Governor Jay Inslee, chipping away at the Berlin Wall

Governor Jay Inslee VETOES Washington State Legislature’s attempt

to hide public records, bringing the Washington Legislature into the 21st Century

 

One has to judge politicians not only by bad decisions they make, but by some good actions they take.  Today is a new day for the Washington State Legislature.

Gov. Jay Inslee vetoed ESB 6617, a bill related to public disclosure obligations of the Legislature. Inslee received a requests Thursday evening from a number of legislators to veto the bill after they reached an agreement with media organizations about a process for working together on the issue.

Following his veto, Inslee issued the following statement:

“The public’s right to government information is one we hold dearly in Washington. Transparency is a cornerstone of a democratic government, and I’m very proud of my administration’s record on public disclosure. I believe legislators will find they can fulfill their duties while being fully transparent, just like state and local governments all across Washington.

“I want to thank the legislators who have reconsidered this bill and asked me for this veto tonight. Since this bill passed, my office and lawmakers have heard an unprecedented level of response from the public. Those messages were heard loudly and clearly. I now hope lawmakers, the media, and other stakeholders will work together to resolve differences through a process the public can have faith in.

“I believe the Legislature’s overwhelming vote on the bill was a good faith attempt to increase disclosure and transparency. Though I expressed concerns about the outline of the bill, I did tell legislators I would let the bill become law if they delivered it with enough votes to override a veto. However, that was before I saw the process which failed to meet public expectations for openness and delivered a bill that fell short.

“I appreciate that both sides have been open to discussions during the past few days and will work together to find the right approach to this important issue.”

 

Source: https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-vetoes-esb-6617-–-legislature-and-media-agree-discuss-path-forward

 

---

One such Senator Governor stated wrote to him was Snohomish County’s Senator Guy Palumbo.  Guy Palumbo’s admission that he made a mistake by supporting HB 6617 is a step in the right direction, moving Washington State into the 21st Century.

Constituents of the 1^st District,

 

You are receiving this email because you took the time to write or call me this week with regard to the SB 6617, the public records act bill.

 

I have heard your concerns and taken them to heart. As a result, I have chosen to sign a letter asking Governor Inslee to veto SB 6617. A copy of that letter is attached.

 

If the Governor agrees to veto the bill, I will not lend my vote to override that veto.

 

The legislature will be conducting a more transparent process, which should have been the process from the start. The hope is to land at a nuanced, thoughtful solution to this issue in the 2019 legislative session. In the meantime, the legislature is preparing all of the things needed to comply with the public records act. This will mean, among other things, hiring a new agency of staff people to answer requests, creating document retention policies and training all of the staff members of the legislature on how to adhere to the law.

 

As a supporter of open government, I hope this more public process will lead to a transparent legislature that also maintains the ability for constituents to petition their representatives without fear. I am also extremely concerned about granting any additional power to the lobbyists in Olympia, who are already far too powerful. I firmly believe the influence of money and lobbyists is corrupting our democracy and we have to be careful not to empower them further.

 

Thank you again for communicating with me. Our democratic process only works if I know what is important to the people I represent.

 

Sincerely,

 

State Senator Guy Palumbo

360-786-7600

 

 

---

During the last week of February 2018, the Washington State voters were disrespected by its lawmakers, and soon, the Gold Bar Reporter will be posting the name and a little biography ( Gold Bar Reporter style) about each cockroach who voted in favor of shielding their conduct from the public’s eye.

The cockroaches in Olympia who voted in favor of WA HB 6617 need sunshine, and the Gold Bar Reporter intends bring each cockroach to the equator.

 

It all started last week when Open Government President Toby Nixon sent out an alarming email, claiming that the Washington State Legislature, slipped, in secret session, without a hearing, House Bill (WA HB) 6617, exempting the Washington State Legislature from Washington State’s Public Records Act.

The anti-open government sponsors of WA HB 6617, also known as Washington State Senators, Sharon Nelson and Mark Schoesler.  Both need a hell of a lot of sunshine, but we’d prefer to file Recall Petitions against each for violating the “public’s trust”

                       

Senator Nelson, and Senator Schoesler fighting to keep Washington State corrupt, teaches a class titled ” How to operate the government in secrecy, 101″

---

WA HB 6617 states in pertinent part:

 

Recently, former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna called WA HB 6617 ” the Anti-transparency bill” and further stated that the 48 Senators who voted for WA HB 6617 ( without a hearing, and no sunshine where the cockroaches roam) is ” insulting” and “abuse of process.”

“We don’t really care what the public thinks, we’re passing this anyway.” McKenna said.

In early January 2018, the Honorable Judge Chris Lanese held “The plain and unambiguous language of the Public Records Act applies to the offices of senators and representatives.”   The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by media outlets to access legislators’ records.

Instead of accepting the Judge’s ruling, the Washington State Legislature, almost all of them, voted to hide their records from the public they supposedly serve.

  No it can’t be, Our Legislature wants to operate behind closed doors, with no hearings ” where the cockroaches roam” spits on the rights of Washington State voters.  For the Washington State Legislature’s blatant disregard for the voters’ right to access public records, the Gold Bar Reporter believes that each cockroach in Olympia needs a hell of a lot of sunshine – and we intend to bring it to them.

---

WA SB 6617 is an attempt to end that lawsuit without allowing the public a chance to oppose such blatant disrespect for the public’s right to know.

---

Senator Jan Angel late yesterday wrote to Open Government Toby Nixon stating the following Anti-Government views:

Senator Jan Angel, Anti-Open Government

 

“Toby this provides greater transparency and with the most recent lawsuit that the newspapers brought I would not want to have to disclose my constituents names when I am working for them on very delicate issues that is not transparency there is a difference in what we were asked to do and what this bill does reasonably. This bill provides reasonable transparency and believe me I am a strong supporter of accountability and transparency when done reasonably protecting our constituents and our conversations to me is Paramount because many of the issues we help people with they would not come to us for help if they knew it was going to be disclosed. We deal with many personal issues and this bill will help protect our constituents a bit. ”

Wow, is Jan Angle out of touch with Washington voters, and more importantly, believes that the voters are stupid enough to believe her lies that WA HB 6617 provides more transparency.

Recall Petitions are being drafted, and out hope is that each voter in the county where you reside, follows suit and files Recall Petitions against all who voted in favor of WA HB 6617. According to long time open government attorney, RCW 42.56 states that concealing public records is a felony in Washington State.

---

The Honorable Rep. Melanie Stambaugh (R-Puyallup), who voted no, said:

“Legislators were restricted in this debate and were not allowed to verbalize any argument against this bill on the House Floor. The House Floor debate consisted of one ‘pro’ speech from each side of the chamber and there were not any speeches against this bill, despite there being several ‘no’ votes. This is wildly different from other bills where members are freely able to stand and speak. It is very disappointing.”

---

Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government and a former legislator, wrote on Facebook:

“Legislators have shown such contempt in many ways over the years through such things as introducing title-only bills, holding hearings on bills the same day they’re introduced, voting on massive bills and striking amendments such as the budget within hours of the text becoming available before legislators themselves have an opportunity to read it much less the public, cancelling hearings on short notice after people have traveled across the state to attend, etc. But the idea that a major bill with such huge policy implications is introduced and then on the governor’s desk for signature within 48 hours is just ridiculous…And that’s not even commenting on the content of the bill, which is an abomination as well.”

In effort to thwart the taxpayer voters, legislators included an emergency clause, which means it can’t be repealed by voters with a referendum for two years.

---

Open government activist, Bill Scheidler said “It seems Washington constitution, Article 1, section 1, has been abolished. The words “governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed”, no longer mean what they say. The bill itself state “the legislature, like the judicial branch” have decided for themselves. Folks, our elected representatives are in breach of their duty. That is why I’m suing Jan Angel, Michelle Caldier, and Jesse Young … WE MUST RECLAIM OUR POWERS as WE ARE THE SOLE REASON WASHINGTON’s governments exist in the first place.

http://corruptwash.com/…/scheidler-files-lawsuit…/  “

---

 

Below is a list of the Washington State Legislatures who are Anti-Government and should be Recalled with all deliberate speed for “violating the public’s trust”

---

Yes” votes in the House (with party affiliation and district number):
Sherry Appleton, D-23
Andrew Barkis, R-2
Steve Bergquist, D-11
Brian Blake, D-19
Vincent Buys, R-42
Bruce Chandler, R-15
Mike Chapman, D-24
Frank Chopp, D-43
Judy Clibborn, D-41
Eileen Cody, D-34
Cary Condotta, R-12
Richard DeBolt, R-20
Tom Dent, R-13
Beth Doglio, D-22
Laurie Dolan, D-22
Mary Dye, R-9
Carolyn Eslick, R-39
Joe Fitzgibbon, D-34
Noel Frame, D-36
Roger Goodman, D-45
Mia Gregerson, D-33
Dan Griffey, R-35
Larry Haler, R-8
Drew Hansen, D-23
Mark Hargrove, R-47
Paul Harris, R-17
Dave Hayes, R-10
Jeff Holy, R-6
Zack Hudgins, D-11
Morgan Irwin, R-31
Bill Jenkin, R-16
Laurie Jinkins, D-27
Norm Johnson, R-14
Ruth Kagi, D-32
Steve Kirby, D-29
Brad Klippert, R-08
Shelley Kloba, D-1
Joel Kretz, R-7
Dan Kristiansen, R-39
John Lovick, D-44
Kristine Lytton, D-40
Drew MacEwen, R-35
Nicole Macri, D-43
Matt Manweller, R-13
Jacquelin Maycumber, R-7
Joan McBride, D-48
Gina McCabe, R-14
Bob McCaslin, R-4
Joyce McDonald, R-25
Jeff Morris, D-40
Terry Nealey, R-16
Ed Orcutt, R-20
Timm Ormsby, D-3
Lillian Ortiz-Self, D-21
Strom Peterson, D-21
Eric Pettigrew, D-37
Liz Pike, R-18
Gerry Pollet, D-46
Marcus Riccelli, D-3
June Robinson, D-38
Jay Rodne, R-5
Cindy Ryu, D-32
Sharon Tomiko Santos, D-37
Joe Schmick, R-9
Mike Sells, D-38
Tana Senn, D-41
Matt Shea, R-04
Vandana Slatter, D-48
Larry Springer, D-45
Derek Stanford, D-1
Mike Steele, R-12
Drew Stokesbary, R-31
Monica Jurado Stonier, D-49
Pat Sullivan, D-47
Gael Tarleton, D-36
David Taylor, R-15
Steve Tharinger, D-24
Javier Valdez, D-46
Luanne Van Werven, R-42
Brandon Vick, R-18
Mike Volz, R-6
J.T. Wilcox, R-2
Sharon Wylie, D-49

---

The Honorable House Members who voted no:

Michelle Caldier, R-26
Jake Fey, D-27
Paul Graves, R-05
Mark Harmsworth, R-44
Christine Kilduff, D-28
Vicki Kraft, R-17
Dick Muri, R-28
Tina Orwall, D-33
Mike Pellicciotti, D-30
Kristine Reeves, D-30
David Sawyer, D-29
Melanie Stambaugh, R-25
Jim Walsh, R-19
Jesse Young, R-26
Norma Smith, R-10, was excused.

---

“Yes” votes in the Senate: 
Jan Angel, R-26
Barbara Bailey, R-10
Randi Becker, R-2
Andy Billig, D-3
John Braun, R-20
Sharon Brown, R-8
Maralyn Chase, D-32
Annette Cleveland, D-49
Steve Conway, D-29
Jeannie Darneille, D-27
Manka Dhingra, D-45
Doug Ericksen, R-42
Phil Fortunato, R-31
David Frockt, D-46
Bob Hasegawa, D-11
Brad Hawkins, R-12
Steve Hobbs, D-44
Jim Honeyford, R-15
Sam Hunt, D-22
Karen Keiser, D-33
Curtis King, R-14
Patty Kuderer, D-48
Marko Liias, D-21
John McCoy, D-38
Mark Mullet, D05
Sharon Nelson, D-34
Mike Padden, R-4
Guy Palumbo, D-1
Jamie Pedersen, D-43
Ann Rivers, R-18
Christine Rolfes, D-23
Rebecca Saldaña, D-37
Mark Schoesler, R-9
Tim Sheldon, D-35
Shelly Short, R-7
Dean Takko, D-19
Kevin Van De Wege, D-24
Judy Warnick, R-13
Lisa Wellman, D-41
Lynda Wilson, R-17
Hans Zeiger, R-25

---

The Honorable Senators who voted “No”: 
Michael Baumgartner, R-6
Reuven Carlyle, D-36
Joe Fain, R-47
Mark Miloscia, R-30
Steve O’Ban, R-28
Kevin Ranker, D-40
Keith Wagoner, R-39

---

Washington State Governor Jay Inslee

Gov. Jay Inslee said “legislators should learn to work under the same disclosure rules that all other public servants in Washington operate under.”

Whether Governor Inslee will Veto the Bill or not, does not change the fact that WA HB 6617 illustrates the contempt for the public’s input from Our Legislature.

RCW states: “The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snohomish County Prosecutors’ violating the public’s trust, withholding public records EXPOSED

 

 

 

 

 

---

On February 16, 2018, King County Superior Court held that Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office violated Washington State’s Public Records Act when it refused to answer Wash Lite Board member Lori Shavlik’s public records request for over 13 months.

Similarly, in January 2018, Snohomish County Superior Judge Cindy Larsen held in part in the Gold Bar Reporter’s favor.  In Block v Gold Bar,  the City of Gold Bar violated the Gold Bar Reporter’s rights to access public records for withholding hundreds of public record for over five years. The City of Gold Bar’s penalties just on one case exceeds $1,000,000.00 for public records it withheld for over five years.

However, without reviewing 3000 plus records, Judge Larsen also ruled that over 3000 were not public records. Why, because those records involve Judge Cindy Larsen’s husband, a Snohomish County Sheriff’s Officer named Jeff Ross. In 2008, Jeff Ross assisted Gold Bar’s then Mayor Crystal Hill Pennington with covering up the City of Gold Bar’s sabotaging the City’s water system. Although these criminal acts amounted to domestic terrorism, a federal crime, that Jeff Ross and Crystal Hill had a duty to report to the FBI, they decided to cover up it for money.

Our readers should be happy to know that because of Judge Cindy Larsen’s husband Jeff Ross assisted Gold Bar then Mayor Crystal Hill ( nee Berg, convicted of bank fraud 2000, 2005) in covering up Karl Marjerle’s sabotage of the City’s water system.  Instead of investigating or reporting Marjerle crimes to the FBI, the City of Gold Bar gave him money, and Aaron Reardon managed to get Mayor Grant Degginger to give Marjerle a new job with the City of Bellevue in exchange for his silence about Crystal Hill’s bank fraud convictions.

Because the Gold Bar Reporter was denied access to public records for over five years, a per day penalty applies,  as denial of the record when requested is a per se violation of RCW 42.56. (Unjustified failure to provide the record by the expiration of the estimate is a denial of access to the record, according to the Washington State Attorney General).

In addition to the fraud above, Gold Bar’s Mayor Joe Beavers gave Karl Marjerle  another $12,000.00 check to Marjerle after he extorted the City again in July 2012.  Beavers falsified accounting records claiming that the City owed Karl Marjerle because the Washington State Auditor said so.  However, the Gold Bar Reporter requested State Auditor records and none existed to support that the Auditor ever told Beavers that he had to give Marjerle another $12,000.00. Just another racketeering extortion scheme to hide Beavers and Hill’s racketeering crimes committed against the taxpayers of Gold Bar.

Former Gold Bar Mayor Joe Beavers admitted in his deposition that he committed felonies by removing public records from the City of Gold Bar. The cost to the City of Gold Bar as of today exceeds $1.5 Million and tolling.

Last month Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office released email communication between Prosecutor  Sara Di Vittorio and Joe Beavers documenting that Snohomish County was also a repository for email communication between Gold Bar’s former Mayor Crystal Hill ( convicted of bank fraud in 2000, and 2005) and John Pennington ( terminated for criminally harassing the Gold Bar Reporter while inside Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management).

Crystal Hill Pennington was using aliases of “Chris Hill” and “Crystal Berg” to cover up her past criminal history.

As my readers can imagine, we here at the Gold Bar Reporter were ecstatic to learn that Ms. Shavlik finally held Snohomish County Prosecutors Office partially responsible for violating the civil rights of Washington State taxpayers.

Ms. Shavlik is also suing Snohomish County for malicious prosecution, and is headed for trial this summer in US Federal District Court, Seattle.  The Gold Bar Reporter will be in the courtroom and requested permission to video tape the entire trial. Stay tuned to the Gold Bar Reporter as it will be live streamed Shavlik v Snohomish County et al in to U Tube.

---

 

Injustice for one, is injustice for all

“When I see a wrong I cannot turn a blind eye. I cannot in good conscience sit idle when I see a person’s civil rights being violated. I was not raised to think of myself alone.”

Such is the case in Shavlik’s fight for justice amongst so many government criminals.

For Ms. Shavlik, it all started when Monroe Public Schools Superintendent, Ken Hoover,  failed to report nor investigate the sexual assault of her daughter inside Monroe Washington High School.  Not only did Ken Hoover refuse to report the rape of a student, but Ken Hoover went out of his way to violate the Title VII rights of the rape victim by expelling the victim from school, while allowing the predator to remain not only at school, but on the Monroe High School football team.  2008.

Ms. Shavlik sought help from an alleged victims advocacy group titled Dawson Place, and took on the City of Monroe.  As a result, Monroe High School was cited in Olympia for violating the Titel VI rights of the victim.

Instead of Superintendent Ken Hoover being fired for conduct unbecoming of any public officer, Monroe public officials felt the best way to deal with the very vocal Ms. Shavlik and the rape victim was to have Cities Insurance Company of Washington (CIAW) surveillance 24/7 on the rape victim herself and Ms. Shavlik.

 

In one public email received from Monroe Washington Public Schools, the school administrative assistant even managed to obtain medical files on the rape victim herself. Why, because the school knew it was being sued for violating Title VII rights of the rape victim.

---

“Leadership by deception and misrepresentation isn’t leadership. It’s fraud.”  

What we learned over the last month is that Ken Hoover was no outstanding citizen, but had in fact fathered an illegitimate child. A fact Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe knew, but instead of prosecuting Ken Hoover for dereliction of his official duties, violating the civil rights of a student, Snohomish County Prosecutors Mark Roe, Francesca Youdavi, and Adam Cornell enlisted the assistance of a known Snohomish County Brady Cop, David Fontenot, to trump up criminal charges of Ms. Shavlik, and obtain a restraining order against the rape victim herself.

Brady Cops are defined by our US Supreme Court holding in Brady v Maryland:

The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” The court determined that under Maryland law, the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to his level of punishment. Thus, the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed.

A defendant’s request for “Brady disclosure” refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”^[2] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses^[3] and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.^[4]

 

 

Source Wikipedia

---

According to public records, the rape victim went to get court seeking a protection order against the perpetrator who following the rape was stalking and criminally harasser her at the Monroe High School. This after she was sexually assaulted.

Instead of Snohomish County Everett District Court giving the restraining to the rape victim, they granted it to the perpetrator. Why was something we just recently discovered thank to the accidental release of Court files.

What the Ms. Shavlik and the rape victim didn’t know was the perpetrator knew that Monroe School Superintendent Ken Hoover had fathered an illegitimate child,  and had an incentive to assist the perpetrator in covering up the rape.   We’re still researching the age of the mother of the child, so stay tuned, we’re just about ready to shine some much needed sunlight on this story, and we promise it’s going to be a really juicy, as juicy as a Florida orange, election year here in Snohomish County.

Just to show my readers how far Snohomish County Prosecutor’s office went in helping Monroe Schools cover up the rape of a child, we repost the original Dawson Place story.

Keep in mind, Dawson Place claims to be a place for rape victims, but refused to help in this case.  Why, because Dawson Place is not a victims advocacy group, its a place where Snohomish County can hide public records, and hide which cases to prosecute and which cases not to prosecute.

After Ms. Shavlik and Arthur West filed suit against Dawson Place, Mark Roe suddenly announced his early retirement. But not before Roe threw his support behind another cockroach named Adam Cornell.. .stay tuned, we have some very juicy pictures to share with our readers on Prosecutor Adam Cornell, lets just say, the Gold Bar Reporter has now dubbed Adam Cornel as “Lothario Adam Cockroach Cornell.’

 

 

---

 

Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe’s crimes against county taxpayers, forces his early retirement

 

Snohomish County Prosecutor forced into early retirement after public records reveal that he and the County have been misappropriating public funds, operating a secret government funded company “Dawson Place” set up by Snohomish County Prosecutors’ Mark Roe, Adam Cornell, Seth Dawson, and Janice Ellis ( Ellis is now serving as Snohomish County Superior Court Judge) with 15 Million dollars of taxpayers monies.

Purpose for creating Dawson Place is alleged to be to help children who are victims of sexual and physical abuse.  However, that’s not what it’s being used for.  Dawson Place is being used to hide law enforcement investigations, hide government accountability, illegal track citizens, illegally access health records on citizens who question government officials, and hide public records to evade accountability.

In 1972, Washington State’s Legislature enacted RCW 42.56 ( Public Records Act) with this preamble:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.

 

In several cases, Snohomish County Prosecutor Adam Cornell was caught performing investigations ( law enforcement function) subjecting the County to gross 1983 violations and violating Our Court’s holding in Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) ( Prosecutor’s who act as a detective/investigator lose any immunity they claim they have)

Bigger problem for those of us who care about the rights of the accused, hiding “exculpatory evidence” in violation of Our Court’s Holding in Brady v. Maryland – Wikipedia 

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed.

A defendant’s request for “Brady disclosure” refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed”.^[2] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses,^[3] and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

---

Dawson Place, scamming victims, and scamming the Washington State taxpayers

On February 16, 2018, King County held that Snohomish County violated Washington State’s Public Records Act, when it refused to answer Wash Lite Board member Lori Shavlik’s right to access public records.  

So what happens when the government is funneling public money to an alleged non-profit, like Dawson Place, and then claims it doesn’t have to comply with Washington State’s Open Government laws, RCW Chapter 42.56 RCW_ PUBLIC RECORDS ACT?

It’s called hiding public records to ensure criminal convictions, and cherry picking criminal prosecutions to hide crime stats.  In the case of Lori Shavlik, it equates to criminal racketeering as political favors to retaliate against persons who question government officers, like Mark Roe and Monroe School Superintendent Ken Hoover.

---

Rape in Monroe Washington High School, ignored by Dawson Place

When a Snohomish County resident’s daughter was violently raped and assaulted at the Monroe Washington High School in 2007, she did what any mother would do, she demanded justice and sought help for her daughter.  One such place the mother sought help from was Dawson Place ( Dawson Advocacy Services)

Dawson Place alleges to be a 501(3)(c) but yet it was created by Prosecutors Seth Dawson ( hence how it got its name), Adam Cornell, and Mark Roe, and receives 77 % of its money from the public funds, and the Board is controlled by Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe and Sheriff Ty Trenary.

Instead of calling the police department and reporting the crime of rape, Monroe High School’s Superintendent Ken Hoover covered it up. Why, because reporting the crime of rape doesn’t sell houses.

The mother filed complaints against Monroe High School and received and a favorable Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Monroe High School violated her daughter’s Title VIII rights.

Meanwhile, the mother is asking Dawson Place for resources for her daughter, little did she know that the people who were taking her criminal complaints against those same public officials from the Monroe High School at Dawson Place were in fact Snohomish County Sheriff Officers and Prosecutors.  Conflict fudgamagic?

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to a tape recorded interview with a member of Dawson Place who openly admitted when asked who the Dawson Place advocates were, her response was “Dawson Place doesn’t have any advocates. Advocates are the Sheriff and Prosecutors.”

So this begs one question: how can a company allege its a non-profit be receiving millions of taxpayer money and have government officers ( more likely than not on taxpayer time) run a non-profit?

Instead of helping this victim, Dawson Place along with Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Mark Roe and Adam Cornell conspired to harm her and trumped up arson charges on her using one known Brady Cop ( and a personal friend to Mark Roe’s who openly smokes pot with Mark Roe inside Snohomish County 7th Floor Public Offices. See http://snocoreporter.com/mark-roe-turn-rock-music-put-bong-follow-brady-v-maryland/ )

Over the last year, I’ve gotten to know the mom as a loving mother, a victim of Snohomish County Prosecutors Mark Roe, and Adam Cornell’s malicious prosecution racketeering scheme fraudulently charging her with arson to shut her up for speaking out about the corruption, a friend, a freedom fighter and person who doesn’t take no for an answer.

These attributes make her target for Snohomish County Prosecutor Gang Stalking Network. A network operating from Snohomish County Prosecutor and Sheriff’s offices.  A network from public agency titled “Dawson Advocacy Services”  also doing business as “Dawson Place.”

But Prosecutor Mark Roe got caught, resulting in his early retirement for misappropriation of public assets

---

Lori Shavlik and Arthur West sued Dawson Place, claiming that its a “public agency”  – West/Shavlik v Dawson Place, Snohomish County Superior Court

On Thursday October 18, 2017, Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe announced his resignation as Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office effective December 31, 2018. Mr. Roe’s resignation comes immediately following a lawsuit involving his misuse of public assets and resources to support a non-profit group, Dawson Place.

Two weeks ago, Mark Roe’s was placed under oath, forcing his under the oath admission  that he violated Washington State’s Public Disclosure laws, operated an alleged non-profit , Dawson Place, while being paid by Snohomish County taxpayers.

See Deposition of Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe, West/Shavlik v Dawson Place. 

Click  Mark Roe Depo

---

Dawson Place, a public agency hiding exculpatory evidence to ensure convictions

When a Prosecutor assumes duties of an office s/he is sworn in to uphold the laws of Washington, and both the U.S. and Washington State’s Constitution.  From Mark Roe’s deposition in West/Shavlik v Dawson Place, one has to wonder if Mark Roe failed Constitutional law or simply a criminal in a suit believing himself to be above of the laws of Washington.  We believe it’s a little of both.

---

Washington State, Prosecutor’s Duties ( law Mark Roe are sworn in to uphold, but not only ignored, Mark Roe also went out of his way to violate laws he was sworn in to uphold)

RCW 36.27.020- Prosecutor’s Duties.

The prosecuting attorney shall:

(1) Be legal adviser of the legislative authority, giving it his or her written opinion when required by the legislative authority or the chairperson thereof touching any subject which the legislative authority may be called or required to act upon relating to the management of county affairs;

(2) Be legal adviser to all county and precinct officers and school directors in all matters relating to their official business, and when required draw up all instruments of an official nature for the use of said officers;

(3) Appear for and represent the state, county, and all school districts subject to the supervisory control and direction of the attorney general in all criminal and civil proceedings in which the state or the county or any school district in the county may be a party;

(4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, defend all suits brought against the state or the county, and prosecute actions upon forfeited recognizances and bonds and actions for the recovery of debts, fines, penalties, and forfeitures accruing to the state or the county;

(5) Attend and appear before and give advice to the grand jury when cases are presented to it for consideration and draw all indictments when required by the grand jury;

(6) Institute and prosecute proceedings before magistrates for the arrest of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of felonies when the prosecuting attorney has information that any such offense has been committed and the prosecuting attorney shall for that purpose attend when required by them if the prosecuting attorney is not then in attendance upon the superior court;

(7) Carefully tax all cost bills in criminal cases and take care that no useless witness fees are taxed as part of the costs and that the officers authorized to execute process tax no other or greater fees than the fees allowed by law;

(8) Receive all cost bills in criminal cases before district judges at the trial of which the prosecuting attorney was not present, before they are lodged with the legislative authority for payment, whereupon the prosecuting attorney may retax the same and the prosecuting attorney must do so if the legislative authority deems any bill exorbitant or improperly taxed;

(9) Present all violations of the election laws which may come to the prosecuting attorney’s knowledge to the special consideration of the proper jury;

(10) Examine once in each year the official bonds of all county and precinct officers and report to the legislative authority any defect in the bonds of any such officer;

(11) Seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice and stimulate efforts to remedy inadequacies or injustice in substantive or procedural law;

(12) Participate in the statewide sexual assault kit tracking system established in RCW 43.43.545 for the purpose of tracking the status of all sexual assault kits connected to criminal investigations and prosecutions within the county. Prosecuting attorneys shall begin full participation in the system according to the implementation schedule established by the Washington state patrol.

Not only did Mark Roe violate basic laws regarding his conduct while serving as a Prosecutor, he brags about his crimes against taxpayers.

Click  Mark Roe Depo

---

Perhaps Mark Roe also missed “misappropriation” of public resources section of Washington’s Revised Code:

RCW 42.20.070 -Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer.

Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district, who:

(1) Appropriates to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, any money so received by him or her as such officer or otherwise; or

(2) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any money so received by him or her; or

(3) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any such account; or

(4) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same, or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same, is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than fifteen years.

The above RCW clearly defines what a Snohomish County Prosecutor’s role is, and does not include acting as President or a Board member for Dawson Place.

Once West/ Shavlik confronted Mark Roe with his criminal activity, and being placed under investigation for his illegal activities, Mark Roe announced his retirement effective December 31, 2018.  Why, because Mark Roe knows several citizens are planning to Recall him for his misappropriation of public resources to run Dawson Place (Mark Roe’s self proclaimed little fort).

---

 

 

“License to steal” with the assistance of the Washington State Bar and Washington State Guardian Board

Over the last twenty years, the Washington State Bar Association has broomed over twenty complaints against Washington State guardian scammer and Washington State Bar Hearing Officer Lin O’Dell.

Public/Mailing Address:	Lin D. O’Dell, PS 1312 N Monroe St Spokane, WA 99201-2623 United States
Email:	lin@linodell.com
Phone:	(509)  252-6004
Fax:	(509) 252-0543
Website:
TDD:

Firm or Employer:	Lin D. O’Dell, PS
Office Type and Size:	Solo
Practice Areas:	Elder, Estate Planning/ Probate/ Wills, Family, General, Guardianships
Languages Other Than English:	None Specified

Committees

Member of these committees/boards/panels:

Hearing Officer Panel (Member)

 

---

Lin O’Dell met and teamed up with a convicted killer, Mark Plivilech, while working as a nurse with Walla Walla Prison inmates in 1990.

---

What happens when a convicted killer teams up with a criminal with a law license? 

Not only was WSBA Hearing Officer Lin O’ Dell found guilty of stealing from her clients using a convicted killer to harass them inside their homes, the duo also created several companies to launder clients’ trust monies.

Instead of investigating complaints filed against attorney Lin O’Dell for embezzlement, the Washington State Bar Association, Washington Attorney General’s Office, Washington State Guardian Board, and at least two Washington State’s Governors’ turned a blind eye, thus allowing Lin O’Dell and Mark Plivilech’s rein of terror and racketeering crimes against Washington elderly residents to continued for over twenty years with no accountability.

Why is simple: the Washington State Bar Association refused to investigate complaints filed against Lin O’Dell. Washington State Bar Disciplinary Council Linda Eide, Doug Ende and Julie Shankland were all guardian scammers themselves while in private practice.

The Gold Bar Reporter smells a pay off system….

No accountability until Lin O’Dell decided to violate the Gold Bar Reporter’s civil rights, fabricate evidence, lie on official Washington State Bar filings, and after being caught accepting bribes from John E Pennington ( man fired from Snohomish County Emergency Management after he was caught stalking, criminally harassing Gold Bar Reporter right from Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management offices).  Mark Plivilech who lives in Spokane set up a USPS Box # 70 in Duvall Washington for purposes of picking up money drops from the Penningtons’ to fix a case against the Gold Bar Reporter’s news reports on corruption.

What should for our readers is that attorney Lin O’Dell was handpicked as a Washington State Bar Hearing Officer by her co-conspirator and business associate attorney Joseph Nappi Jr ( another attorney associated with the Washington State Bar and Guardian Scam in Spokane County). Joseph Nappi Jr has his own “little RICO” scam of depleting O’Dell’s clients trust accounts after O’Dell’s clients die.

John E. Pennington, Lin O’Dell, Mark Plivilech, and Crystal Hill Pennington ( nee Berg) are being sued for racketeering, and soon forgery and fraud.

Instead of prosecuting attorney Lin O’Dell for stealing, embezzling client funds, and money laundering, the Washington State Guardian Board allowed Lin O’Dell to resign, but only after she was caught stealing, perjury, and embezzling million of dollars from Ms. Fowler’s trust accounts.

 

Because the Gold Bar Reporter believes that the Washington State Guardian needs a hell of a lot of sunshine for their crimes against our elderly, their names are:

Washington State Certified Professional Guardianship Scammer Board

Revised January 16, 2018

Name	Representing	Date First Appointed	Term Expires
Judge James W. Lawler, Chair	Lewis County Superior Court	10/1/09	9/30/18
Comm. Rachelle E. Anderson	Spokane County Superior Court	10/1/12	9/30/18
Judge Gayle M. Harthcock	Yakima County Superior Court	3/31/15	9/30/18
Comm. Diana L. Kiesel	Pierce County Superior Court	10/1/14	9/30/20
Rosslyn Bethmann	Senior Interests	10/1/12	9/30/18
Dr. Barbara Cochrane	Professor, UW School of Nursing	12/1/10	9/30/19
Annette Cook	Adult Protective Services/DSHS	10/1/17	9/30/19
Jerald Fireman	Senior Advocate	10/1/16	9/30/19
William Jaback	Certified Professional Guardian	10/1/10	9/30/19
Victoria Kesala	Washington State Bar Association	12/6/16	9/30/19
Dr. K. Penney Sanders	Certified Professional Guardian	10/1/16	9/30/19
Barbara West	Washington State Bar Association	3/28/16	9/30/18
Amanda Witthauer	Certified Professional Guardian	2/5/15	9/30/20

 

Rachelle Anderson is a Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner, Annette Cook is with Washington Dept of Health and Human Services, Dr. Barbara Cochrane is UW School of Nursing, Commissioner Diana L. Kiesel works for Pierce County,   Judge Gayle M. Harthcock works for Yakima County, and Judge James W. Lawler, Chair works for Lewis County Superior Court, all subject to Washington State’s Public Records Act ( RCW 42.56).

Our readers could learn more about Washington State’s guardian scam by simply requesting access to public email communication.  It’s time the people of Washington State put end to the criminal racketeering gang stealing from our elderly by giving the cockroaches as much sunshine as the Public Records Act allows.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56

 

---

Washington State Bar defining RICO, money laundering from client trust accounts, embezzling funds,  and racketeering, Washington State Bar Style 

 

Felice Congalton

Managing Disciplinary Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

1325 4^th Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101-2539

 

Dear Felice Congalton,

 

Please consider this letter as a bar complaint against Lin O’Dell, Richard Wallace, Mary Cusack, Bruce Pruitt–Hamm, Jessica Bodey, and Karen Vache’ in setting up a TEDRA agreement and an initial guardianship around ten years ago.

Richard Wallace and Mary Cusack did not have me sign conflict statements even though Cusack supposedly represented my interests during the formation of the Tedra agreement, and Richard Wallace represented by mother during the signing of the second Codicil and second amendment to the Norma Shanks living trust. These were both potential and actual conflicts of interest.    Bruce Pruitt-Hamm, Jessica Bodey, and Karen Vache failed to provide any kind of signed statements for conflicts of interests that were both potential and actual in which they represented me, guardianships, trusts that contained assets intended for me.

Lin O’Dell not only did not present or discuss the conflicts of interest, she failed to prepare any kind of acceptable accounting for over $2 million dollars of the assets of the guardianship and an Idaho trust which she controlled.

This is letter is also a bar complaint against Lin O’Dell for various actions taken by her since then. Through lax accounting, misrepresentations to the court, ethical violations, and outright conversion, it appears that my inheritance has been reduced well in excess of one million dollars.

As a result of her unethical activity, Lin O’Dell has been sanctioned by the Washington State Guardianship Board and the Stevens County Superior Court.  The findings of the Stevens County Court were upheld in the Washington Court of Appeals.  For the past 10 years I have suffered substantial consequences of the actions these attorneys as well as an Idaho attorney named Paula Massey, who represented my deceased brother, Rex Shanks. They first transferred control of the estate away from my mother and I to my brother, Rex who was an alcoholic, and convicted felon.

As can be seen from the following narrative, I have been kept in the dark repeatedly and refused access to documents that would allow me to find out whether I received the portion of the estate to which I was entitled. As the following narrative demonstrates, hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets were spent in a highly questionable fashion without any documentation or balance sheets being produced. In addition, a TEDRA agreement was illegally formed based upon trust documents that were no longer valid and as a result, I was apparently cheated out of over $800,000 in assets.

In the past, I attempted to file bar complaints against Lin O’Dell but those complaints were of a limited nature, because I could not obtain documents which would explain the questionable activities of Lin O’Dell.  The WSBA has refused to perform even a minimal investigation, apparently because she had some kind of special status as a WSBA hearing officer. As a result, I have had to spend thousands of dollars, first in removing her as a guardian, then as a trustee so, she could no longer misappropriate funds that were intended to be distributed to me.

In previous litigation, Lin O’Dell has freely admitted that she refused to allow me access to records, claiming that she was “scared” because knowledge of that information would cause me some kind of unspecified harm.

The present complaint is primarily based upon recently discovered material that I had been denied access to by attorney O’Dell.  This includes information that was submitted April 5, 2016, to Stevens Court in Case No. 06-4-00094-9, that was part of an exhibit list prepared for an appeal that was pending in the third division Case No. 32979-8.  Other recently discovered material had been disclosed to my Idaho Attorneys Michaelina Murphy and Carla Ranum who successfully petitioned the Idaho Courts, Case No. CV-08-0006827 to have Lin O’Dell removed as trustee.  Also included as new are documents from an old divorce file I discovered two years ago that contained the billing records for Bruce Pruitt-Hamm.

You may also find references in this complaint to other misconduct that was referred to in previous bar complaints.  I did this because even though they may have been mentioned before, they were portrayed as isolated incidents, where they are now shown as part of a pattern of misconduct. Incredibly, even after being removed as guardian, trustee, and sanctioned, Lin O’Dell still refuses to provide any kind of accounting/distribution information that would explain how millions of dollars to assets were divided between my brother Rex and I. In the past, the WSBA has assigned my complaints to a special disciplinary counsel, because she was a hearing officer.  She is no longer a hearing officer and can be seen from the following narrative, she was not a hearing officer for most of the periods of time in question, so I request that this grievance not be treated as a grievance against a hearing officer, but as a grievance against an attorney.

Issue 1, Failure to supply conflict statements by Bruce Pruit-Hamm, Lin O’Dell, Jessica Bodey, Karen Vache during the creation of guardianship and the period of time leading up to my mother’s death in 2011.

Originally, I was routinely named as my mother’s power of attorney, controlling her multimillion dollar estate. In addition, I was separately awarded a home in Whitefish Montana that is now valued at over $800,000. Then, through a series of transactions, control of this estate was transferred to my brother Rex, who had both an alcohol and drug problem, and was a convicted felon who had been imprisoned 6 months in Arizona.

On August 8, 2006, I went to Bruce Pruit-Hamm for the purpose of obtaining a divorce from my husband Mark Fowler.  On August 10, 2006, he was already contacting an Idaho attorney Paula Massey, who was an Idaho attorney for my brother Rex Shank. He was also in contact with the Wytychak Elder Law Firm, which was later paid over $16,000 for managing an Idaho trust in my name.

On August 29, 2006, my brother Rex petitioned the Idaho court, through Paula Massey, to have him made guardian of the estate of my mother. I do not believe the fact he did this after his attorney had discussions with my attorney is a coincidence. Rex was appointed as a temporary guardian only on September 5, 2007 in Idaho Case No. CV-06-6619 and immediately paid $1,152.40 for legal services rendered by Bruce Pruit-Hamm in my divorce case.  There was never any discussion nor a conflict statement signed concerning the actual conflict of interest of my mother’s guardianship being used to pay this fee.  Also, there was no discussion about how Rex Shank could make such a payment, when his temporary letters explicitly stated his powers:  “allowed only such access to alleged ward’s assets as is necessary to provide for the alleged Ward’s necessities of Life.” (Emphasis added).

Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2006, without explaining to me the reason and possible implications and without obtaining a conflict waiver, Pruitt-Hamm petitioned the court to have me put in a guardianship. Although he claims he did this as an “officer of the court”, there was no written explanation of the actual or potential conflict of interest this posed for my interests, especially that of putting my brother in control of my mother’s finances instead of me.  Soon, the court had appointed Karen Vache’ as a GAL who filed a new guardianship action, where Jessica Bodey was appointed as GAL.  Then Bodey and Vache’ recommended that Lin O’Dell be appointed.

At first I was suspicious of the fact that all three of these attorneys were working together in the same office and voiced those concerns to Bodey about this. Bodey claimed that this was no cause for concern because there was no conflict just because three attorneys knew of each other and worked at the same location.

What was not explained to me was that Lin O’Dell and Karen Vache were business partners in a law firm called “Advance Mediation Service, LLC” and would therefore share profits. As far as I remember, this was not disclosed to the court either. This raises the issue as to whether the unnecessary second guardianship action was instituted to hide the conflict that existed between Vache’ and O’Dell.

By January of 2007, I had changed my mind and decided to try and save my marriage. I also made it clear that I did not agree with assessment by Pamela Ridgway, a psychologist who prepared a report recommending guardianship.

In preparing her report to the court, GAL Bodey confirmed that she had consulted other doctors before making her recommendation including Dr. Bot and doctors who had evaluated me for possible social security benefits.  What she did not disclose to the court is that these three other doctors did not recommend a guardianship.

In March of 2007, I reluctantly agreed to the creation of a guardianship, against the recommendation of my counsel at the time, because of assurances by all the other attorneys, Pruitt-Hamm, O’Dell, Vache’, and Bodey, that  the guardianship was designed to help me manage my assets and obtain my fair share of the estate.

Had I been aware of the full nature of the entangling conflicts of interests and alliances that had been formed to put control of the estate in the hands of my convicted felon, alcoholic brother, I would have never gone along with it.

At some point in time after Lin O’Dell became guardian, it was decided to reinstitute the divorce proceedings and obtain another no-contact order against my ex-husband, Mark Fowler.

After my mother died, Lin O’Dell became trustee of the trust created to receive my inheritance. Lin O’Dell was also a Washington limited guardian of my estate as well as a limited guardian of my person. The creation of these legal entities was made because I was easily manipulated financially and therefore she had a fiduciary duty to preserve my portion of the estate and protect my interests.  There was no discussion of there being a potential conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest of representing both me in the divorce, and representing the Washington guardianship and the Idaho trust, nor were any conflict statements signed. Eventually, it was the failure to adequately deal with these conflicts of interest that led to the problems that followed.

Issue #2: Failure to supply conflict statements by Wallace, Cusack, and O’Dell during the Illegal formation of a TEDRA agreement and a RICO enterprise.

One of the first orders of business was for the attorneys to recommend to me the formation of a TEDRA agreement.  This again was portrayed to me as something that was done to help me and help manage my estate. What was not told to me was that this agreement was flawed from the very beginning as it had a fundamental conflict of interest that was not explained to me, and that it was based upon a will and trust agreement that were no longer valid. First, it was arranged that I would be represented by Mary Cusack, but I was not told that she was law partners with Richard Wallace, who represented my mother during the drafting of the second codicil and the second amendment to the Norma Shanks Living trust. Since Wallace would be expected to represent my mother’s interest, this represented a potential conflict of interest and should have had a conflict statement according to In re Marshall 160 Wn.2d 317.

In addition, according to the first amendment to the trust and the first codicil, I was to be favored over my brother in the fact that I would inherit my mother’s home in Whitefish, Montana. In 2015, this home was assessed at over $800,000. Since I was favored, it could have been expected that a makeup for this would appear in the second codicil to the will and the second amendment to the trust.  In addition, there is some evidence in the guardianship record that this second trust was irrevocable.  In her first annual report to the court she reported that the trust was irrevocable, which had to have meant she saw the second amended trust and second codicil because the first amended trust, was not irrevocable, under its own plain language.  That meant the second amended trust, could not be replaced by anything, let alone a TEDRA agreement that was controlled by my alcoholic ex-con brother.

Since Richard Wallace represented my mother, his failure to disclose the conflict of interest represents an actual conflict of interest with respect to his law partner, because by representing the wishes of my mother, it conflicted with my interests irrespective of whether she intended to reduce my role in the estate or not. Thus Wallace and Cusack were in violation of the rules of professional conduct under the RPC as written, or under the more restrictive terms of Marshall.

It was clear, that prior to the TEDRA agreement in 2008, I was favored over my brother.  I had been named power of attorney, and my ex-husband James Evans was personal representative for the first codicil of my mother’s will. Thus, in the second codicil and second trust agreement, my superior interest would have been reflected.   Since the TEDRA agreement was signed, Richard Wallace has refused to release the second amended trust agreement and the second codicil even though he has released all the other wills and trust agreements. Likewise with O’Dell, who was appointed by the courts to protect my interests, allegedly because I was easily manipulated by men (which would include of course, my brother.) Wallace claimed he lost them… and O’Dell also refused to produce them even though she obviously saw them.  Since these documents should have been the ones the Tedra agreement replaced, the fact that both attorneys refuse to produce them is inexcusable especially since the second trust was irrevocable.  If they continue to refuse to produce these documents, the bar should consider it spoliation, and read all inferences against both of them.

Issue #3:  Conversion of horses, paintings, dogs and other items.

This issue involves my ownership of some horses and other items.  There apparently were no papers signed, but I can prove ownership of the horses at that time through the testimony of the person I purchased them from.  In August, 2010, Jimmy Smith who worked for Lin O’Dell, talked me into having two horses “wintered” by some farm in Spokane Valley. I was skeptical of the need for it because I had already wintered the horses myself the previous year.  On October 20, 2010, I checked into a local hospital for severe depression.  At that time two of my dogs had escaped, but the rest were still in the pen. After I wanted to go home, Jimmy Smith and a counselor were insistent on me staying longer, and in return for me staying longer, Jimmy Smith agreed to go take care of the dogs and safeguard my belongings. Some of these included some valuable paintings that were painted by Norma Shank and given to me. Instead of safeguarding the dogs, they were let free, and Smith hired a neighbor to look for them. However, instead of putting me in contact with the man who was supposed to retrieve them, he refused to give the phone number, and as a result, the man was unable to retrieve them. Later when I got out for a brief period, I was able to retrieve one who was a wolf. However, when I was sent to another rehab center, Lin O’Dell gave the wolf away to an outfit that was supposedly a wolf sanctuary. When I returned to my house, it had been ransacked and all the valuable paintings were missing. Later, Jimmy Smith tried to get me to sign papers to give up legal title of the horses. When I refused, I never got an explanation as to what happened to the horses. In later conversations with other people in the town, they said they were told by Lin O’Dell to shoot the dogs if they came across them. I never saw the horses, dogs, paintings ever since. When I asked about the horses, I was told to forget about it as it is “ancient history”.  I understand there is no statute of limitations on a bar complaint.

In her response to the court, (see attached exhibit) she disclaims any responsibility, claiming that the horses were “rescued”, but does not say by who, or under what authority they were transferred to a new owner.  She claims that the property was separate property, which would be consistent with her having Jimmy Smith asking for a release that was never given.  From her report, she obviously knows what happened to the horses, but does not say who or how they were transferred.   She does not explain why the horses were “rescued”, when Jimmy Smith had been tasked with wintering them. When called to task over the rest of the stolen property by the Stevens County Superior Court, she had the audacity to claim that it was my fault that everything was stolen, even though she was paying caregivers such as Jimmy Smith to take care of it, while being paid in amounts that the court characterized as highly excessive.

Issue #4: Improper accounting and conversion of automobile.

On July 12, 2011, a check was written by Rex Shank, from Wells Fargo account No. 426340535, (my deceased mother’s guardianship account), for $7,432 to Paula Fowler. This check was deposited into USB7452 which is my guardianship account that is under Lin O’Dell control. Three days later, on July 15, 2011, Lin O’Dell wrote a check from my guardianship account USB7452, ck #2273   for $7000 To “Bomben Family Trust” which Lin O’Dell endorsed as “Lin O’Dell Trustee”.  I have attached a copy of that check.

I have been in communication with Mr. Craig Bomben, son of Angelo Bomben, about this check which involves an apparent conflict of interest between two trusts that are run by Lin O’Dell.  Lin O’Dell, had been appointed guardian for Craig’s father, Angelo Bomben, on or about July 20, 2010 in case No.10-4-00009-9. Around the end of June 2011, his family discovered money missing from the family trust and traced the shortfall to his guardian, Lin O’Dell.

According to Craig Bomben, the family demanded Lin O’Dell pay back the $7,000 which they believe she had stolen or they were going to the police and file charges and have her disbarred.  According to Craig, the Bomben family gave Lin O’Dell 10 days to have the money put back into the account.

There were no receipts, and no invoices for this transaction stating what it was for. There was no conflict statement in writing, signed by either members of the Bomben family trust or by me showing approval of a transaction in spite of a conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest in the future between the two trusts. While at one point, O’Dell told Joseph Valente, a Stevens County court appointed investigator, the check was for payment of a car, there was no appraisals showing who owned the car and what it was appraised at.

I have never signed a waiver for the conflict of interest between the two guardianship cases and was never counseled as to the advisability of seeking advice from another counsel.

In July of 2013, DMV records show the registered owners were the Guardianship of Paula Fowler and the Guardianship of Ricky Ott.  It was registered that way until March of 2016.  I was never told that I co-owned the car with the Guardianship of Ricky Ray Ott or why it was registered that way. I never signed a conflict statement advising me of the co-ownership with Ricky Ray Ott.

Lin O’Dell violated RCW 11.92.185 which deals with concealed or embezzled property.  She apparently stole from one guardianship account (Angelo Bomben), and when caught, converted funds from my guardianship account to repay the “Bomben Family Trust”. In doing so, Lin O’Dell violated RCW 11.92.040(b): “A guardian must provide identification of all income sources. A guardian must list all expenditures made during the accounting period by categories.” Lin O’Dell did not identify the $7,432 check from my deceased mother’s guardianship account. Lin O’Dell did not list the disbursement of $7,000 to the “Bomben Family Trust”, her former client.

Lin O’Dell also violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. According to RPC 1.7:

(a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves

a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

    (1)  the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

    (2)  there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited

by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b)  Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

    (1)  the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

    (2)  the representation is not prohibited by law;

    (3)  the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

    (4)  each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing (following authorization from the other client to make any required disclosures).

According to RPC 1.8: (Conflict of Interest; Specific Rules)

 

(a)  A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client; (2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of an independent lawyer on the transaction; and (3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

(b)  A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent, expect as permitted or required by these Rules.

(c)  A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of the client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with who the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.

…

(g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. The lawyer’s disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and the participation of each person in the settlement.

(h) A lawyer shall not: (1) make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented by a lawyer in making the agreement; or (2) settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of an independent lawyer in connection therewith.

(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may: (1) acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses; and (2) contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.

 

The following standards of the American Bar Association Standards for   Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standard”) are presumptively applicable to this Case.

ABA Guideline Standard 5.1: Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity

 5.11 Disbarment is general appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of Justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft, or the sale, distribution or important of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or

(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

ABA Guideline Standard 4.3: Failure to Avoid Conflicts of Interest           

 

4.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the informed consent of client(s):

(a) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer’s interest are adverse to the client’s with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to the client;

ABA Guideline Standard 4.1: Failure to preserve the Client’s Property

 

4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client

 

When Stevens County Superior Court asked for an explanation for this transaction, there was no satisfactory response.  Eventually she was cited for the conflict of interest, but O’Dell never disclosed the improper registration or the allegations of the Bombens.  It was only after I retained a private investigator that the rest of information has come to light.

Issue #5, Retaliation and extortion for reporting improper accounting.

In March of 2013, I had written to the Stevens County Superior Court asking that Lin O’Dell be removed as guardian due her misconduct as a guardian.  I have attached a copy of the letter that I believe was the letter that triggered Stevens County Superior Court to take action.  I waited for months for Stevens County Court to do something.  On or about August 6, of that year I was at my computer and I learned for the first time that a hearing had been scheduled at the very hour I was on my computer.  I got on the phone and immediately informed the court and they decided to reschedule in September.  I later learned that Lin O’Dell was at the hearing and was supposed to have notified me of the hearing. Then, on September 14, 2013, Lin O’Dell and Mark Plivelich showed up at my house.  My ex-husband, James Evans was there, and Mark Plivelich told him personally, how much he would like to own my home—apparently, he considered the property part of  “The Trust”. Lin O’Dell and Mark Plivelich, both were confessing and bragging that they had arranged through the local Northport citizens to have my dogs killed.

Later he witnessed Lin made threats to me that she had intentions of cutting off my TEDRA funds, getting rid of my dogs, change my locks and sell my house in my absence. She was insisting that I leave the state immediately and not attend the continued hearing as a result.  She claimed that Onsight-Insight, my Idaho guardian was insisting that I leave immediately because of a probation requirement, even though earlier I had been given discretion in setting the report date.  I believe that she conspired with Onsight-Insight to prevent me from attending the hearing in retaliation for reporting her.  As will be shown later, this was an attempt to cover up double booking she was starting to engage in because my reporting of her, caught her in the midst of a fraud.

In doing so, Lin O’Dell violated RCW 9A.56.130 which is extortion in the second degree.  That statute defines extortion in the second degree as making an unlawful threat as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(28). Lin O’Dell violated RCW 9A 04 110 (28) because it defines “Threat” as to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent: (b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or (j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his or her health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships.  While the statute makes an exception for someone who reasonably believes that charges should be brought for law violations, it does not include threatening to kill the animals or selling the house.  As a result of Lin O’Dell’s threats, a hearing could not be held on her misconduct as a guardian until December 31, 2013.

The applicable ABA Guidelines Standards: is 5.1 Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity Standard 3.0: the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of Justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or  the sale, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice

Issue #6. Improper accounting and record keeping.

Attached as an exhibit you will find an example of the accounting method used by Lynn O’Dell:

A March 26, 2016, e-mail from the Stevens County Superior Court confirms the type of accounting Lin O’Dell used as a certified guardian of the estate.

Lin O’Dell submitted a box full of “documents” and financial records to support her budget and accounting reports. Some documents were bundled together, nothing labeled or otherwise identified. When the Review Board was unable to match up figures from documents submitted, the Court appointed Investigator/Attorney Joseph Valente as a court appointed investigator.

Lin O’Dell violated RCW 11.92.040: Duties of a guardian or limited   guardian in general: (2) Account shall contain at least the following information:  Identification of property of the guardianship estate as of the date of the last account or, in the case of the initial account, as of the date of inventory; (b) Identification of all additional property received into the guardianship, including income by source; (c) Identification of all expenditures made during the account period by major categories; Lin O’Dell violated RPC 1.15A: Safeguarding Property (c-2): A lawyer must identify, label and appropriately safeguard any property of the clients or third persons other than funds. The lawyer must keep records of such property that identify the property, the client or third person, the date or   receipt and the location of safekeeping. (Safe-Keeping a Box)

Issue #7 Improper Accounting, possible conversion, lack of candor to the court.

These violations are based on the following events: On November 21, 2013, Judge Monasmith signed an “Order to Show Cause” calling for Joseph Valente to investigate possible guardianship violations in my case.  On the basis of this investigation, Lin O’Dell was cited for 13 violations.  According to a statement from Joseph Valente report: “Up until Judge Monasmith   had “Order To Show Cause”, Lin O’Dell has done whatever she wanted without any regard to the authority of the Court.”

Within days, December 12, 2013 Lin O’Dell submitted “Amended” yearly accountings. Through recently discovered accounting records, submitted April 5, 2016 (SUB127), the Stevens County Court Clerk organized the files and records and prepared Exhibit List for the Court of Appeals case No. 32979-8 on April 5^th, 2016 (Sub 127).  I learned of these records shortly thereafter. I compared those records which bank records I independently obtained from US Bank and found out that Lin O’Dell’s amended accounting submitted into court file is misleading and not accurate.

The records from US Bank account USB7452 (guardianship account) shows the actual Income and Disbursements which are one-hundred percent different than what Lin O’Dell submitted. I have attached (3-years) to show the difference in what Lin O’Dell submitted to the courts and what the USB7452 show:   3/6/2011 to 3/5/2012 Lin O’Dell   Amended accounting: Income $0 Disbursements $99,129.76.  (I only have 9-months   March, April and May missing) USB7452 (guardianship account) 9-months:   Income $94,220.35, Disbursements $93,718.03.  3/6/2012 to 3/5/2013 Lin O’Dell   Amended accounting: Income $.35, 3/6/2012 to 3/5/2013 guardianship account   USB7452 confirms: Income $142,718.19, Disbursements $120,038.45. 3/6/2013 to 11/30/2013 Lin O’Dell Amended accounting: $0.00, Disbursements $.0.00

Guardianship account USB7452 confirms: Income $66,000.00, Disbursements   $114,402.13. Lin O’Dell violated RPC 3.3: (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. (b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding. (c) If the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall promptly disclose this fact to the tribunal unless such disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6 (d) If the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity and disclosure of this fact is prohibited by Rule 1.6, the lawyer shall promptly make reasonable efforts to convince the client to consent to disclosure. 

Lin O’Dell has never given me receipts or invoices for anything—-Lin O’Dell just makes statements (full of misrepresentations) and has continually refused to give me proof of where my funds have been disbursed to under her control.  I have e-mails from April 1, 2015 asking Lin O’Dell for accounting records and proof of my estate assets. Lin O’Dell has continually given the same response: “I am not going to spend additional funds for records you have already been given.”  Although I have asked many times—-To this day, Lin O’Dell has not given me supporting documents to confirm income and or disbursements when she has had total control of my money.  Yet, Lin O’Dell was paying herself thousands of dollars monthly for being a Washington limited guardian of estate and for trustee fees which the Steven County Superior Court ruled were, in many cases, highly excessive. Within days of Joseph Valente being appointed to investigate, Lin O’Dell 12/10/2013 filed a declaration on 12/10/2013:  SUB #78, (page 7   line 9-10) she admitted “I did not send Paula her financial statements because I was scared of her safety.” and (page 8 line 5-6) “As I stated in court, I did not send Paula copies of the 2012 and 2013 annual report.”

Also, according to Valente’s report, O’Dell had a double booking system of accounting making it impossible to follow the money trail.  She would enter income and assets into the trust account while simultaneously entering into the same identical information into the guardianship account, even though under Washington law they were two separate entities. The money was never withdrawn or deposited in the trust account leading the investigator to speculate that she was anticipating criticism from the court for maintaining the guardianship when it was duplicating and charging fees for work that was already being accomplished in the redundant Idaho guardianship.  Her final accounting for the guardianship account claimed that she was not charging anything in fees for the guardianship.  However, in spite of these assurances, records from the trust account show she actually paid herself $3,623.75 in guardianship fees without court approval as required.

Lin O’Dell violated RPC 4.1:   Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client shall not knowingly (a) Make a false statement of material fact to a third person.

The following standards of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) are presumptively applicable to this case.

ABA Guideline Standards 6.1 False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation. 6.1 is generally applicable to case involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation to a court. Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in conduct intended to deceive a court or make false statement, submits a false document or improperly withholds material information and causes injury or potentially serious injury to a party. Given the damages to the system and ongoing misrepresenting the facts to the court, the presumptive standard for the attorney who misled the court is disbarment

6.11   Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding

ABA Guidelines Standards 4.1 Failure to Preserve the Clients Property. Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving the failure to preserve client’s property:  4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. 

Issue #8 Violation of guardianship rules, extortion, and formation of a RICO enterprise.

EXHIBIT 3 is a September 13, 2016 the CPG Board Agreement regarding discipline and stipulated findings against Lin O’Dell.  Lin O’Dell was cited on twelve violations of the Standard of Practice Regulations: 401.1, 401.3, 401.5, 404.1, 404.3, 404.4, 409.1, 411.1, 411.3,—former SOP 401.15, 401.16,  RCW 11.92.043 (3), and disciplinary regulation 514.4.  This, report revealed new information never disclosed to the WSBA:  Lin O’Dell admitted Mark Plivelich was her husband and used him to perform work on my case.

Mark Plivelich is a felon, having been convicted of First Degree Manslaughter. As seen above, Lin O’Dell has used Mark Plivelich services and paid him as a care-manger to be her enforcer to intimidate and make threats to her clients. I was and currently still am afraid of Lin O’Dell’s and Mark Plivelich’s threats. Spokane County property records confirm: Lin O’Dell was guardian for another client, Harry Highland, she purchased it for $15,000 when it had been assessed at $240,000 is currently living in her past clients home in Cheney, WA.  I have been afraid, because of Mark Plivelich’s and Lin O’Dell’s threats, that she would do the same to me.

Issue #9: Improper accounting and conversion of assets prior to and during probate of Norma Shanks.

I have never been given an inventory list of assets my mother had at time of death, which included:  I have the original copy of my mother’s life insurance, whose cash value on January 23, 2002 was $190,471.24.  There was another life insurance policy that was cashed out in 2009, while my mother was under guardianship. I have never been shown the amount of disbursement and to what account the life insurance was deposited.

My mother’s house in Post Falls was sold, December 8, 2011 for $106,250.00.  When asked about the proceeds I was told there were so many deductions that I may have gotten between $7,500 and 10,000—never given any proof—-just Lin O’Dell making a statement never supported by any evidence.

My mother had millions in stocks and bonds. Within the last few weeks through my Idaho attorneys I have discovered several bank transactions at the time of Norma Shank death (2 out of 9 bank accounts) my attorneys have discovered 103K missing that should have been deposited into my account upon death of my mother—Lin O’Dell explanation—-There was a loss in the market value – no supporting evidence— just Lin O’Dell making a statement.

I have the Idaho Guardianship/Conservatorship accounting from Norma Shank Case No. CV-06- 6619, which yearly I was receiving gifts from Norma Shank Trust, being deposited directly into either Lin O’Dell personal account or USB7452 guardianship account much of it after the letters of guardianship had expired and had not been renewed.

Issue #10 – Commingling funds from client trust accounts to personal account of attorney

According to guardianship accounting 3/2007 to 3/2008) which was filed with the court on March 21, 1008, on page 4, Lin O’Dell made a statement “I deposited the entire yearly trust deposit into my account because Paula was calling me daily wanting more money.” (Emphasis added). Violated RPC 1.15 (c) A lawyer must hold property of clients and third persons separate from the lawyer’s own property. 

Issue #11 – Improper accounting prior to probate, conversion, conspiracy, formation of RICO enterprise, bribery.

I have requested from Lin O’Dell confirmation for payment $250,000 Rex Shank had borrowed from our mother, Norma Shank to purchase one-half of the Hunters Restaurant in Post Falls, this transaction was done just months before he filed for guardianship/conservatorship of our mother, Norma Shank, with a estate worth millions.  Lin O’Dell has refused to furnish me with any financial documents regarding the payment status of the loan Rex Shank had between my mother, Norma Shank and myself.

As to the $250,000 lent to my brother, after being given only $1000 of the payments that were promised, there was never any explanation why the payment stopped or what happened to the other $3000 per month he was supposed to have been paying.

Lin O’Dell now claims she has no records because Rex controlled the estate.  She also gives the same excuse for the failure to account for the life insurance policies. However, she is a Washington practicing attorney who established a guardianship specifically because I was easily manipulated by men, which presumably would include my brother Rex. At a minimum she should have made inquiries and obtained records to show I was not being taken advantage of.  Her failure to produce these records is inexcusable, and, like before, the WSBA should consider the refusal to turn these records over as spoliation.

 

Issue #12 – Refusal to turn over records.

E-mails confirm I have asked Lin O’Dell for years to sign a release authorization directing Les Anderson, CPA, Post Falls, Idaho to release financial records.  Mr. Anderson was my Mother’s CPA for years and through her death.  These documents would prove the assets my mother held at the time of her death.  Lin O’Dell has refused usually claiming she has no authority to control Mr. Anderson because Rex was conservator/guardian and Wells Fargo/trustee of that trust not her.  However, she is a practicing Washington attorney who had a fiduciary responsibility to preserve the estate.  She cannot have it both ways.  If she in fact did not have direct access to Anderson’s records, then why did she not use her skills as an attorney to force their release, as she had a right to preserve the estate of the guardianship?

In refusing to do so, Lin O’Dell violated RPC 1.15A:  Safeguarding Property (c- 2):   A lawyer must identify, label and appropriately safeguard any property of clients or third persons other than funds. The lawyer must keep records of such property that identify the property, the client or third person, the date of receipt and the location of safekeeping. The lawyer must preserve the records for seven years after return of the property.  (e) A lawyer must promptly provide an accounting to a client or third person after distribution of property or upon request.

Issue #13, apparent conversion of funds.

Lin O’Dell declaration SUB 78, submitted December 10, 2013 into court record case contained several false statements including, page 4 line 24-25, where O’Dell stated “Every time the (trust) disbursed money to Paula as a gift they needed to transfer equal amount to Rex Shank.” This statement is another misrepresentation to the court, showing a complete lack of candor. Idaho conservatorship accounting 10/2007 through 10/2008 listed that Rex Shank was gifted $199,427.69—-Paula Fowler gifted $24,200– As my guardian, Lin O’Dell had a duty to protect all assets—these large trust funds being disbursed were not Rex Shank funds they were my mother’s and Lin O’Dell, as guardian of estate, had a duty to look into these transactions.

On April 18, 2011 (one-month prior to Norma Shank death 5/30/2011)  Idaho Judge Clark Peterson called a Status Conference to address issues why the $73,000 gifted to  Rex Shank and $43,000 gifted was Paula Fowler from the Norma Shank Trust (without court approval).  Attorney Pamela Massey had same comment Lin O’Dell stated in her declaration.  “Rex Shank gifted yearly amounts between himself and his sister Paula Fowler.  Gifting will remain at $13,000 per person limit per year.”  Never explained was why these amounts were unequal.  Also unexplained is why the TEDRA Agreement called for Paula to receive $2000.00 per month, yet the accounting records show that Paula never received anywhere near this amount.  These gifts don’t appear equal as Lin O’Dell stated in her declaration.

Also unexplained is why Idaho Judge Clark Peterson was allowed to sit on the case, when he had received at least $5000 from my guardianship account without court approval when he represented my ex-husband Mark Fowler in criminal charges in 2008. Lin O’Dell violated RPC 3.3  (a) A lawyer shall  not:  (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a or fail to correct a false  statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

Recently discovered accounting records submitted to Stevens Court, by Lin O’Dell in an unorganized box. The court clerk attempted to organize the box. Exhibits submitted for the Court of Appeals use shows several unexplained transactions:

8/31/2012 ATM SAVING WITHDRAWAL $ 8,649.37,

11/14/2012 ATM SAVING WITHDRAWALS, $2604.25

12/31/2012 ATM WITHDRAWAL   1,177.56

Total of $12,431.56 CASH taken by Lin O’Dell No-Receipts or Invoices.

USB7452 guardianship account confirmed:  2/6/2012 Customer Withdrawal $1,000,

2/21/2012 ck#2405 CASH $500,

9/13/2013 Customer Withdrawal $500.  This has all the appearances of unlawful conversion of property and if so, Lin O’Dell violated RCW 11.92.185:  Concealed or Embezzled property. 

Issue #15 – Misrepresentations as to the scope of her authority.

Lin O’Dell has continued to make misrepresentations to the courts.   July 26, 2016 letter from Lin O’Dell Attorney Katherine Coyle confirms, Lin O’Dell is telling my Attorney to correct the TEDRA document to show Lin O’Dell was appointed Full Guardian of the Estate.  When my attorney requested the order of Lin O’Dell appointment of full Guardian of Estate—-Lin O’Dell changed Attorneys. A copy of Appeal No. 32979-8-lll is attached resulting in Lin O’Dell losing her appeal against myself and attorney Joseph Valente.

In this regard, O’Dell has been joined in this misrepresentation by Cusack, who likewise made the misrepresentation to Washington courts that O’Dell was a full instead of limited guardian.  Please consider this as part of the bar complaint against her.

One of the things O’Dell was cited for in the Stevens County action was for continually misrepresenting the scope of her guardianship to others, including the court, and misusing her limited authority to take actions that exceeded her authority.  Incredibly, even after being sanctioned by the court and losing on the appeal, she continues to misrepresent the scope of her authority, so she can again perform a fraud on the court.

Issue #16 – Failure to supervise and conduct background checks for her staff:

Lin O’Dell violated RPC 5.3:

With respect to a non-lawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; Lin O’Dell on 10/18/2013 signed a blank guardianship check—-gave it to her felon husband—top of check has Mark Plivelich driver’s license number, PLIVEMD475LB, ex 6/2/2017.

Lin O’Dell, an attorney, giving a blank check from my guardianship account is not the conduct that is compatible with the professional obligations of a lawyer.  Lin O’Dell has violated RPC 5.3 (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the persons conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the persons conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows   of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

 

With regard to her husband, Lin O’Dell violated RPC 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others:  In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; Lin O’Dell made a statement in the CPG Discipline and Stipulated Finding, she had employed Mark Plivelich for about a year.

The Guardianship account, USB7452 confirmed she had paid Mark Plivelich or his business starting 7/15/2011 through  10/18/2013 this appears to be 2-years and 3-months.

Checks from my USB7452 guardianship account, written by Lin O’Dell to “Felon”  Mark Plivelich and “Complete Estate Services include: Mark Plivelich   7/15/2011 $135.04, Mark Plivelich  5/19/2012  $885.96,   “Complete EstateServices” 7/1/2012 82.22,    “Complete EstateServices”  7/12/2012  115.00  “Complete Estate Services” 7/30/2012 “Complete Estate Services” $312.75,   “Complete Estate Services” 4/19/2013 $1,443.15, 10/18/2013  blank check written by Lin O’Dell /Mark Plivelich driver’s License top of check $107.02

I was never made aware of the fact that Mark Plivelich was her husband, nor that she had formed a partnership with her husband to form Complete Estate services. I was never informed of his felony conviction for manslaughter.

When questioned by the guardianship board on her hiring of her husband which was forbidden under Washington law because of his felony conviction, she simply stated that because the conviction was over 30 years old, she thought it didn’t count.

Yet court records confirmed that her husband was convicted for shooting a friend in the head at point blank range with his gun.  He was only convicted of manslaughter because he claimed to the court at the time he was drunk and didn’t know what he was doing. As stated above, O’Dell uses her husband as an enforcer for her enterprise, so his conviction is highly relevant, no matter how long ago it happened.

The following standards of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) are presumptively applicable to this case

ABA Guidelines Standards:   5.1 Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity                5.1 Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of Justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or  the sale, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

Issue 17  Lin O’Dell NEVER filed a petition to present accounting receipts, investments, expenditures before closing Guardian of Estate.

According to RCW 11.92.053:

Settlement of estate upon termination.

Within ninety days, unless the court orders a different deadline for good cause, after the termination of a guardianship for any reason, the guardian or limited guardian of the estate shall petition the court for an order settling his or her account as filed in accordance with RCW 11.92.040(2) with regard to any receipts, expenditures, and investments made and acts done by the guardian to the date of the termination. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a date for the hearing of the petition after notice has been given in accordance with RCW 11.88.040. Any person interested may file objections to the petition or may appear at the time and place fixed for the hearing thereof and present his or her objections thereto. The court may take such testimony as it deems proper or necessary to determine whether an order settling the account should be issued and the transactions of the guardian be approved, and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to review the report.

At the hearing on the petition of the guardian or limited guardian, if the court is satisfied that the actions of the guardian or limited guardian have been proper, and that the guardian has in all respects discharged his or her trust with relation to the receipts, expenditures, investments, and acts, then, in such event, the court shall enter an order approving the account, and the order shall be final and binding upon the incapacitated person, subject only to the right of appeal as upon a final order. However, within one year after the incompetent attains his or her majority any such account may be challenged by the incapacitated person on the ground of fraud  Conclusion.

On the basis of the above charges, I am requesting that the WSBA investigate and charge Lin O’Dell for the above ethical violations and recommend disbarment with restitution.

 

 

---

 

Gold Bar Reporter’s Commentary

---

The Washington State Bar’s turning a blind eye to thief and attorney Lin O’Dell’s criminal conduct as outlined below illustrates just how far the corruption in Washington State’s Bar Association has reached, extending up through our State Supreme Court  as well.

Interesting to note for my readers that the Washington State Bar President Robyn Haynes was arrested last year for theft of client funds.

The WSBA tipped off WSBA President Robyn Haynes to resign prior to criminal charges filed, resigned June 21, 2017, as the president of the Washington State Bar Association.

 

A search warrant retained evidence supporting three counts of second-degree theft based on her previous employment with the Spokane Valley law firm McNeice Wheeler and her earlier employment at Witherspoon Kelley in Spokane.

 

The Washington State Bar has yet to take a single disciplinary action against Robyn Haynes for theft.

Below is an article written about how Lin O’Dell is using a convicted killer named Mark Plivilech to harass, steal, misuse credit information, and SSA information to funnel clients trust and public monies to their personal accounts.

 

---

 

How Guardians from the Washington State Bar Disciplinary Officers

are given a license to steal from Washington State’s most vulnerable adults

---

Forward:

When lawyers steal from their clients, It’s We the taxpayers that end up paying the bill.

Attorney Lin ( Linda) O’Dell ( aka Worthington), an attorney handpicked by the Washington State Bar Association  (WSBA) Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to hear complaints filed against lawyers by clients ( non clients should have no forum) uses a convicted killer named Mark Plivilech to intimidate vulnerable adults, while she uses WSBA influence to continue stealing and depleting elderly clients trusts.

But O’Dell doesn’t do this alone, she gets a pass from the WSBA ODC.

Once Lin O’Dell and other attorneys involved in the same conduct as stated herein deplete the clients’ trust accounts, they place the client on Medicare and/or on the Medicaid system.

Our elderly deserve to die with dignity, and without the elite few WSBA members associated with the Office of Disciplinary Council and WSBA Boards lining their pockets with the gold of others, stealing with the assistance of a few Commissioners’ and Judges, at the expense of the United States taxpayers.

We have drafted a “Brady List” of Judges, Commissioners, and attorneys we know are involved in criminal conduct as outlined herein and will be posting names soon to our “ Brady List.”

Sadly, attorney Spokane attorney Lin O’Dell is not the exception, but she is part of the Racketeering scandal exposed over the past year involving what we call the center of the rotten onion, the WSBA ODC.

The WSBA ODC is using police officers, attorneys and judges to trump up criminal charges on honest hard working citizens and attorneys who speak out against corrupt government officials, and we ( Americans) must do everything in our power to peacefully and legally stop them. Their actions of going after honest lawyers and whistleblowers who attempt to expose corrupt judges, attorneys and police officers stifles our free market economy, and as in my case, violates Sherman Antitrust laws.

We the people are the checks and balances to an honest and clean government. As a person who grew up with two activist parents, who were no parents of the year by any stretch of the truth, I was brought up to believe there is no greater sacrifice or greater good on Mother Earth then helping the sick, elderly, abused, exposing corrupt government officials, and helping the wrongfully convicted. I value the First Amendment to US Constitution as the greatest gift Thomas Jefferson’s gave to America, more valuable than a Bar license.

---

 

If you look at great human civilizations, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, you will see that most do not fail simply due to external threats but because of internal weakness, corruption, or a failure to manifest the values and ideals they espouse. Cory Booker

---

 

Attorney Lin O’Dell, a thief, an attorney, a nurse, and a guardian  

Washington State Bar (WSBA) Disciplinary Hearing Officer Lin (Linda) O’Dell (aka Worthington) is stealing from Washington State vulnerable adults, manly over the age of 60, and being aided by the WSBA’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) members, Scott Busby and Linda Eide, and her partner, a convicted killer named Mark Plivilech ( Spokane).

Attorney Lin O’Dell’s Linked In page:

Attorney Lin O’ Dell brags about her days as an administrative hearing officer for the Department of Health, she worked as a nurse and is now a guardian overseeing elderly clients trust accounts.

Lin O’Dell is not licensed in Idaho, only Washington. A relevant issue discussed later.

Does being a nurse or a guardian, especially one that has never engaged in the practice of law constitute qualifications under the WSBA guidelines for hearing officers?

Simply put, no.  I ‘ve researched the WBSA rules on appointing hearings officers and discovered that in order for the WSBA member to be appointed as a hearing officer one must have been engaged in the practice of law.  Here, Ms. O’ Dell appears to be the exception to this rule, since she never practiced law.

This begs the question on who appointed an unqualified attorney to hear issues relating to violation by WSBA members?

According to the WSBA public records officer, Ms. O’Dell was handpicked by another shyster from Spokane, attorney Joseph Nappi Jr. Mr. Nappi’s investigative file and his cash only deals with clients will be discussed in another investigative blog coming soon.

---

Attorney Lin O’Dell, using convicted killer Mark Plivilech to intimidate elderly vulnerable clients 

Now, on its face this may not seem too bad in the scheme of things, but lets add in this bit of facts.  Lin O’Dell’s background was searched extensively, and what we yielded was that she shacked up with a convicted killer named Mark Plivilech and extensive IRS and other financial problems.  YES our readers are reading this correctly; WSBA attorney and hearing officer Lin O’Dell’s partner of choice is a convicted killer.

If a WSBA hearing officer having a convicted killer as her partner of choice doesn’t sound bad enough, hold onto your seats because we have some more wonderful news.

According to internal court declarations and an extensive background check our investigators ran on Mark Plivilech, Lin O’Dell acting as a guardian for elderly vulnerable adults – many bed ridden elderly Americans- listed killer Mark Plivilech as a “case manager” on twenty (22) of her elderly clients’ accounts.

Once I learned that a convicted killer was acting as a case manager on vulnerable adults accounts, I called the Washington State Attorney General’s Office asking one simple question ” Can a convicted killer serve as a case manager on vulnerable or elderly Washingtonians trust account s or as a guardian ad litem?”

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office started laughing, for which I said  ” No, I am serious.”  The phone became silent for a minute and the attorney general said ” NO, absolutely not !” very loudly.

---

Attorney Lin O’Dell has stolen  $3,000,000.00 + from the Shank Trust Account, and was caught forging documents

Court documents show that at the time of Norma Shank’s death, The Shank Trust had almost $4,000,000.00, at the end of 2011.

Paula Fowler is from Idaho, and how and why she came into contact with a thief and attorney named Lin O’ Dell can best be described by one of her closest friends who said ” Paula went into Colville attorney Pruitt Hamm’s office for a divorce, and came out with as a guardian ward. But not before Pruitt Hamm made exparte contacts with Lin O’Dell’s attorney in Idaho, Pamela Massey. Soon thereafter, Massey and O’Dell forged documents claiming that  Ms. Fowler’s mother, Norma Shank, had revoked the first Shank Will written in 2000, and only after Norma Shank was diagnosed with dementia, did this new Will appear with the assistance of attorney Lin O’Dell, attorney Richard Wallace, and Idaho attorney Paula Massey.”

We reviewed the both Wills and believe all attorneys involved should be charged with criminal Racketeering as the Will’s metadata has been stripped ( to hide when and who wrote it)

---

Exploiting and stealing from our elderly vulnerable adults

The only living Will of Norma Shank was signed in 2000, leaving her entire estate worth well over $5,000,000.00 to Paula Fowler, with no trust. No trust until after Paula Fowler went into attorney Pruitt Hamm’s office for a divorce and came as a guardian of Lin O’Dell, and only after attorney Pruitt Hamm made phone calls to an attorney from Idaho named Pamela Massey. An attorney hired by Lin O’Dell to help siphon elderly and vulnerable clients trust accounts through nursing homes in Spokane and drug rehab centers in Idaho.

Attorney Pamela Massey and Lin O’Dell were contacted for comment. As of today, both have refused.

According to attorney Pruitt Hamm’s attorney bills in the Fowler matter; no sooner did Paula Fowler leave Pruitt’s office seeking a divorce, Pruitt Hamm was on the phone with Idaho attorney Pamela Massey ( an Idaho attorney who represents Lin O’Dell).  Once Pruitt Hamm learned that Paula Fowler was worth well over $5,000,000.00, he conspired with attorney Lin O’Dell and Pamela Massey to steal from a vulnerable adult.

Over the last three years, attorneys Lin O’Dell and Pamela Massey have stolen over $3,000,000.00 + from Paula Fowler, but not without the assistance of the Washington State Bar lead counsel Linda Eide.

---

Lin O’Dell forging documents, and has stolen over $3,000,000.00 +, but Lin O’Dell did not act alone

Court records from Pamela Massey’s Office in Idaho confirm that Lin O’Dell depleted non-Washington resident Paula Fowler’s trust accounts ( known as a Shank Trust, Wells Fargo, Idaho) to provide ” legal fees, at legal representation.”

There’s only problem for attorney Lin O’Dell, she is not an Idaho attorney.  Our counsel said ” a non attorney cannot provide legal representation without a license.”

From records we retrieved from Stevens County Court, in December 2011, the Shank Trust had $3,900,000.00 plus dollars in the account with no forensic accounting ever given to Ms. Fowler or the Court, even though Lin O’Dell was ORDERED to provide such documents to the Court by. A court order  Ms. O’Dell continues to thumb her nose at, while she continues to steal from Ms. Fowler but not without the assistance of the Washington State Bar lead counsel Linda Eide.

---

Lin O’Dell stealing Ms. Fowler’s assets, using convicted killer to intimidate Ms. Fowler

As we correctly stated, attorney Lin O’Dell is crossing state lines, from Washington to Idaho, using her convicted killer Mark Plivilech to steal and threaten vulnerable clients.

As the alleged “trustee” Lin O’Dell is supposed to be paying Paula Fowler’s bills, housing, car, and food.

For nearly four months in early 2014, Lin O’Dell refused to provide basic shelter for Ms. Fowler ( as the Shank Trust mandates) leaving Ms. Fowler living in a truck at a truck stop.

Imagine your parents leave you a $5,000,000.00 trust, and the alleged trustee refuses to provide you shelter, leaving you homeless, because several outstanding members of the Washington State Bar forged documents and stole millions, what would you do?

File WSBA complaints for fraud and theft?  And that’s exactly what Paula Fowler did, and who received that WSBA complaints was WSBA lead counsel Linda Eide.  Ms. Eide’s criminal conduct as exposed by attorney Robert Grunstein was exposed in his book ” Vendetta” and will be discussed in detail in another investigative blog coming soon.

Linda Eide’s criminal conduct against the Gold Bar Reporter will be discussed at length in my book ” No sunshine where the cockroaches roam” in my last chapter ( still being written) ” Reforming the Washington State Bar, taking politics out of the practice of law.”

---

---

Judge Patrick Monasmith, a man with integrity, orders court officer Joseph Valente to investigate attorney Lin O’Dell

Court mandated investigator Joseph Valente findings against attorney Lin O’Dell

Just to make sure our readers understand fully what’s going on here, see above. Lin O’Dell tells the Court that Paula Fowler needs a guardian because she has an abusive ex-husband who controls her, but then writes a check to attorney Clark Peterson ( now Judge Clark Peterson, Idaho),  to defend Ms. Fowler’s soon to be ex-husband in a criminal felony vulnerable adult charge filed in Idaho for abusing Paula Fowler’s ( nee Shank) mother Norma Shank.

But hold onto your seats because it’s much better – if you can believe it !

Not only did attorney Lin O’Dell write a check to Ms. Fowler’s soon to be ex-husband’s private attorney to defend against criminal felony charges for elder abuse of Ms. Fowler’s mother ( the one who started the 5 Million dollar trust for Paula Fowler also known as Shank Trust ), but Lin O’Dell uses Norma Shank’s trust account to write a $5000.00 check to attorney Clark Peterson, Idaho, and $250.00 to attorney Dick Sayre ( for a consultation, pretty harmless on Sayre’s and Peterson’s part more likely than not) to defend the man who was just charged with felony elderly abuse.

We’re not sure about our readers, but we’re just not sure how paying an Idaho attorney to defend against elder abuse of Paula Fowler’s mother, Norma Shank, benefited the Norma Shank Trust.  But if our readers have any idea, please email those to us at GoldBarReporter@Comcast.net

Imagine someone steals from you and then having the court order you to pay for the defendant’s criminal defense counsel. With no surprise this is exactly what attorney Lin O’Dell did in this matter.

---

Lin O’Dell, a criminal with a license to steal, a stellar example in favor of reforming the WSBA

The fact that Lin O’Dell and killer Mark Plivilech were using a USPS Post Office Box in Duvall Washington to accept financial pay offs from Snohomish County’s bum who killed 43 Oso residents, John E. Pennington, and his convicted bank frauding wife Crystal Hill ( nee Berg, bank fraud 2005), is coming to a US Federal Court soon.   

Thank you retired USPS Postmaster, you’re a fine lady

 

 

Accounting records recently discovered, due to Commissioner Monica Wasson Ruling:  “To submit 3-3inch binder of records Attorney/Inspector Joseph Valente used for preparing his report.”.  EXHIBIT LIST from Steven Court SUB # 127 submitted  into the COA No. 329798.

Exhibits 1 -9 prove  Lin O’Dell Violations of: 409.1:   The guardian shall assure competent management of the property and income of the estate.  In the discharge of this duty, the guardian shall exercise the highest level of fiduciary responsibility, intelligence, prudence, and diligence and avoid any self iinterest.  The management of the estate shall be documented by means of accurate and complete records of all transaction

EXHIBIT 1:  3/25/2016 E-Mail from Patty Chester/Stevens County Clerk stating: Lin O’Dell putting my accounting records in a box, nothing identified, nothing labeled.

EXHIBIT 2 showing Lin O’Dell CASH ATM WITHDRAWALS/No receipts. I attached bank statement proving No documentation of what bank account Lin O’Dell took the $12,431.17 CASH ATM WITHDRAWALS  (1-year)    12,541.17 CASH disbursement never reported on yearly accounting.  No receipts.
EXHIBIT 2:  Income/Expenses  Yearly CASH  $12,431.17
8/31/2012   Saving-ATM   ATM WITHDRAWAL  $8,649.37
11/14/2012  Saving-ATM   ATM WITHDRAWAL     2,60422
12/31/2012  Saving-ATM   ATM WITHDRAWAL     1,177.58

EXHIBIT 3: 3/5/2012  Lin O’Dell Bank account BALANCE  $10,487.69  (Misrepresented FACTS):  3/5/2012  USB7452 CPG bank account statement shows BALANCE $18,465.48.  Where is the difference of  $7,977.70  between the Balance Lin O’Dell claiming and the actual USB7452 bank statements confirm

Bank Statements from USB9452 guardianship account showing CUSTOMER WITHDRAWALS and check for CASH.  No receipts.
EXHIBIT 4:  2/6/2012  Customer Withdrawal 1,000.00
2/21/2012  ck # 2405  CASH             500.00   written & endorsed by Lin O’Dell
9/13/2012  Customer Withdrawal  500.00

Guardianship Profit & Loss March through October 2013  showing Funds disbursed for a BOND—Lin O’Dell although Bond ORDERED by Judge Monasmith–Attorney Joseph Valente report confirms No-Bond was ever gotten.
EXHIBIT  5:   2013 Accounting shows payment for:  BOND Premium  $200.00   Yet No Bond,  No Receipt

Letter written by Lin O’Dell stating where she spent $12,625.00 of my guardianship funds for Shauna, Jimmy and herself.  Yet there is only one check  for the year written to Jimmy & Shauna Moving/More was for  $1,303.56 .  What happened to the remaining  $11,321.44 ?  No receipts, never reported on yearly guardianship accounting.
EXHIBIT 6:  1/11/2011  Letter I received from Lin O’Dell giving me details of my guardian funds being spent  $12,625.00—No receipts, just Lin O’Dell WORD.

EXHIBIT  7: 12/9/2013  Lin O’Dell yearly accounting.  Fees Guardian or Attorney requested.  Guardian Fees $0   Attorney Fees  $0.  Idaho trust accounting confirms Lin O’Dell transferred  Guardian Fees $3,623.75 to her own bank account.  Never disclosing disbursements to the Washington Courts.  Violating RPC 3.3 (1) making a false statement to  of fact or law to a tribunal

EXHIBIT  8: 3/18/2008   How can a Guardian keep accurate accounting when Lin O’Dell admits to depositing my yearly  guardianship income into her own Personal Bank Account and be approved by the courts ?  Violation of SOP 409.9  Prohibits commingling of the funds of an incapacitated person with funds

EXHIBIT  9:  8/13/2008  Lin O’Dell used my guardianship funds $5,000  for “Substitution of Counsel and Withdrawal of Public Defender/ Clark Peterson Private Counsel” for Idaho criminal case #CR-2008-0001115 to defend my Ex-husband Mark Fowler.  Charges were brought by State of Idaho against Mark Fowler for “Defendant committed crimes of Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult, Mark Fowler exploit Norma Shank (my mother) checking or funds that exceeds $1,000.”  The $5,000 paid to Attorney/Judge Clark Peterson  had zero to do with my guardianship and paid without Court Approval.  Yet Courts approved the yearly accounting.  UNBELIEVABLE

EXHIBIT  10:  2/27/2007  GAL  Attorney Jessica Bodey report stated:  Listed my monthly income of $1,000 a month from my brother Rex Shank for a 250K Loan he borrowed from my mother to purchase GW Hunters Restaurant.  Fact:  Once Lin O’Dell was appointed my Limited Guardian of Estate & Person not one-time was the $1,000 from my brother Rex Shank listed on any of the guardianship accounting.  The $1,000 a month income is not listed on any of the USB7452 guardianship bank statements.  Did Lin O’Dell deposit this 1,000 payment into her own bank account ?  What happened to these $1,000 payments ?

EXHIBIT  11:  1/22/2014  Guardians Response To Investigative Report:  Lin O’Dell admits she used my guardian funds to pay to Attorney of her choice in the amount of $51,212.32 WITHOUT the REVIEW or APPROVAL of the COURT.  Attorney/Inspector Joseph Valente stated in his report, “Up until the time Judge Monasmith Ordered an investigation Lin O’Dell did whatever she wanted without any regard to authority of the courts.”