Washington State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel sued again under RICO, JURY DEMANDED

Washington State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel and those associated with the Office sued again under RICO.  I believe this makes # 4 this year for Our stellar employees operating inside the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel and it’s Boards.

Corrupt Washington’s Chief Activist, and honorable citizen here in Washington, Bill Schiedler filed suit against the Washington State Bar citing gross RICO violations. Over the last year, the Washington State Bar Association has been sued at least five times that we know of, and at least four suits involving Racketeering allegations.

My mother always said ” if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.”   We tried on at least five occasions to obtain comment from the Washington State Bar Association with no response. However, if someone from the Washington State Bar Association does respond, we will post their comments without censorship.

Until then, we say, silence implies guilt and Mr. Schiedler has exposed yet another pattern of conduct that is unbecoming of any organization.  From our year long investigation of the the Washington State Bar we feel comfortable calling the Washington State Bar a criminal organization, or as correctly posted in March 2015, ” a few small members are making criminals out of non-criminals and we do everything in our power to peacefully stop these RICO gang members regardless of the cost.”

Bill Schiedler alleges :  As members of the Washington State Bar Association, they become liable for its wrongdoing, and therefore are indirect defendants in the cases. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled in Marshall v. WSBA, Pope v. WSBA, and Scannell v. WSBA, that this conflict requires disqualification.

The racketeering enterprise, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, is an association called the WA State Bar Association [Bar or WSBA]. The Bar is “indistinguishable” and for all practical purposes has commandeered WA State’s judicial branch;

The Bar has a distinct structure based on the essential functions of decision-making, regulation, lobbying, rule making, discipline, finance, advertising;has employed numerous employees in order to discharge the functions noted above.

c. has recorded fraudulent documents and promulgated rules and regulations to organize the enterprise and insure its continued operation under the color of law.requires its associates to invest in the enterprise by mandatory fees and adherence to their directives. the COMMON PURPOSE of the enterprise is (1) to defraud; and (2) to extort citizens of their money, rights, and property by having associates of the enterprise occupy government positions, including on WA State and Federal Courts, and by having “plenary” powers over all its associates to extort their required performance and the required investment back into the enterprise thru dues and performance.

The Bar, by its Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 1.2, reaches to every part of the country to influence the “customs and practices” of legal services provided. “Disciplinary authority exists regardless of the lawyer’s residency or authority to practice law in this state. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.” Additionally, the Bar, in breach of its fiduciary duty owed to the public, operates in the insurance markets by “case fixing” to influence insurance rates and premiums for itself, its members and its clients. This has a ripple effect throughout the financial industry across the United States.

I must admit when I first saw the first paragraph of  Mr. Schiedler complaint, I said ” wow, he’s onto to something here with affecting interstate commerce with their RICO activities.”   For those of you who did not got to law school, it appears as though Bill Schiedler is arguing that the WA State Bar is guilty of violating interstate commerce by its RICO activities.

RICO complaints are criminal in nature.

The modus operandi by which “case fixing” is accomplished is in the broad policy of the Bar’s disciplinary board to “ignore” lawyers’ obligations to “truth and honor” and “never seek to mislead a judge or jury”. Said another way, “case fixing” is simply giving the judge or jury the opportunity to believe in a lie. This “failure to hold lawyers” to the law RCW 48.210 – has created the means and opportunity for lawyers to achieve “unjust outcomes” that would not occur if lawyers were held to the law as the WSBA is tasked to do.

Yes indeed,  Bill Schiedler is right on the issue of Washington State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel “fixing” cases.  Late last year, the WA State Bar provided public records involving Chief Hearing Officer Joseph Nappi Jr sending an email letter to David Thorner ( Yakima) asking him to show other WA Bar Hearing Officers how to fix cases before trial. All this was done at an in person secret meeting inside Joseph Nappi Jr.’s law office located in Spokane Washington at the Law Office of Ewing & Anderson.

In addtion, late last year Gold Bar Reporter Anne Block discovered via public records that Duvall Washington residents Crystal Hill Pennington and John E Pennington set up a post  office box with a Washington State Hearing a officer Lin O’ Dell and her convicted killer boyfriend Mark Plivilech for the purpose of  bribing$$ Spokane attorney Lin O’Dell to fix a complaint Crystal Hill Pennington and John E Pennington filed against Block attempting to SLAPP down the Gold Bar Reporters first amendment protected activity “free speech” message and statutory rights under RCW 42.56.

Attorney Lin O’ Dell and John and Crystal ( née Berg, and Hill) Pennington are being sued under RICo as well. John E. Pennington was fired from Snohomish County in March 2015 after his emails released documented that John Pennington was using a man named Steve to stalk Gold Bar Reporter Anne Block. A source stated that John Pennington fled the State of  Washington in early April 2015, but the sociopath was recently seen in Shoreline District Court.

Bill also mentions a new comer to us who recently learned that Seattle law firm, The Christie Law Group, whose founder, Robert Christie — admitted to membership in the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel and chaired the substantive law section on Civil Rights and Public Entity Liability, responsible for authoring periodic

  • newsletters to section members and substantive articles for the FDCC In August
  • 2013 he was elected as one of nine directors to the He has served as an instructor
  • at the FDCC’s Litigation Management College — markets its services as “Court Rule 56”

What does this mean … within the context that the legal profession is nothing but a “a private club” that is unaccountable for its conduct – a consequence in the breakdown inherent in self-regulation – these “rules, newsletters, strategies, tactics, customs and practices” which Robert Christie demands others hold in “high praise” are only judged by Scheidler’s RICO Statement.  Case 3:12-cv-05996-RBL Document 58-11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 34

1 themselves – Society is EXCLUDED from this club and how the tactics Christie espouses
2 harms society. There is NO independent basis to conclude anything Christie and the FDCC devise merit acceptancy by society. This lobbying outfit FDCC describes itself by its members, who are:

(1) practicing lawyers actively engaged in the private practice of law who devote a substantial amount of their professional time to the representation of insurance companies, associations or other corporations, or others, in the defense of civil litigation and have been a member of the bar for at least eight years; or (2) corporate counsel and other executives engaged in the administration or defense of claims or for insurance companies, associations, or corporations who have national, regional or company-wide responsibility for a company of greater than local significance.

In contrast to the touted success of Christie, there are about 3000 grievances filed against lawyers with the WA State Bar every year claiming Lawyers are in breach of their rules and the law. These grievances are dismissed as routine.

The “nexus” between “court rules and case fixing and the Bar Disciplinary scheme” is evident in the numbers and the advertising alone.  It doesn’t hurt that Chief WA State Bar hearing officer Joseph Nappi Jr. Stated it in his public emails. “Stupid it is as stupid does”

Another RICO suit against the Washington State Bar will be filed on June 14, 2015, as Flag Day represents honoring our Country’ s absolute right to “free speech” and “freedom of the press”  without government nor private party interfereence with no exceptions.

Block claims that her next next RICO will will be an all star performance with a pedophile, a corrupt police from Duvall Washington, a WA State Bar Hearing Officer who is accepting bribes to fix cases by using her convicted killer boyfriend to threaten people and retrieve any pay offs from so called WA Bar grievants,  and a Gold Bar Washington Mayor Linda Loen.

Comments

  1. Apparently the 1st and 2nd amendments mean nothing to these courts. Due process violations are written into the RCWs. The entire system is a joke, or would be if not for the lives they are destroying in the process. Contradictory information everywhere and these judges just get to pick and choose which ones they want to follow. How is that justice??

    My case is an easy one to avoid. It makes people uncomfortable. But I have done nothing unlawful and don’t deserve this criminal-like status they have placed on me.

    If I can help I will.

    Like

    • Dean, I often say ” they are creating criminals out of non-criminals and we must do everything peacefully in our power to stop them before we end up like Saudi Arabia or China.”

      Blogging our your experiences allows you to get your message out. I encourage every abled bodied American to start blogging and telling your story. Knowledge is key, and cockroaches hate sunlight.

      Best regards, Anne

      Like

  2. Thank you Anne for reporting on this case… Our judicial system can be described as a “place where citizens are the play-toys of despicable judges and lawyers” who only answer to themselves. One of the questions I hope will get answered by this lawsuit is this notion of “judicial immunity”. This “immunity” is a hereditary privilege that originated way back to medieval Europe but is still maintained in today’s courts as “common law doctrine” … However in WA State “hereditary privileges” (Art 1, sec 28) were abolished — taking this judicial immunity away — and we, in WA, began afresh …. with a fresh slate as far as the common law. Furthermore, our constitution “prohibits” granting to any citizen “privileges or immunities” Art 1 sec 12 … Now how the judge will “decide” if these constitutional provisions actually eliminate “judicial immunity” presents another inherent conflict … judges are NOT suppose to sit on a case in which they are ‘directly interested’ (RCW 2.28.030(1)) … Clearly a judge has a direct interest in his “immunity” and should NOT be deciding such a question …. THAT, I HOPE means a “jury” provides that answer because “ALL political power is in the people and “governments derive their “JUST POWERS” from the consent of the people. That too is stated in WA Const. Art 1, sec 1.

    Like

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

%d bloggers like this: