intent to pick up or pay for the order at all. It was my feeling that there may be a willingness to introduce some sort of cost-based pay-to-play system after a certain threshold is crossed. Or, perhaps a system where requests are always free, but those who wish to have expedited service can pay a significant premium to subsidize the rest. Something like that, maybe. Alternatively, the “stick” approach might work too: severe penalties for serial abuses or those who use public records to harm government or to harass or intimidate public servants (but requestor side regs stay the same). Finally, I think the leg might even consider a fee for businesses that use public records as part of a for profit business model. Newspapers for example.

Anyway, it’s a stimulating topic. Would love to continue later.

K

On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:02 PM, “Reardon, Aaron” <agr@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Thanks. Lets discuss tomorrow. I’ll refrain from being sarcastic or snarky.

This may not be as simple a it appears.

My initial feedback is multifaceted:

  1. Regarding the issue of filling PDR’s differently based upon the requester, I’m only aware of one area where this applies and it is in respect to PDR’s by inmates. I’m not versed on the statute so you may want to look it up.

If its not an inmate submitting the PDR then his choice or whoever’s choice it is to fulfill the request differently based on the requester may be exposing the county to significant liability. I don’t believe the govt. can pick and choose in this case. It must be standardized and consistent. This raises a lot of questions. If your recitation is accurate, this is an issue that really can’t wait to be resolved so we need to be more versed ASAP. This is a short term operations item – not legislative

  1. As for adding an item to our legislative agenda re: anonymous requests, candidly that’s a non starter. The legislature and AG specifically did not differentiate when they have repeatedly amended the law to increase openness. It’s not as if this issue hasn’t been raised in the past because it has. They’ve made a conscious decision to allow ANYONE access to public records. I could go on and on but suffice to say, whoever pushes for this change couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper sack.
  2. There’s a practical and political twist to the request a well. First, it wouldn’t even get a hearing if it even got a sponsor. We have a lot of substantive issues we need to press and I don’t feel like wasting my time or yours on a lost cause with a losing argument. Second, how do you think our constituents would view this? I think poorly. With all the important issues facing us (Transpo, higher-ed, workforce training, human needs, law and justice, environmental infrastructure, etc) their govt leader chose to ignore them and focus on a petty PDR issue? Not a good sell to those who pay us to work for them.
  3. I’ll admit I’m a bit hardened but, we’re talking about public records. The key word being public. Everything I’ve produced has been made public. Big deal. The same would actually apply to you and Gary as well. Everybody has our emails, phone logs, calendars, etc. What’s the big deal? Heck, I think we should just put them all on-line anyway.
  4. Given the change in technology anybody can make a request for records big and small. And, more than likely they exist. I understand the point of costs but it also cost less nowadays to produce the records than in years past when everything was on paper. They should be working on trying to develop a system that makes records recovery more cost effective and less time consuming instead of limiting the publics access to public materials.

Just my initial thoughts. Let’s chat further tomorrow.

Thanks

AGR

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This message may contain protected information by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or

distribution of its contents is prohibited.  If you receive this

message in error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail

address listed above and delete this message without printing,

copying, or forwarding it.  Thank you.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 5:28 PM, “Hulten, Kevin” <Kevin.Hulten@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Hey Boss –

I forgot to send this to you but Gage talked to me Monday about a potential legislative agenda item. He already approached Somers and said Somers was interested.

However, I can’t help but wonder if the County is exposed to potential litigation if in fact we are applying different internal standards on PDR responses based upon the perceived identity (or lack thereof) of the requestor. Just wanted to pass this along.

Kevin

From: Hulten, Kevin Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:39 AM To: Hulten, Kevin Subject: DRAFT Memo anonymous PDRs

Gage spoke to me after cabinet today to state that he had approached Dave Somers about adding the problem surrounding “anonymous”  public disclosure requests to the County legislative agenda.

Gage said that requests like the recent request from “our friend Edmond” present all sorts of problems for the county to fufil.

Gage said that request are redacted differently based upon whom the recipient is. I reconfirmed – stating that it was my impression that agencies must fulfill requests without regard to whom the requestor is. He said no, certain agencies redact differently based upon whom the requestor is. I spoke to Gage about my impression of the legislative prospects of this approach and we left it at that.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers

%d bloggers like this: