Gold Bar activist who resigned from WA Bar citing gross RICO violations issues press statement

Press Release

January 17, 2014

Gold Bar Reporters

Contact Person: Anne Block

206-326-9933

Anne Block Releases 41 page amended complaint with 110 page RICO statement

detailing Criminal Conspiracy to deny her Civil Rights

See http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=172712&sid=3P9K&ext=PDF&lcl=RICO-files.pdf&usr=Sunshine2015K&doc=252796214&key=key-vCgcyry8MG3PdTevxTaE

Today we are pleased to announce to the public release of a 110 page RICO statement that defines a RICO conspiracy that centers around public officials in Gold Bar Washington and the Washington State Bar Association. These documents were filed in a federal case that was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington Case No. 2:14-cv-00235-RAJ. The complaint documents the greatest assault on freedom of the press in the history of the United States.

Anne Block has achieved a degree of notoriety in Snohomish County as the only reporter in the state to break a story involving corruption at the highest levels of government in Snohomish county. Chief Executive Reardan was forced to resign after a story published in the Gold Bar Reporter revealed that Reardan used taxpayer funds to finance affairs with two women employees. According to the complaint, Anne Block even had receipts to show airline tickets purchases, hotel receipts and receipts for sex toys used in Europe during the affair.

According to the complaint, before Reardan resigned, he assigned two employees to organize a “false flag” operation against Block, by having the employees pose as disinterested observers with aliases to organize a campaign to disbar Block. He had another employee destroy county records to hide the affair. That employee was eventually convicted of destroying evidence. As a result of the evidence being destroyed, an Island County prosecutor concluded that he did not have enough evidence to prosecute Reardan for misuse of public funds.

In enlisting support for the bar complaints, the false flag operation gained the support of two other Block targets. John Pennington had been attacked in the press by Anne Block and other newspapers such as the Seattle Times and the Everett Herald as being unqualified to hold the position of emergency operations director of Snohomish County. According to a study conducted by the IRS, Pennington received his college degree from a diploma mill which sold the degrees at a flat rate. According to the RICO complaint, Block published stories how Reardan acted on Pennington’s advise in allowing houses to be built on the Oso mudslide site even though professional engineers described the site as unsafe. The mudslide that eventually occurred resulted in the deaths of 43 citizens.

Pennington could not sue directly because he is a public official, so he turned to the Washington State Bar Association in an attempt to have Block disbarred for doing the stories documenting Pennington’s incompetence.

The false flag operation also enlisted the support of public officials in Gold Bar Washington, who had their own problems with Block. Block had initiated a public disclosure suit when the town officials refused to turn over documents related to the theft of the towns funds. According to the complaint, town officials illegally diverted approximate 20% of the town’s budget to finance a campaign to discredit Block. This included planting defamatory and false information in a friendly paper, physically assaulting, stalking, and intimidating Block supporters, assaulting and stalking two city council members until they resigned for supporting Block. Members of the RICO enterprise even published verbal threats in local newspapers to murder Block if she showed up at City Council meetings.

According to Block, WSBA officials fixed the case against her by pre-selecting a hearing officer to guarantee conviction. The WSBA’s practice of paying a hearing officer to pre-select judges has come under fire in previous suits and is now the subject of an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, Scannell v. WSBA Ninth Circuit #14-35582

According to Block’s complaint, the WSBA chief hearing officer pre-selected a business associate, who had formed a partnership with a convicted killer to form a construction company that profitted from the Oso building site. The hearing examiner also has been accused of using the convicted killer to intimidate vulnerable adults so that the hearing officer could unfairly profit from guardianships she had been appointed to. That hearing officer has already had a finding signed by a Superior Court Judge ordering her to return funds she stole from a client account. According to Block’s complaint there are other cases including one where she purchased a client’s house for $15,000 that was assessed at $208,000.

According to two witnesses, the hearing officer prevented Block from participating at her hearing by muting out the phone connection through which Block had appeared because of her hearing disability. Then, the hearing officer concluded that Block should be disbarred for not participating.

According to Block’s complaint, what happened to her is typical of the practices of the Washington State Bar Association. The Washington State Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism from the American Bar Association in three separate studies over 40 years for delegating its disciplinary activities to the WSBA, a practice the ABA likens to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. According to the complaint, Washington is one of the few remaining states that put its bar association in charge of lawyer discipline, with the result that Washington has one of the lowest charging rates of attorney discipline in the nation. The complaint charges that attorney discipline is focused almost entirely on sole practitioners, minorities and enemies of the WSBA leadership. According to the complaint, 44% of all attorney discipline comes out of Snohomish County. Block charges the reason this occurs is that two WSBA officials in Snohomish County improperly use their influence to direct discipline toward their opponents. Block charges that these two officials improperly contacted the Gold Bar City Council, illegally provided them with confidential information, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules regarding enforcement of lawyer discipline before there were any bar complaints even filed. The suit also accuses one official of filing anonymous complaints to conceal the fact that he is improperly influencing the cases.

As a result of the information contained in her complaint, Block is demanding a federal grand jury investigation concerning the misuse of public funds by her opponents and the denial of her civil rights.