When in trouble, blame Washington State Auditor Troy Kelly


Arrogant, poor poor me, was the common whining words echoing the halls at Washington State’s Public Disclosure Offices yesterday, as disgraced former Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon and Senator Steve Hobbs’s right hand hatchet man Kevin Hulten spoke yesterday in his defense.

As a distraction method, Hulten blamed Washington State Auditor (SAO) Troy Kelly, claiming that he filed a whistleblower complaint with Troy Kelly’s Office (SAO). A public records response yielded no such whistleblower complaint from the SAO, but we did receive a copy of whistleblower complaint filed with King County Prosecutor’s Office immediately filed after he was caught using a ” wiping” program to destroy evidence in a pending civil rights complaint.

Another lie, upon another lie, just as any criminal does; blame and kick the dog while their down defense seems to be Hulten’s common criminal harassing M.O.  as evidenced by his blog posts on the Sky Valley Chronicle ( a PAC set up to control the political message in Snohomish County).



Hulten further linked Senator Steve Hobbs to racketeering gang from Snohomish County, which included Aaron Reardon, Kevin Thomas Hulten, and Jon Rudicil


With no surprise, Hulten never discussed how much money and harm he had caused the taxpayers of Washington with his criminal conduct. Although, Hulten spent an enormous amount of time naming dropping and bragging about his close ties to Senator Steve Hobbs referring to him as “Steve.”

Our readers should know that Senator Steve Hobbs is running for Washington State Lieutenant Governor, and from public email between Hobbs and disgraced former Executive Aaron Reardon, its clear that Steve Hobbs,  and his hatchet men, Hulten and Jon Rudicil, trained Aaron Reardon to criminally harass and defame his supporters. But we’ll save those public emails for a near future date.

With mounds of evidence, and fantastic prosecution conducted by Washington State Attorney General Chad Standifer, Hulten reluctantly confessed that he misused Snohomish County phones, staff, and time, to assist former Executive Aaron Reardon with his campaign to attack his political opponents. But then within a few minutes, he contradicted his earlier statements, claiming his actions were lawful.

Just before the end of the hearing, those of us in the audience could hear Kevin Hulten’s wife Krystal Tate Hulten ( Hulten’s wife who is a lawyer in Washington and California) giving Hulten legal advice asking for a recess so he could look over his notes and come up with a closing statement.

Hearing what we onlookers heard, Washington State Attorney General Chad Standifer stopped the proceedings asking Hulten if there was anyone in the room with you at anytime?

This spurred an unprofessional response from long time Democratic Operative Jack Johnson, an attorney with extensive ties to Aaron Reardon’s little gang up here in Snohomish County, who started yelling at Washington State Attorney General Chad Standifer asking him why he needed to know who was with Hulten.

Commissioner and attorney Jack Johnson let me give you a little lesson in ethics because its clear you missed or failed ethics ( while I got the Blue Book award in ethics): when a person is being represented by counsel, She ( Krystal Tate Hulten) must enter a notice of appearance. Simply because you’re a Democrat or Republican does not negate your professional duties!


Poor, poor, little old me, I didn’t do anything wrong;  but I plead guilty to criminal evidence tampering in Block v Snohomish County et al. case after receiving a “litigation hold” defense. 

“I would like to move on with my life. This is affecting my wife and I… this is sickening… I have been denied due process.. I am unemployed..”   he said before the commission left the room to deliberate about his guilt.

Hulten, who now resides in California, participated by phone.

After a four year investigation, and a five hour taxpayer funded hearing, the state Public Disclosure Commission voted unanimously to impose a minor penalty of $2500.00.

For those of us sitting in the audience, Kevin Hulten got off easy with a $2500.00 penalty. It was clear that the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s ruling was nothing more than a way to close a case that is embarrassing to a specific party.

Unfortunately, it happens to be my party that returned a political penalty to a major violation of campaign laws, which will only encourage others to commit the same offenses with no fear of a substantial penalty.


But one thing Kevin Hulten did admit to was that our story about Senator Steve’s Hobbs’s brother in law, Jon Rudicil and Kevin Hulten were in fact being paid by Tacoma attorney Jack Connelly to harass Senator Jeanne Darnielle was right on target.

According to Snohomish County employee Brian Lewis, Hulten did not receive any money from Jack Connelly to harass Jeanne Darnielle. Perhaps Mr. Lewis and Hulten should have discussed their lies before they became part of a public hearing.


Certainly a complaint with the IRS against Rudicil and Hulten, thanks to Mr. Hulten’s under oath admissions at the PDC Hearing in Olympia yesterday.

Further, Hulten admitted that he worked with Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management to draft a flood map for FEMA ( Reardon’s mistress stated that Reardon considered Director John Pennington to be a dip shit and not capable of performing his job). In 2014, Hulten sent the Gold Bar Reporter an email claiming that he never worked with DEM.  Opps, perhaps  Hulten and Pennington should have discuss their lies too before making under oath admissions during a public hearing.

Stupid is as stupid does….

What the Public Disclosure Commission did not release was the blogs from Kevin Hulten’s Sky Valley Chronicle entries.  A website set up by former Executive Aaron Reardon to control the message in the Sky Valley ( Monroe to Sultan to Index).

A website Hulten, disgraced/terminated Snohomish County employee John E. Pennington and his wife Crystal Hill Pennington ( convicted of bank fraud in 2005) and former Gold Bar Mayor Joe Beavers were all blogging on, criminally cyber-stalking their opponents to cover up their computer racketeering crimes.

The King County Major Crimes Unit turned over a complete copy of Hulten’s hard drive to us. Hulten’s troubles have yet to begin, as he is being sued for racketeering in US Federal Court with depositions expected to begin late this year or during the first quarter of 2017.


Public emails from Snohomish County Washington document that while Krystal Tate Hulten was a law clerk in Snohomish County Washington, for Judge Downes, she engaged in illegal exparte contact with a Prosecutor prior to trial basically saying I hope you strip parental rights away from a mother accused of abuse.

Ms. Tate Hulten is a lovely attorney.

Kevin and Krystal Tate Hulten’s activities in Snohomish County document gross civil rights and racketeering activity.

The Gold Bar Reporter has never been sued for defamation and we stand by articles.

“Mark Roe, needs to go””



I made a decision to Recall Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe after a lawyer told me that Mark Roe is funding the Sky Valley Chronicle and its agent Ron Fejfar and former Mayors Joe Beavers and Linda Loen ( both resigned after public records implicated them in a racketeering complaint filed in US Federal District Court against both) in a federal racketeering suit I filed.

From public records, we know the following:

The Sky Valley Chronicle was started by a former Seattle Times reporter named Chris Schwartzen as a political action committee ( without registering it as such) on behalf of former Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon.

In July 2012, Governor Jay Inslee gave the Gold Bar Reporter a hand full of personal files on Executive Aaron Reardon extra-marital affairs with two women, Deanna Dawson,   Executive Director of the Sound Cities Association (formerly Suburban Cities Association), and Snohomish County Whistleblower Tamara Dutton.  The biggest problem for Reardon, he used taxpayer monies to fund his affairs, including, but not limited to, hotels rooms, porno movies, and sex toys.

Deanna Dawson accompanied Aaron Reardon to Paris, and Dutton accompanied him to Chicago.  Where his wife fit into this equation, one can only speculate, but when’s a pig always a pig.

When Aaron Reardon’s little racketeering gang in Snohomish County got caught by us, and then reported on by the Herald, Reardon was forced to resign, but not before the County Council transferred convicted criminal Kevin Thomas Hulten, Chris Schwartzen and Aaron Reardon’s computers to King County Major Crimes Unit.

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

Kevin Thomas Hulten ( now married to a California attorney named Krystal Tate Hulten), plead guilty to criminal evidence tampering in Block v Sno County  et al and served time for his crimes.  But the most important fact that came from the King County Major Crimes Unit’s investigation of Snohomish County Racketeering group was the Major Crimes Unit documented that Kevin Hulten was posting on an anonymous website titled ” The Sky Valley Chronicle.” A website where none of the “bloggers” post their names.

A website according to Gold Bar’s former Mayor Linda Loen with its clear purpose to ” harass, defame and discredit Anne Block.”


What I also learned from Gold Bar’s public records was that Joe Beavers was also allowed to post, using government resources and staff to support the Political Action Committee ( Sky Valley Chronicle PAC).

After receiving enough evidence to prosecute the Sky Valley Chronicle for racketeering, I filed suit against Ron Fejfar and the Sky Valley Chronicle in US Federal Court, Seattle.

But that’s not the orgasmic part of this story. A source told me that Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe had known for years that John Pennington owned the Sky Valley Chronicle and used Ron Fejfar as the front man to cover up his criminal harassment, using the Sky Valley Chronicle PAC.

Mark Roe is misappropriating public monies funding the Sky Valley Chronicle to fight a racketeering suit filed against Ron Fejfar ( and soon to be his wife Virginia, after she took a predicate act on behalf of the Enterprise late last week), and the Sky Valley Chronicle. Washington State’s Constitution prohibits such use of our money.

Furthermore, our source also stated that Mark Roe is also funding Gold Bar’s Mayor Linda Loen and Joe Beavers via Michael Kenyon and Bruce Disend ( Kenyon Disend, linked to Racketeering crimes and shady land deals all over Washington State).

For these reasons, as well as the malicious prosecution of Lori Shavlik ( below) Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe will be Recalled, regardless of how long its takes, Mark Roe will be joining pedophile and former Snohomish County political appointee John E. Pennington in the unemployment line, and then, even it takes me twenty more years, inside Walla Walla.





On February 27, 2016, I published the following story about corrupt Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe.

The Dishonorable Mark Roe

Mark Roe, Snohomish County Prosecutor

This past week, I’ve been covering a Snohomish County prosecution for arson in the 1st decree against Lori Shavlik.  But this wasn’t the first prosecution of Ms. Shavlik,  it’s Snohomish County Prosecutor’s second run. The first trial resulted in hung jury, with jurors stating “ the State failed to prove its case.”

While pedophiles are walking free, and baby killers are released because Mark Roe failed to file simple papers ( http://snocoreporter.com/3-month-old-babys-killers-walk-free-for-now/,) Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe and his political racketeering gangsters from the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office are maliciously prosecuting – for the second time- a forty-five year old mother of five for Arson I.

As of today, millions of taxpayer dollars have been misspent over a fire that started  behind a dryer unit at Ms. Shavlik’s place of business – a tanning salon- and while she’s embattled in a contract /lease dispute with the building’s owner who just happens to be a personal and dear friend to the lead investigator who is also the Fire Chief, and a former City of Snohomish Brady Cop David Fontenot ( exposed and terminated from another county for stealing, harassing women in the workplace, and lying on search warrants, etc).

Public emails from Snohomish County Washington document that while Krystal Tate Hulten was a law clerk in Snohomish County Washington, for Judge Downes, she engaged in illegal exparte contact with a Prosecutor prior to trial basically saying I hope you strip parental rights away from a mother accused of abuse.

Ms. Tate Hulten is a lovely attorney.

Kevin and Krystal Tate Hulten’s activities in Snohomish County document gross civil rights and racketeering activity.

The Gold Bar Reporter has never been sued for defamation and we stand by articles.

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

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

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

Thomas French_Page_04 Thomas French_Page_03 Thomas French_Page_01Thomas French_Page_05Thomas French_Page_06

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

From: Reardon, Aaron

Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:47 PM

To: Hulten, Kevin

Cc: Rudicil, Jon

Subject: Re: DRAFT legislative agenda/PDR law

Any change that is pursued must be constructive. Going after requesters is punitive.

I’ve talked I Dow and Pat at length about slight modifications. The PDR is a public right and serves a public interest. Any change must do the same.

Politicians and bureaucrats serve the public. Thus, if a change is pursued intended to make the life of a public employee easier and make the publics access to public information more difficult then it is inherently contradictory to the act.

I hate to sound like I’m taking a “suck it up, butter cup” approach” but the fact is any change pursued must be premised on improving the act, maintaing the publics access and minimizing abuse.

We’re on the same page.

BTW, I had to laugh about the issue of newspapers. That’s actually more interesting than funny. One could write a term paper on the differences based on ownership and audience – ie local weeklies v dailies owned by out of state corps. And, dailies locally owned v out of state corporate ownership.

Reminds me of the the age old question “What’s in a name?” ST is Seattle based but locally owned. The Herald is a local office but driven and owned by DC. Further, it would be interesting to see what their respective corporates target as their profit percentage. There’s your Masters thesis.

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This message may contain protected information by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or

distribution of its contents is prohibited.  If you receive this

message in error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail

address listed above and delete this message without printing,

copying, or forwarding it.  Thank you.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 8:48 PM, “Hulten, Kevin” <Kevin.Hulten@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Great stuff. I agree that requiring verification for PDRs as a legislative agenda item would be a waste of a chit and an invitation for enemies to incorrectly smear our office as opaque. Further, the fact that the example given to illustrate the supposed problem involved a named requester – “Our friend Edmond” – illustrates what opponents will label as the true motivations behind this idea: the ability to question the identity of a requester based on the objectionable or politically inconvenient subject matter of the request. Would staff be questioning the identity of this requestor if the request was for, say, Charter Review documents? Doubtful. Which is why we’d be laughed out of Olympia and skewered in the press. I think you are right on.

I did tell Gage about my conversations last session with major left-leaning Open Government stakeholders who voiced an interest in working with municipalities in the background to address some serious issues before an inevitable whiplash occurs. They know that the public isn’t going to like reading about another small town that can’t afford to plow its streets or light its Christmas tree because of individuals with vendettas and the ability to request  thousands and thousands of documents at a time, often with no intent to pick up or pay for the order at all. It was my feeling that there may be a willingness to introduce some sort of cost-based pay-to-play system after a certain threshold is crossed. Or, perhaps a system where requests are always free, but those who wish to have expedited service can pay a significant premium to subsidize the rest. Something like that, maybe. Alternatively, the “stick” approach might work too: severe penalties for serial abuses or those who use public records to harm government or to harass or intimidate public servants (but requestor side regs stay the same). Finally, I think the leg might even consider a fee for businesses that use public records as part of a for profit business model. Newspapers for example.

Anyway, it’s a stimulating topic. Would love to continue later.


On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:02 PM, “Reardon, Aaron” <agr@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Thanks. Lets discuss tomorrow. I’ll refrain from being sarcastic or snarky.

This may not be as simple a it appears.

My initial feedback is multifaceted:

  1. Regarding the issue of filling PDR’s differently based upon the requester, I’m only aware of one area where this applies and it is in respect to PDR’s by inmates. I’m not versed on the statute so you may want to look it up.

If its not an inmate submitting the PDR then his choice or whoever’s choice it is to fulfill the request differently based on the requester may be exposing the county to significant liability. I don’t believe the govt. can pick and choose in this case. It must be standardized and consistent. This raises a lot of questions. If your recitation is accurate, this is an issue that really can’t wait to be resolved so we need to be more versed ASAP. This is a short term operations item – not legislative

  1. As for adding an item to our legislative agenda re: anonymous requests, candidly that’s a non starter. The legislature and AG specifically did not differentiate when they have repeatedly amended the law to increase openness. It’s not as if this issue hasn’t been raised in the past because it has. They’ve made a conscious decision to allow ANYONE access to public records. I could go on and on but suffice to say, whoever pushes for this change couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper sack.
  2. There’s a practical and political twist to the request a well. First, it wouldn’t even get a hearing if it even got a sponsor. We have a lot of substantive issues we need to press and I don’t feel like wasting my time or yours on a lost cause with a losing argument. Second, how do you think our constituents would view this? I think poorly. With all the important issues facing us (Transpo, higher-ed, workforce training, human needs, law and justice, environmental infrastructure, etc) their govt leader chose to ignore them and focus on a petty PDR issue? Not a good sell to those who pay us to work for them.
  3. I’ll admit I’m a bit hardened but, we’re talking about public records. The key word being public. Everything I’ve produced has been made public. Big deal. The same would actually apply to you and Gary as well. Everybody has our emails, phone logs, calendars, etc. What’s the big deal? Heck, I think we should just put them all on-line anyway.
  4. Given the change in technology anybody can make a request for records big and small. And, more than likely they exist. I understand the point of costs but it also cost less nowadays to produce the records than in years past when everything was on paper. They should be working on trying to develop a system that makes records recovery more cost effective and less time consuming instead of limiting the publics access to public materials.

Just my initial thoughts. Let’s chat further tomorrow.



CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This message may contain protected information by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or

distribution of its contents is prohibited.  If you receive this

message in error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail

address listed above and delete this message without printing,

copying, or forwarding it.  Thank you.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 5:28 PM, “Hulten, Kevin” <Kevin.Hulten@co.snohomish.wa.us> wrote:

Hey Boss –

I forgot to send this to you but Gage talked to me Monday about a potential legislative agenda item. He already approached Somers and said Somers was interested.

However, I can’t help but wonder if the County is exposed to potential litigation if in fact we are applying different internal standards on PDR responses based upon the perceived identity (or lack thereof) of the requestor. Just wanted to pass this along.


From: Hulten, Kevin Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:39 AM To: Hulten, Kevin Subject: DRAFT Memo anonymous PDRs

Gage spoke to me after cabinet today to state that he had approached Dave Somers about adding the problem surrounding “anonymous”  public disclosure requests to the County legislative agenda.

Gage said that requests like the recent request from “our friend Edmond” present all sorts of problems for the county to fufil.

Gage said that request are redacted differently based upon whom the recipient is. I reconfirmed – stating that it was my impression that agencies must fulfill requests without regard to whom the requestor is. He said no, certain agencies redact differently based upon whom the requestor is. I spoke to Gage about my impression of the legislative prospects of this approach and we left it at that.

%d bloggers like this: