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

” 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

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.

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

UPDATE:  Washington State Bar attorney Linda Eide EXPOSED for gross civil rights violations of persons over 40 and disabled.

Linda Eide sued under RICO, 1983 and Anti Trust violations

See http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=240270&sid=55E6&ext=PDF&lcl=block-v-WSBA-RICO.pdf&usr=SkyValleyNews&doc=294503385&key=key-GqDGvN4pGjxOWy5LnziT

---

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.

7. 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

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

     

---

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

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Snohomish County confirm Prosecutor using taxpayer monies to fund a convicted criminal

Mark Roe misappropriating public funds

provides a legal defense to convicted criminal

 

A copy of Mark Roe’s contract with convicted criminal Kevin Hulten’s attorney John Kugler can be seen at https://goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/snohomish-county-major-participants-in-racketeering-enterprise/

​In July 2012, the Gold Bar Reporters were first to break ” Reardon misappropriating taxpayer monies to fund his affairs.”  This story eventually brought down Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon.

 

The Gold Bar Reporters correctly reported that Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon was misusing taxpayer money to fund two affairs, one with Sound Cities Association President Deanna Dawson and one with a county employee named Tamara Dutton.

 

As the Gold Bar Reporters correctly reported, Snohomish County political appointee John Pennington and county public records officer Diana Rose (Ms. Dutton’s former friend) threw Tamara Dutton under the bus to save Deanna Dawson.

 

We correctly reported  that Diana Rose and John Pennington misused county monies and resources to provide Deanna Dawson a “wag the dog” approach to spare her from press coverage. But not without the assistance of both Diana Rose and John Pennington.

 

Public records from last year confirm that Snohomish County Prosecutor Jason Cummings also assisted Pennington, Rose and Margaret King in covering up Dawson’s affair with Reardon.

 

Our story published in May 2013 titled ” The Stoning of Tamara Dutton” was right on target.  For those of us who are political scientists’, this conduct is also known as a “diversion story” or a “wag the dog” approach to distract the voters.

 

It worked, as of today the only one the press ever reported on as having an extramarital affair with Aaron Aaron Reardon was Tamara Dutton.

 

For Diana Rose’s efforts to further the RICO Enterprise’s conspiracy, Ms. Rose was recently promoted to Director of Emergency Management for the City of Marysville, a $50,000 per year promotion as payment in kind for her efforts in assisting the RICO Enterprise’s conspiracy of throwing Dutton under the bus to save Deanna Dawson.

 

Deanna Dawson lied to the WA State Patrol claiming that she never engaged in an extra-marital affair with Aaron Reardon. It was Deanna Dawson who was traveling around Europe with Aaron Reardon in 2011, ordering sex toys to hotel rooms, and misusing the County credit cards to purchase Paris airshow tickets, expensive Paris meals, and hotels, etc.  These facts are undisputed since Aaron Reardon was fined by Washington State’s Public Disclosure Commission in June 2012 for misappropriating public funds on his  county taxpayer funded rendezvous with Deanna Dawson throughout Europe.

 

A source from Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office contacted the Gold Bar Reporter last week stating

” Jason Cummings and Mark Roe have been on the phone with the Snohomish County Daily Herald all week asking for more time before the Herald publishes Mark Roe’s Recall story.  Snohomish County Council and Mark Roe spent another $10,000.00 with a public relations firm in California titled  “e.Republic” hoping to slant public opinion on his Recall.

 

According to the insider, Mark Roe again misused county taxpayer monies hoping to divert public opinion

from the real issue which is that Mark Roe misappropriated over $23,000 of taxpayers money to provide a legal defense to a racketeering complaint filed in US Federal District Court  on December 23, 2014.

​Why? Because Mark Roe has been running illegal background checks on citizens for years.  RCW 10.97 makes running illegal background checks a crime in Washington.

 

​For those of our readers who do not understand the ” Wag the Dog” approach to what Mark Roe and the public relations firm he hired are trying to sdo you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog

 

Then last week, Gold Bar’s insurance company American Association of Washington Cities (AWC)  confirmed that it was not providing any legal services to the City of Gold Bar.  Recently the Washington State Auditor stated that the City of Gold Bar claimed that AWC was in fact providing in legal defense.  The Auditor recently told another citizen that Gold Bar’s Mayor Linda Loen filed a false certification with the Auditor stating that AWC was in fact providing a legal defense to Gold Bar, when in fact more public records confirm that Snohomish County Prosecutors are misusing county taxpayer monies to provide a legal defense RICO thugs from Gold Bar.  As a result, an additional Recall will be filed against Mark Roe on this basis too.

 

 

Why Snohomish County Voters should Recall Prosecutor Mark Roe

 

On February 14, 2013, Snohomish County Executive employee Kevin Hulten was exposed by two Snohomish County reporters from the Snohomish County Daily Herald for criminally harassing Snohomish County resident and taxpayer Anne Block.  As a result, Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon resigned and Snohomish County executive employee Kevin Hulten was terminated from Snohomish County employment for misconduct.

 

Kevin Thomas Hulten’s claim for unemployment was denied as a result of his misconduct.

 

 

See http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130214/NEWS01/702149999

 

In March 2013, the Snohomish County council ordered the criminal investigation as outlined by the Snohomish County Daily Herald’s article “Reardon’s Office linked to harassment” to the King County Major Crimes Unit.  Kevin Hulten’s county computers and cell phone were transferred to King County Major Crimes Unit for forensic inspection.

 

According to King County’s Major Crimes Unit, Kevin Hulten used a “wiping program” and destroyed evidence.  Upon completion of its investigation, King County Major Crimes Unit transferred its criminal investigation to Skagit County for possible prosecution. Skagit County brought criminal evidence tampering charges against Kevin Hulten, and Kevin Hulten plead GUILTY in an open public court located in Arlington, Washington, to criminal evidence tampering on July 7, 2014.

 

Our Recall Petition states:  In August 2014, Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe violated RCW 4.96.010 when he allocated and entered into an agreement using Snohomish County taxpayer monies to fund Kevin Thomas Hulten a convicted criminal and former Snohomish County Executive employee who was exposed by the Snohomish County Daily Herald on February 14, 2013.

 

 

RCW 4.96.010 in pertinent part prohibits use of taxpayer funds for conduct outside of the employee’s official duties and states the following:

 

Tortious conduct of local governmental entities — Liability for damages. 

 

(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.

 

What Snohomish County residents may not know is that in February 2013, immediately following the Herald’s story, Block placed a litigation hold on all records relating to the Herald story.  With this email hold, Skagit County Prosecutors’ Office used this to charge Kevin Thomas Hulten with criminal evidence tampering.

 

For those of us who have been investigating Snohomish County corruption for years, it sure appears to us open government supporters in Snohomish County that Prosecutor Mark Roe was involved in the facade that Aaron Reardon, Kevin Hulten and Jon Rudicil (no surprise connects to Senator Steve Hobbs, another piece of shit up here in Snohomish County) created by requesting records anonymously in the County’s efforts to change the Public Records Act.

 

We cannot think of any other reason why Mark Roe is misusing taxpayer money to fund a criminal who moved to Los Gatos, California.  As one Gold Bar resident said ” Mark Roe must have skin in the game.”

 

Block who filed the Recall Petition against Mark Roe stated ” if voters had known that Mark Roe funded a former Snohomish County executive officer who plead guilty to criminal evidence tampering, I doubt the voters would have voted for him in November 2014. To illustrate Mark Roe’s blatant disregard for our laws, just last week we learned that Mark Roe is also misappropriating public funds to fund Gold Bar Washington public officials Joe Beavers, Crystal Hill Pennington, and convicted wife beater Chris Wright, and Florence Davie Martin, who Block filed a Racketeering suit (RICO) against. RICO suits are criminal in nature, and I believe that Snohomish County citizens in Arlington, Marysville, Monroe, Snohomish, Lake Stevens, Index, Sultan, etc. should not have to pay for the crimes committed by Gold Bar’s public officials against me simply because Mark Roe’s officers, Sean Reay and Margaret King, committed many predicate acts in violation of RICO and 42 USC 1983 laws. Simply put, I’m fed up Snohomish County government corruption.”

 

For additional information relating to the massive RICO scandal involving Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office see https://goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/snohomish-county-washington-open-government-supporters-seek-prosecutor-mark-roes-recall/

 

We agree. Soon the voters will be the deciders as to whether or not Prosecutor Mark Roe will be Recalled from office or not.

 

Can’t wait to see e.Republic’s “wag the dog” approach to Mark Roe’s unlawful use of taxpayer monies to fund a convicted criminal and RICO members inside the City of Gold Bar.  We name this chapter of the Gold Bar Reporters book ” Who let the pigs out? Welcome to Snohomish County Washington.”

 

​Join our radio show every Saturday morning @ 10 AM on ​http://www.blogtalkradio.com/goldbarreporter​

Snohomish County Prosecutor’s deny any such contracts or records exist.

Snohomish children FOUND alive

Snohomish County and City of Gold Bar Officials sued under RICO

PRESS RELEASE

January 30^th, 2015

Gold Bar Reporters

Contact Person

Anne Block

206-326-9933

Anne Block Makes her case for First Amendment Rights and RICO

Briefing wrapped up yesterday in the Anne Block Civil Rights Suit against various officials in Snohomish County and in Gold Bar Washington. The defendants filed a 13 page motion to dismiss while Block countered with a 24 page response, with a request to allow a 110 page RICO statement. Both sides were to have sent in reply briefs by yesterday, but only Block filed her response.

Anne Block has achieved a degree of notoriety in Snohomish County as the only reporter in Washington 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 reporter Mike Carter 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.

In her 24 page response to the motion to dismiss, Block argued that each of her activities: filing suit against Gold Bar, publishing about the corrupt activities of public officials, making public disclosure requests etc, have long been held to be protected activity under the first amendment by federal courts including the United States Supreme Court. Block pointed out that each case, the defendants responded with illegal and sometimes criminal behavior, including defaming Block, stalking her and her supporters, and publishing veiled and overt threats in friendly newspapers. She argued that the responses were organized illegally in secret executive sessions of the Gold Bar City Council. Block charged that the defendants also enlisted the support of attorneys and officials connected with the Washington State Bar Association who illegally tapped police databases, accessed confidential bar records, and mental health records, and provided them to the Gold Bar City Council in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules for enforcement of attorney discipline.

All of these actions, argued Block, established the existence of a criminal enterprise under RICO; that is, a conspiracy to commit illegal predicate acts over an extended period of time. In this case, Block argues that the defendants continue their illegal activity right through the presentation of their motions in federal court.

Attorneys for the defendants, who Block proposes to add to the suit at a later date, meanwhile argued that Block’s allegations are “incredible”, but offered no plausible alternatives to Block’s theory of the case. Block, in her complaint and in her Rico statement carefully documented numerous credible sources for her allegations, which she contends not only meets the complex pleading requirements of RICO, but as a matter of law, cannot be successfully defended.