Washington State Bar Association gives the green light for prosecutors and Judge Edirin Okoloko to take and disseminate nude photos of county employee without her consent, overruling Washington State Legislature

In June 2018, Snohomish County Prosecutors Sean Reay, Erdwin Okoloko, C. Matt Hunter, Robert Grant, Christopher Dickinson, Jon Cummings, and Kirk Mahjoubian made a conscious decision to commit a felony, i.e. taking picture of a intoxicated female co-worker unclothed, and then disseminated that picture to various persons misusing a county cell phone ( as Jon Cummings is seen texting that picture to others on his county issued cell phone).

public records retrieved from Jon Cummings cell phone,


c. Matt Hunter, Robert Grant ( both Snohomish County prosecutors assigned to Dawson Place sexual assault unit) with two thumbs up referring to a intoxicated, unable to consent, naked female co-worker in the background


Jon Cummings caught on camera disseminating the nude photos Robert Grant, Kirk Mahjoubian and C. Matt Hunter unlawfully took and disseminated of an intoxicated female co-worker

The above pictures showing that c. Matt Hunter, Robert Grant and Kirk Mahjoubian  (who unlawfully took the picture without the female’s consent), were obtained by the Gold Bar Reporter under RCW 42.56 ( the Public Records Act).

Imagine, four Snohomish County Prosecutors, assigned to prosecute sexual assault crimes (mainly against women and children) are still allowed to work as prosecutors, or even retain their WSBA law licenses, after this story was published.

But it gets even worse. As a result of public records we obtained above, the Gold Bar Reporter filed WSBA complaints against each one of the prosecutors listed herein, and Lead Investigator for the WSBA Marsha Matsumoto, dismissed the complaints claiming ‘ no crime was committed thus giving the “green light” for other prosecutors to commit the same felonies against women. 

What did Governor Jay Inslee do? He appointed one to Superior Court Judicial seat a reward for raping a female county prosecutor, Edirin Okoloko. 

Marsha Matsumoto, lead counsel investigator for Washington State Bar Association, dismissed the complaints against Snohomish County Prosecutors, holding that there was no crime committed. Our readers should decide so here a link to the criminal complaints by eye witnesses. 

Either Marsha Matsumoto criminal law, or simply covering up lability for the Lloyds of London, a monopoly here in WA, covering up liability as risk management, giving yet another county prosecutor the green light to commit crimes against women while the rest of public would have been charged with a felony

RCW 9A.44.115


(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Intimate areas” means any portion of a person’s body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;

(b) “Photographs” or “films” means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;

(c) “Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy” means:

(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;

(d) “Surveillance” means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

(e) “Views” means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.

(2)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the first degree if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

(i) Another person without that person’s knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(ii) The intimate areas of another person without that person’s knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

(b) Voyeurism in the first degree is a class C felony.

(3)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the second degree if he or she intentionally photographs or films another person for the purpose of photographing or filming the intimate areas of that person with the intent to distribute or disseminate the photograph or film, without that person’s knowledge and consent, and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

(b) Voyeurism in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

(c) Voyeurism in the second degree is not a sex offense for the purposes of sentencing or sex offender registration requirements under this chapter.

(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.

(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.

[ 2017 c 292 § 1; 2003 c 213 § 1; 1998 c 221 § 1.]


Effective date—2003 c 213: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 12, 2003].” [ 2003 c 213 § 2.]



%d bloggers like this: