Kevin ” Shorty” Hulten fails to measure up again

In February 2013, Snohomish County Executive employees Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil were caught red handed criminally cyber-stalking the Gold Bar Reporter and tampering with evidence in Block v Snohomish County et al ( U.S Federal Court).

Kevin Hulten plead guilty  and was sentenced, and soon thereafter moved to Los Gatos California. But not before he laughed at his sentencing hearing and wrote the Gold Bar Reporter ” Anne You’re not going to be able to depose me . . . the party wont let that happen.”

Kevin Hulten was referring to the Democratic Party of Washington State and corruption that runs to and through the U.S. Federal Court judges.

Kevin Hulten is married to Washington attorney Krystal Tate ( aka Krystal Hulten).  Ms. Tate was caught red handed via public email fixing a child abuse case with Snohomish County Prosecutor against a mother accused of child abuse while she was clerk to Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Michael Downes.

Ms. Tate now works for the law firm of McGrane and Schuerman, PLLC in Colville Washington. Perhaps utilizing “fixing cases to ensure criminal convictions” was a prerequisite for her job inside the estate guardian scam business of Washington State?

McGrane

Either there’s something in the water in Snohomish County or ‘ birds of the same feathers flock together as do pigs and swine…”  I believe it’s the latter.

With no surprise to any of us who have been working on exposing massive racketeering involving the Washington State Bar Association’s lead counsel Doug Ende and Linda Eide, and a Washington State Bar hearing officer/thief Lin O’ Dell, Ms. Tate is involved in guardian estate litigation.

 


When’s a criminal always a criminal, 

Kevin ” Shorty” Hulten fails to measure up again

Hulten

Kevin Hulten, a convicted criminal and former Snohomish County Executive employee managed to use his left over political influence with the Washington State Democratic Party to land a job as an editor in the same City where his wife is an attorney, Colville Washington.

Instead of considering himself lucky to be working as a convicted criminal in Washington State where such convictions are public record, Kevin Hulten did the unthinkable in March 2017, he was caught shoplifting groceries while working as an editor for the Statesman Examiner.

www.http://www.statesmanexaminer.com/


Criminal cyber-stalker, Kevin Thomas Hulten, Statesman Examiner and Sky Valley Chronicle

Kevin ” Shorty” Hulten also operated a foe online website titled ‘ The Sky Valley Chronicle” with five Snohomish County employees, Brian Perry, Christopher Schwartzen ( former Seattle Times reporter), terminated/disgraced Dept. Of Emergency Management Director John E. Pennington, and two former Mayors from Gold Bar, Crystal Hill Pennington  ( nee Berg, convicted of bank fraud 2005) and Joe Beavers ( recently caught stealing and misappropriating public money from the City of Gold Bar, 2017).

On May 9, 2017, the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office filed four criminal charges against Hulten, stemming from a series of alleged thefts at the Super One Market in Colville from March 15 to 25, 2017.

Once we became aware of Mr. Hulten’s criminal charges, we contacted the Statesman-Examiner in Colville seeking comment to no avail.  What should be noted is that the Statesman Examiner failed to write a story about its star editor’s theft.

Horizon Publications, the Illinois company that owns the Statesman-Examiner, has been reviewing several articles we wrote about Mr. Hulten all week so we knew it was just a matter of time before Mr. Hulten’s criminal behavior would once again become “headline news.”

Stupid is as stupid does  

According to the Colville police department, Mr. Hulten was identified because he used a credit card to purchase a prescriptions at the store’s pharmacy.  The store’s video surveillance confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Hulten stole flowers leaving the store during the early morning of March 15, 2017, without paying for them.  Then on March 25, 2017, Hulten returns to the same store, fills up a grocery cart and leaves without paying.   A store manager decided enough was enough after Hulten again entered the store on March 31, 2017, cracked open a can of Red Bull Energy drink, consuming it without paying for it.  Caught on camera.

Colville police state that Hulten exhibited nervous behavior captured on camera, and pretended to rent a movie from the store’s Redbox kiosk, attempting to distract witnesses.

According to attorney Krystal Tate’s Facebook page, she and Hulten moved from Los Gatos California in March 2017.   Hulten’s Facebook page states that he began working at the Statesman-Examiner in April 2017.

Snohomish County has quite the deck of cards, and Hulten’s card has a big joker on it.

For those of you who did not know this, Hulten had previously worked as an aide to disgraced Aaron Reardon ( who is now selling insurance in Indigo California), but was forced to resign after the Gold Bar Reporter ( Anne Block who is also suing Kevin Hulten for gross 1983 – Cyber-stalking her anonymously) who resigned as Snohomish County executive amid a flurry of scandals in February 2013.

In 2016, Mr. Hulten was fined $2500.00 by the state Public Disclosure Commission for using his work computer to criminally harass any one who investigated Reardon’s criminal conduct.  Because of Hulten’s on the records Washington State Public Disclosure IRS and Washington State Dept of Revenue complaints followed after Kevin Hulten admitted under oath that Jon Rudicil and he were operating a “for profit” company, and public records do not support that he paid any federal or state tax on money Hulten and Rudicil generated helping attorney Jack Connelly criminally harass Senator Jeanne Darnelle.

How public records from King County’s Major Crimes Unit exposed Kevin Thomas Hulten and Jon Rudicil’s Racketeering Enterprise

King County Major Crimes Unit’s Files documenting that Kevin Thomas Hulten, attorney Jack Connelly and Jon Rudicil should be in jail for Racketeering and money laundering

Thomas French_Page_01  Thomas French_Page_02 Thomas French_Page_03 Thomas French_Page_04  Thomas French_Page_18 Thomas French_Page_14 Thomas French_Page_15 Thomas French_Page_16 Thomas French_Page_17 Thomas French_Page_10 Thomas French_Page_11 Thomas French_Page_12 Thomas French_Page_13  Thomas French_Page_07 Thomas French_Page_08 Thomas French_Page_09

Thomas French_Page_04 Thomas French_Page_03 Thomas French_Page_01Thomas French_Page_05Thomas French_Page_06


 

Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil were on Snohomish County’s payroll at the time they were assisting attorney Jack Connelly in his efforts to criminally harass the Honorable Senator Jennelle Darnielle. Public records from Snohomish County confirm that Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil never paid a single cent of tax on their RICO activities.

It wasn’t clear Thursday if Hulten had hired an attorney. Perhaps Krystal Tate or her firm will represent Mr. Hulten?

The Stevens County Prosecutor’s Office officially filed charges on May 9, 2017, and the Gold Bar Reporter has already notified the Court that a videographer will be present during any hearing.  We believe history is in the making here in Snohomish County, and Kevin Hulten just gave us the avenue for unearthing the massive corruption inside Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office.

Mark Roe, Snohomish County’s current prosecutor, misappropriated public funds to provide Kevin Hulten a criminal legal defense once Anne Block filed a racketeering charged against him in U.S. Federal District Court.

However, when Block noted to Seattle U.S. Federal District Court Judge Richard Jones that she had obtained public records from Snohomish County documenting that Washington State Bar Association’s lead counsel Linda Eide’s first cousin Senator Tracy Eide, Senator Steve Hobbs, Shoreline attorney then county Prosecutor Margaret King met and conspired with executive Aaron Reardon and Kevin Hulten in January 2013 to go after Block’s Washington State Bar license as a favor to a killer/employee John E. Pennington, Judge Jones did what any corrupt government official would do, he dismissed the complaint sending the cases into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the 9th Circuit upholds precedent, Block’s cases will be remanded back for discovery and Hulten will be deposed.

Kevin Hulten is expected this time to serve jail time, up to 364 days and a $5,000 fine.

However, the best part of this story is simple: charges of theft are allowed in as an exception to the heresy rule, so Block intends to notify the 9th Circuit shortly noting that attorney Lin O’Dell was recently caught stealing and threatening elderly clients and cited by three courts for her criminal racket.

Videos and police reports have been requested from Colville police dept. and will be uploaded onto U Tube once received.

Washingtonians have a right to free from government sponsored gang stalking and thieves like Kevin Hulten should be in prison just like any other common criminal.

 

Reporting from the east coast   MAY 12, 2017

 

How public records from King County’s Major Crimes Unit exposed Kevin Thomas Hulten and Jon Rudicil’s Racketeering Enterprise

King County Major Crimes Unit’s Files documenting that Kevin Thomas Hulten, attorney Jack Connelly and Jon Rudicil should be in jail for Racketeering and money laundering

Thomas French_Page_01  Thomas French_Page_02 Thomas French_Page_03 Thomas French_Page_04  Thomas French_Page_18 Thomas French_Page_14 Thomas French_Page_15 Thomas French_Page_16 Thomas French_Page_17 Thomas French_Page_10 Thomas French_Page_11 Thomas French_Page_12 Thomas French_Page_13  Thomas French_Page_07 Thomas French_Page_08 Thomas French_Page_09

Thomas French_Page_04 Thomas French_Page_03 Thomas French_Page_01Thomas French_Page_05Thomas French_Page_06


Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil were on Snohomish County’s payroll at the time they were assisting attorney Jack Connelly in his efforts to beat the Honorable Senator Jennelle Darnielle. Public records from Snohomish County confirm that Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil never paid a single cent of tax on their RICO activities.


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.

%d bloggers like this: