Snohomish County Prosecutors, and the Washington State Bar Association, making Washingtonians proud

 

Mark Roe – Board of Director and President of Dawson Place 

 

“We show kids who’ve been sexually and physically abused that they deserve to be happy, and we help them see how….” Mark Roe.  However, if you’re a woman sexually assaulted, its ok.

Mark Roe’s actions below document quite nicely his disdain and lack of respect for women.

 

The Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office attorneys never cease to amaze me with their criminal conduct.  Criminal conduct that includes criminal harassment ( using a foe online website titled the Sky Valley Chronicle, allowing county employees to criminally harass and cyber-stalk persons who request access to public records or question Mark Roe’s criminal enterprise at the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office), tampering with FBI National Crime Information Center Records, threats to arrests person without authority of law, and now, allowing county prosecutors to take nude pictures of an intoxicated woman who appears to have no ability to consent.

 

Click below to see how Mark Roe’s Office has been tampering with NCIC records here in Snohomish County Washington

https://wordpress.com/post/goldbarreporter.org/16257

 

---

Washington law 9A.86.010 is as follows:

Disclosing intimate images.

(1) A person commits the crime of disclosing intimate images when the person knowingly discloses an intimate image of another person and the person disclosing the image:

(a) Obtained it under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private;

(b) Knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure; and

(c) Knows or reasonably should know that disclosure would cause harm to the depicted person.

(2) A person who is under the age of eighteen is not guilty of the crime of disclosing intimate images unless the person:

(a) Intentionally and maliciously disclosed an intimate image of another person;

(b) Obtained it under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private; and

(c) Knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.

(3) This section does not apply to:

(a) Images involving voluntary exposure in public or commercial settings; or

(b) Disclosures made in the public interest including, but not limited to, the reporting of unlawful conduct, or the lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, legal proceedings, or medical treatment.

(4) This section does not impose liability upon the following entities solely as a result of content provided by another person:

(a) An interactive computer service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(f)(2);

(b) A mobile telecommunications service provider, as defined in RCW 82.04.065; or

(c) A telecommunications network or broadband provider.

(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the defendant is a family member of a minor and did not intend any harm or harassment in disclosing the images of the minor to other family or friends of the defendant. This affirmative defense shall not apply to matters defined under RCW 9.68A.011.

(6) For purposes of this section:

(a) “Disclosing” includes transferring, publishing, or disseminating, as well as making a digital depiction available for distribution or downloading through the facilities of a telecommunications network or through any other means of transferring computer programs or data to a computer;

(b) “Intimate image” means any photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed with or otherwise connected to the image, and that was taken in a private setting, is not a matter of public concern, and depicts:

(i) Sexual activity, including sexual intercourse as defined in RCW 9A.44.010 and masturbation; or

(ii) A person’s intimate body parts, whether nude or visible through less than opaque clothing, including the genitals, pubic area, anus, or postpubescent female nipple.

(7) The crime of disclosing intimate images:

(a) Is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense; or

(b) Is a class C felony if the defendant has one or more prior convictions for disclosing intimate images.

(8) Nothing in this section is construed to:

(a) Alter or negate any rights, obligations, or immunities of an interactive service provider under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230; or

(b) Limit or preclude a plaintiff from securing or recovering any other available remedy.

 

---

RCW 9.73.030  Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

 

(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.

---

 

 

In June 2018, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Chris Dickinson, 55, grouped a female co-worker at a party in Chelan while he was being paid to attend the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys’ conference, while two other prosecutors ( who Mark Roe refused to identify) took intimate / nude photos of a woman, who appears to be too intoxicated to consent. Our inside source said ” I understand that at least two of prosecutors passed those nude photos around on Snohomish County Prosecutors computers.”

According to a source inside Snohomish County, its believed that deputy prosecutors had dinner and then when out for drinks. Thereafter,  over ten Snohomish County prosecutors gathered in a hotel room on Lake Chelan.  A female prosecutor said she was moving a footstool when Christopher Dickinson grabbed her breast and tried to pull her onto his lap.

---

“For the powerful, crimes at what other commit” Noam Chomsky

Racketeering exposed in Prosecutor Mark Roe’s actions 

Instead of firing everyone involved in what appears to be criminal felonious conduct, Mark Roe, claims that he ordered mandatory sexual harassment training for his staff…and reprimanded one other deputy prosecutor for actions that night and admonished others for not taking quicker, more decisive steps to intervene.”

“I admonished several other people who were there that night,” Roe said. “I had them in my office. I told them that I expected more … If you see anything, even it it is something you are not directly involved with, you need to report it.”

 

Mark Roe determined the pictures were taken in poor judgment. Mahjoubian received a letter of reprimand on July 6.

Instead of being criminally prosecuted as the felons they are, Deputy prosecutor Kirk Mahjoubian, who took felonious pictures of woman was simply disciplined, a slap on the wrist for committing a felony.

Snohomish County’s prosecutor, Mark Roe, confirmed that a Chelan County detective interviewed a female deputy prosecutor yesterday who said longtime deputy prosecutor Christopher Dickinson grabbed her breasts during a legal conference in Chelan last month.

The Gold Bar Reporter is demanding the Chelan County charge every single prosecutor involved in taking nude pictures of a woman without her consent with felonies.

Criminal prosecution should not just be for those not associated with the Washington State Bar Association and Snohomish County criminal organization otherwise known Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office.

 

Mark Roe allowing persons to sexually assault a woman and then takes intimate pictures of woman without her consent should be investigated by the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division with all deliberate speed.

 

The ” Me Too” Movement should be demanding that every prosecutor involved herein be prosecuted to the fullest extent  of the law.

Washington State Supreme Court, spitting on the rights of Washingtonians

“Leadership by deception isn’t leadership. It’s fraud.” ― DaShanne Stokes

---

Last week, the Seattle Times published another article of half truths, without ever conducting any research involving Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst’s most recent threats to reformists inside the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors.

Some residents in Washington State may not know that the Washington State Bar Association is a private organization, just like the National Rifle Association.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-supreme-court-calls-a-timeout-for-washington-bar-association-to-review-its-rules/

https://goldbarreporter.org/tag/snohomish-county-attorney-jason-schwarz/

The Seattle Times incorrectly wrote ” Anticipating a potential legal challenge to the collection of mandatory fees from attorneys, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst issued an order directing the state bar association’s governing board to put a hold on proposed bylaw amendments.”

 Gold Bar Reporter sent correction request to Seattle Times, falsely claiming that no one has challenged the Washington State Bar Association’s authority after US Supreme Court held associations cannot compel membership.  

 What the Seattle Times Editor Mike Carter knew was that several Washington State Bar Association members had in fact made a collateral attack against an out of control Washington State Bar Association.  John Scannell, Steve Eugster, Sarah Ferguson, Robert Caruso, and Anne Block do in fact have lawsuits challenging the Bar’s assertion that it can compel membership inside a private organization and whether a private organization has any compelling interest in regulating the practice of law. 

Perhaps the Times Editor Mike Carter is suffering from dementia?  because when we contacted him about the challenges to the Washington State Bar Association authority herein, Seattle Times Editor wrote ” who cares?”

 

A few months ago, reformists took over the Washington State Bar Association’s Board of Governors. For those of us who have been involved in helping stop Guardian Scammers like Longyear, Joseph Nappi Jr and Lin O’Dell, and incompetent lawyers like Tom Cox, Jason Schwartz, and Phil Sayles helping the prosecutor’s office with fixing cases against the accused, this was very good news to any of us who believe that the Bar has become a political machine to go after its political foes, and has no interest in disciplining lawyer who steal from their clients or throw client clients under the bus to gain contracts for public defenses from the Prosecutor’s Office. 

 

 

https://goldbarreporter.org/category/everett-wa-attorney-phil-sayles-defense-attorney-in-washington-state-v-john-reed-throwing-cases-not-disclosing-brady-material-as-a-political-favor-to-obtain-contracts-with-snohomish-county/

 

 

If the Washington State had an interest in disciplining its members who steal from their clients, the Bar would have taken action against Lin O’Dell after Judge Patrick Monasmith filed a bar complaint against Lin O’Dell for stealing from her client, using a convicted killer, Mark Plivilech, to intimidate Washington’s elderly inside their home.

Here’s a couple of articles, the Gold Bar Reporter wrote on Washington State Bar hearing officer Lin O’Dell’s theft of Paula Fowler’s trust accounts.

https://goldbarreporter.org/tag/lin-odell-washington-guardian-scammer/

https://goldbarreporter.org/2017/07/05/attorney-lin-odell-and-her-convicted-killer-husband-stalking-go

 

https://goldbarreporter.org/tag/lin-odell-washington-guardian-scammer/

 https://goldbarreporter.org/2017/07/05/attorney-lin-odell-and-her-convicted-killer-husband-stalking-gold-bar-reporter/

 

---

The Seattle Times incorrectly wrote that no one has challenged the Washington State Bar’s authority as a private organization when in fact many cases are now pending in the 9th Circuit, John Scannell v WSBA et al, Block v WSBA et al, Steve Eugster v WSBA et al.

Interesting to note that because the US Supreme Court accepted cert against the North Dakota Bar, the 9th Circuit has postponed oral arguments on my case now five times in Block v WSBA et al, and just recently set oral arguments February 2019. Obviously this comes after the US Supreme Court makes its decision in the North Dakota Bar case.

If the Supreme Court held that every gun owner in Washington State had to obtain a license from the NRA to possess a gun, what kind of outrage there would be from the public over such a ludicrous order.  There’s no difference. A private organization has no compelling interest in regulating gun licensees, nor does the private Washington State Bar Association have any compelling interest in regulating the practice of law.

Washington State’s number one activist Tim Eyman might agree with me, not because I agree with his politics, but because he like me has become a target for an out of control Washington State Bar Association. Although he might argue, it’s just Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. I’d disagree; the center of the racket is a private Washington State Bar Association, not accountable to the people of Washington, using the political machine of the WSBA to defame or harass anyone who speaks out against corruption in Washington State agencies.

The Gold Bar Reporter will not stand idle while a private organization ( or an agency) attacks anyone’s First Amendment protected activity. The First Amendment must be protected against all invaders, foreign and domestic, and the WSBA is no exception to that rule.

It’s time to take the practice of law out of the political hands of a private organization and place it inside a state regulatory agency.

The Washington State Bar Association Office of Disciplinary Counsel are proven failures  (thieves), run by thugs with ties to organized crime,  like Paula Littlewood, Linda Eide, and Doug Ende.  When the reformists moved to fire Ms. Littlewood, her friends inside the Washington State Supreme Court ordered the Board of Governors to halt all reforms and further ordered the Board not to fire Paula Littlewood.

The Supreme Court’s Order above was issued outside of an Open Public Meeting, spitting on the will of Washington State’s taxpayers and blatant disregard for Chapter 42.30 RCW

OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

Sections

42.30.010	Legislative declaration.
42.30.020	Definitions.
42.30.030	Meetings declared open and public.
42.30.035	Minutes.
42.30.040	Conditions to attendance not to be required.
42.30.050	Interruptions—Procedure.
42.30.060	Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings—Notice—Secret voting prohibited.
42.30.070	Times and places for meetings—Emergencies—Exception.
42.30.075	Schedule of regular meetings—Publication in state register—Notice of change—”Regular” meetings defined.
42.30.077	Agendas of regular meetings—Online availability.
42.30.080	Special meetings.
42.30.090	Adjournments.
42.30.100	Continuances.
42.30.110	Executive sessions.
42.30.120	Violations—Personal liability—Civil penalty—Attorneys’ fees and costs.
42.30.130	Violations—Mandamus or injunction.
42.30.140	Chapter controlling—Application.
42.30.200	Governing body of recognized student association at college or university—Chapter applicability to.
42.30.205	Training.
42.30.210	Assistance by attorney general.
42.30.900	Short title.
42.30.910	Construction—1971 ex.s. c 250.

 

 

 

 

“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.”

“When honor and the Law no longer stand on the same side of the line, how do we choose[?]” Anne Bishop

Do not be afraid. Stand firm. And he raised his staff over the King County sea of corruption and the sea parted… 

---

Then  Washington State Bar criminal defense counsel Kevin Tarvin changed his mind and let the sea swallow up his clients…

Do you have any idea how big this is? Says defense counsel Kevin Tarvin for Jason Markley…

King County government officials committing RICO offenses against property owners to distress the property in favor of developers.

---

When Kevin Tarvn ( Tarvin) first noticed King County animal control officer, Jenee Westberg in court, she had obviously gained an unhealthy amount of weight since he viewed her online photos he grabbed. Her body was bulging its way out of her King County Animal Control uniform at every seam.

Her teeth were stained badly and deteriorating. Her hair was dry and un-kept. Tarvin knew these symptoms well. He had, decades ago, directed his practice to defending DUI’s and drug offenses mostly in district court. Most of his clients were addicts. If anyone knew, Tavin did.

At one time, Tarvin was a young promising prosecutor in the City of Kirkland with a shining career ahead of him. But a political scandal had him abandoning that path. He was accused of breaching the privacy of the defendant’s home using photo “evidence” that was taken of a political sign through an un-curtained window with a zoom lens… in the privacy of an innocent person’s home.

While that was a long time ago, Kevin was staying out of politics now. And he did that for years, as far as he could, even though as a devote Mormon it meant dealing with defending drug addicts. He was making a good living traveling to little district court “cattle calls” all over the state defending the non-descript clients who gladly pay him $1,000 – $2,000 a pop to keep them out of jail for their night boozing and drugging on the town.

Somehow Tarvin and his officemate Gene Piculell managed to reel in a nice married couple accused of animal cruelty from another attorney. How that happened was sketchy and smelled fishy but each of them had a client and all the same evidence to use. Double the case revenue with half the effort.

When Tavin first saw Westberg that day in person, it was unmistakable. She was using drugs.

Like any good defense attorney, he headed straight for the computer in his office. He searched for Jenee Westberg in the district court dockets listed online. Viola! Two hits! His intuition and experience were spot on.

King County Deputy Prosecutor Gretchen Holmgren’s star witness King County Animal Control Officer Jenee Westberg had been felony arrested for shoplifting at the Kent Kmart and attempted bribery of a police officer with the $500 she had in her purse in 2006. She lied repeatedly to the police prompting a second search of her purse revealing more theft she had lied about having. She pled guilty. This means there was a conviction. Inexplicably, the judge gave her a pass. The case was deferred – meaning it would be dismissed if she stayed out of trouble for 12 months. (To Westberg that means not getting caught because she was a career criminal and that career was going strong at that point).

In 2008, Westberg was felony arrested again. This time it was even more spectacular, a 19-count drug arrest. It’s called VUCSA, Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

According to the police report Westberg, through her sometime incoherent drug super, lied repeatedly to the Black Diamond Police just as she did in the shoplifting case two years earlier. This time it was the perfect storm. She was driving impaired, smoking a full pipe of pot, no insurance, no registration, someone else’s car, wet empty alcohol containers in the back, and a plethora of illegal drugs – including Oxycodone – in pharmaceutical containers that did not have her name on them.

She refused a field sobriety test two months before it would have meant a license revocation.   Refusing a field sobriety test as a King County employee was also was grounds for immediate termination and she was guilty of animal cruelty – she had her little dog in the car getting exposed to her drug smoking with her during her DUI.   The irony of it.

However there was a problem. At the time, she was slotted to give testimony in some 15 cases of animal cruelty for the King County Prosecutor’s Office.

After carefully placing her badge in plain view of Police Officer Huff because Westberg didn’t have her license on her, she attempted to convince Officer Huff to give her “professional courtesy.” Huff wasn’t going for it. Jenee got arrested.

Her supervisor, ACO Steve Courvion was called to come get her dog while the K-9’s alerted on the door panels and the car doors were dismantled. Jenee was placed in the back seat of Huff’s patrol car where she passed out still handcuffed. Office Huff took her photograph. Huff spent a great deal of time explaining to Courvion that there would be no professional courtesy.

This whole event was a bit problematic for Dan Satterberg and his King County prosecutors since Westberg was their main squeeze for alleging phony allegations of animal cruelty on innocent people so they could raid them of their animals, financially disable them then steal their properties.

Westberg was their primary witness. They had spent year training her through her mother Anne Westberg and her boss KCDPA Dan Clark. Westberg knew just how to phony up the photo evidence cropping the photos so that she could testify to something that didn’t exist. Westberg had been trained well by her boss ACO Dave Morris and Hope for Horses Jenny Edwards, Satterberg’s pet “experts” who were faces for animal rights extremeists Susan Michaels from Pasado’s Save Haven. Westberg knew exactly how to take photos somewhere else then testify that it was the defendant’s property, She even photographed different horses and would claim that those were the original horse.

Of course Tarvin didn’t know any of this at the time. Tarvin thought he had it in the bag. He would be a hero… like Moses parting the sea. King County Deputy Prosecutor Gretchen Holmgren (yes that’s Seahawk’s coach’s youngest) was caught in a spectacular – very public – bonafided Brady violation.

[Brady information is when the prosecutor is supposed to hand over any “exculpatory” information on the case. (“Exculpatory” means evidence that tends to prove the innocence of the person they are prosecuting). This was based on a case known as Brady vs. Maryland thus a Brady violation if the prosecutor fails to bring it up and is caught.] – It’s a very big deal.

Tarvin was very excited. He immediately demanded Gretchen turn over the Westberg case files.   After all it was King County who prosecuted Westberg for the VUSCA drug case four years earlier.

Tarvin wrote a scathing email to KCDPA Gretchen Holmgren. Gene Piculell, (Tarvin’s officemate defending Markley’s wife) followed up with another rather lengthy and angry diatribe).  It was a historic breach that created such a chasm in the waters of the King County, the earth trembled. The shaking could felt in China. They were both incensed and accused Gretchen of being ”casual” and “cavalier” with his client’s lives.

And indeed Gretchen was. She was a woman without a soul. The apple doesn’t fall to far from the tree it seems.

But what Tarvin and Piculell did not know at the time was that Westberg was untouchable. That came straight from the top. Tarvin, who had been so successful at keeping out of his former prosecutor loop, didn’t get the memo.

Westberg’s mother, Ann Westberg, worked for Dan Clark who was the Criminal Chief Deputy Prosecutor at the Regional Justice Center. Clark was (and is still) also the chair of the “Brady committee” who decides what officer gets put on the Brady list… or not. (This is a list of people who can’t be trusted to tell the truth under oath). Somehow Westberg never made the list. It was now 2012.

Gretchen Holmgren got Tarvin’s demand for Westberg’s Brady data as she did the previous counsel a year earlier from Markley’s former counsel. At this point according to other sources, it appears Gretchen, in a panic, called public defender Dave Roberson, the man around town who likes high profile. He was the defense version of the “fixer.”

He had been called in to take a case from a public defender who was about to expose the phony animal cruelty case with Westberg a month earlier because the defendant was busy digging up fraud in the case. In that case, Roberson moved quickly and successfully suppressed every piece exculpatory of evidence including the video tape of the event taken of the incompetent veterinarian Hannah Mueller Evergreen and Jenee Westberg creating phony photo evidence.

Roberson threw the case.   In fact, at the time of Kevin Tarvin’s discovery of Westberg’s criminal background Roberson had just finished throwing his client under the bus in concert with King County Deputy Prosecutor, Maggie Nave – his King County prosecutor counterpart “fixer” prosecutor in front of Judge Jim Rogers.

In Roberson’s case, the background information about Westberg came after the fixed trial and tampered jury found her guilty. Roberson’s client was facing sentencing.

It was at that sentencing that Roberson disclosed the Brady violation to the court from Markley’s case. While King County Deputy Prosecutor Maggie Nave passively stood there agreeing with Roberson, she denied knowing anything about Westberg’s Brady issues.

Apparently Nave just “forgot” to mention she was the lead prosecutor who arranged Westberg’s guilty plea in 2008, concealing Westberg’s 19-count felony arrest, secreting Westberg’s nefarious employment sanctions, while she hid the third criminal misdemeanor that mysteriously disappeared mid docket (Ann Westberg was the supervisor in charge of IT in court records) that would have quelled the plea deal in front of Judge Mariane Spearman – wife of Court of Appeals Judge Michael Spearman.

Judge Michael Spearman would soon sit on the Court of Appeals panel for both cases and would protect his wife instead of justice for the wrongfully accused.

Maggie also was the architect behind the free pass of animal sex advocate James Tait, the man who led Kenneth Pinyan to his death having sex with a horse in a well-known brothel in Enumclaw in 2005 when Dan Satterberg was busy suppressing the fact there is full bore a animal sex trade going on right under the public’s noses.

Satterberg would tell the public that no charges beyond criminal trespass were possible for Pinyan because there were no anti-bestiality laws on the books at the time – or so Satterberg said… but…

What about the “murder” part? Did we all forget about the “murder” part? A man died! Apparently Maggie and Satterberg forgot about that little part in the heat of facilitating Tait’s move to stardom in the pro bestially movie “ZOO” about Pinyan’s practices and subsequent death.  They had full confessions of the two men who accompanied Pinyan into that barn where he met his death. They were running an animal sex brothel and often videotaped the “experience.” Sources say there are doctors, lawyers and high level politicians who have participated in this and paid five figures to do it.

When Gretchen called Roberson in a panic, Roberson kicked it into high gear. Roberson called Tarvin and apparently “convinced” Tarvin it would be in his best interests not to impeach Westberg with those police records while Tarvin was zealously defending his client Jason Markley.

Tarvin would have to find another way. Tarvin claimed he was told that he may see a woman claiming fraud in her own animal cruelty case at some time (Roberson didn’t mention it was his own client seeking justice). She’s just crazy; pay no mind to that man behind the curtain. Markley would recall that Tarvin repeated that message to him repeatedly while sharing that Roberson bragged he used to date Senator Maria Cantwell. (Roberson apparently has an archetype of women he likes).

Meanwhile Roberson is attempting to control his rather frisky client (the “crazy” lady) who knew she had been played. He would have to disclose the Westberg breach to her now that Tarvin had already parted the waters in what surely would have put a stop to Westberg’s siege at the hands of her bosses, in the Markley case.

And just like that, Tarvin recanted. The seas ebbed and his clients were swallowed up along with a real change in their family life of their four young children.

Meanwhile Roberson refused to let his client examine the Westberg case files documents he had received from Holmgren for another 3 months ensuring she would have little recourse to find the Markley case that was going to trial mid December. At her sentencing in late November Roberson then made a circular legal argument that Westberg wasn’t really “convicted” and he himself was to blame for not checking (inadequate assistance of counsel) in front of the judge. Roberson threw himself on the sword.

After three weeks of repeatedly telling his client that it was Gretchen Holmgren who had advised him of her own Brady violation, Roberson now recanted and told the court (Jim Rogers) that it was Maggie Nave who disclosed Westberg’s Brady issue and that Maggie didn’t know anything about it until Tarvin exposed it in the Markley case. This became a bit problematic when it was exposed that Westberg’s 19-count felony arrest was Maggie’s own case that she knowingly gave Westberg a free pass on.

When Tarvin got the Roberson call, he did exactly what he was told. He threw the case. This was the moment his office mate Gene Piculell went ballistic. Gene’s client was Markley’s wife. She ended with a hung jury in her favor 9-3. The bench, that is, Cheryl Carey, arranged to convict Markley the day before the jury verdict that her bailiff was reporting to her. The next day Judge Patrick Oshsi would replace Carey attempting to get a mistrial on the record when the jury came midsentence reporting a hung jury 9 -3 in favor of the defendant.

In addition to the $25,000 Markley gave Tarvin, Markley gave Tavin $3,000 to take him to the Court of Appeals, and to stay Markley’s jail time and community service, something Markley was entitled to. Tarvin took the money then didn’t stay the case. Markley had no choice but to report to jail. Tarvin kept the money then visited Markley in his last few days of jail asking where his children were. Markley fired him.

Then the strangest thing happened. The “crazy lady” showed up at Tarvin’s office. Only it turns out she wasn’t so “crazy.” She was an investigative reporter. Apparently that part was missed when she got targeted. And this tenured investigator was on the scent. She found Tarvin and talked with him for several hours.

Tarvin sang like a canary. He didn’t know why everyone said Westberg wasn’t really “convicted.” He’s been doing criminal law for decades and she pled guilty. That is a conviction. He didn’t mention the fact he failed to impeach Westberg with the evidence of those convictions he had in front of the jury. In fact he had her employment records with two “Loudermill” sanctions for dishonesty at the time. In addition to the arrests and convictions, she had been sanctioned for dishonesty and theft of county time on other unrelated instances (plus about 30 other police events he didn’t know about yet). Tarvin attempted to get the employment Loudermill sanctions into the record outside of the jury while Judge Carey attempted to give them erroneous exhibit numbers that would “hid” them from the court record.

The “crazy” lady then went down to the Regional Justice Center to review the Markley case file. She discovered the digital photo of the “after” horse. It had visited Adobe Photoshop CS3 for MAC. It was also a different color than the original horse “Alex.” Clearly a bait’n switch had occurred. She called Tarvin. He was ready and singing more. She told him she had just been reviewing the Markley case file.

Tarvin got very nervous. He first spent 20 minutes explaining his defense strategy. He sounded panicked. He said sometimes an attorney sacrifices the opportunity for impeachment just in order to win. (The audio of the trial doesn’t see it that way. He threw the case and the judge helped him).

After a lengthy explanation, she had her turn.  She asked him about the photos of the horse. “Did anyone notice it was a different color?”

Tarvin answered that he had been raised on a farm for 20 years. He certainly was familiar with the DNA color identification of a horse.

“Well then you knew…”

Tarvin then blurted out in desperation, “Do you have any idea how big this is?!”

Well no Kevin I don’t. Why don’t you explain it?

Since, it has been uncovered that it is indeed a massive RICO ring. Top dog appears to be King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. Hard to fight that one. Tarvin knew and succumbed to the pressure. So Kevin Tarvin stood by and helped an innocent functioning young family be swallowed up and cannibalized by a RICO cartel.   He even kept the money they paid him to protect them. The sea swallowed them up.

That’s how big it is… It only takes one person Kevin – to save the hundreds since that Satterberg’s office has persecuted and stolen from. It could have been you.

 

Dave Somers marks a new sunshine era for Snohomish County Washington

Dave Somers, Snohomish County Executive Elect 2016-2020

---

Most of you who know me well, know that I seldom ever support any specific candidate, because I seldom trust politicians. Washington Coalition for Open Government President Toby Nixon is one exception.

However all that changed this year, while in Great Brittan, I learned that Dave Somers decided to run for Snohomish County Executive against John Lovick’s corrupt executive officers.  Which as of today, I can affirmatively state extends to Olympia.

---

I remember contacting Dave saying I’d like to make a campaign contribution to your campaign, can you please let me know who your campaign manager is, and his response was that he was a one a man show.

I encouraged Dave to stay the course, because I spent countless hours on the phone ( sometimes pulling all nighters) with other like minded sunshine citizens who are frustrated and fed up with the corruption.

I know Washingtonians are ready for a clean and honest government, and are now frustrated enough  to take an active role in holding corrupt government officials accountable. However, I asked Dave to remember one basic political science principle “ its we the people and that only reason voters will vote for you is that they perceive you as their best chance for change.”

This year’s election is proof, but time will tell if Dave remembers his responsibility to “we the people, not ye the corrupt few.”

---

Looking over the last three years, I became a regretful voter of Governor Inslee. When Governor Jay Inslee decided to back a thug and bum named John Lovick for Snohomish County Executive, who for years covered up for executive criminals like John E. Pennington, Mark Ericks, Brian Lewis, Peter Camp, and Brian Perry, I knew he was part of the problem up in Snohomish County.

Governor Inslee’s silence on the corruption inside every Washington State agency is quite disturbing and has me left regretting my vote.  Surprisingly, Governor Inslee stopped all death penalty cases here in Washington – something I highly respected him for- but after reviewing evidence of massive corruption inside every government agency in Washington State, I’ve come to believe that he felt that its ok to place victims of our corrupt government in jail or label citizens felons so long as we don’t kill them.

Perhaps he was having trouble sleeping at night because he knows how corrupt Washington State government is?  By allowing our government to “trump up criminal charges on hard working honest citizens, turning them into criminals, I believe Inslee is part of the problem.”

Sorry Governor Inslee I gave you two years to attack the massive corruption inside our government but You chose to ignore it. You and John Lovick not only ignored, but you allowed it to grow like a cancer met to every organ of this state.

I can’t stop seeing images of that small baby pulled lifeless, dead, from the Oso mudslides; mudslides could have been avoided had John E. Pennington not told former Executive Aaron Reardon in an email ” its good to build boss.”  An email that we turned over to John Pennington’s Oso victims, hoping to help add a little closure to the gross amount of pain and suffering John E. Pennington was allowed to cause to so many.

I admit I am not John E. Pennington’s only victim.

I blame John Lovick and John E. Pennington for causing the deaths of 43 people, because instead of doing his job, John Pennington criminally harassed a citizen on the County’s payroll, operated his own for profit company, never earned an accredited college degree, and criminally assaulted women and children,  instead of mitigating loss of human life.

According to Snohomish County’s charter, mitigation was solely John E. Pennington’s job, and if having caused 43 people to suffocate to death wasn’t’ deserving of “ F” for failure, I’m not sure what it is.

But instead in May 2015, John Lovick wrote an email letter to John  E. Pennington stating ” You’re a great leader”, which triggered a response from me saying  “If killing 43 people in Oso mudslides is evidence of a great leader, I’d hate to see what your definition of a bad leader is Mr. Lovick.”

For over three years, I turned over mounds of files on John Pennington to the Washington State Bar totaling over 1800 pages of Exhibits; Exhibits the Washington State Bar tirelessly conspired to exclude (and Linda Eide and Lin O’Dell tried to destroy, but were unable to because we sent those files via emails preserving those for years to come) hoping to continue the massive cover up all in an effort to protect a political bum’s criminal conduct.

---

If I were Governor, I would have filed negligent homicide charges against John E. Pennington, not allowed him to collect a $11,000.00 a month welfare check, thus adding insult to the people he killed in Oso. But instead John Lovick and Jay Inslee ignored and spit on their constituents.

John Lovick’s career is over just like Aaron Reardon, and as a  result of allowing John E. Pennington to criminally harass citizens instead of mitigating loss of life in Washington State’s most preventable nature disaster loss to human life, the Oso mudslides.  John E. Pennington is being sued for Racketeering in U.S Federal Court, and more likely than not a new RICO suit will be filed for his, corrupt cop Lori Batiot, Joe Beavers and Crystal Hill Pennington ( nee Berg, convicted of bank fraud 2005) criminal conduct in 2015.

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

“ Hecka of job, double Johnny boys”

---

Over the last seven years, I’ve had my life threatened by John E. Pennington, and Gold Bar’s former Mayor Crystal Hill ( nee Berg, convicted of bank fraud 2005)  and Joe Beavers. I had my property rights extorted by the trio, but not without the assistance of Washington State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel members  Linda Eide, Lin O’Dell, Julie Shankland, and Alison Sato, and our wonderful friends from Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Mark Roe, Margaret King, and Sean Reay.

The amount of damage the above people have done to Washington State must be repaired, otherwise We see no end in sight.

---

---

As a youngster, I campaigned for a lot of politicians, but knowing Dave Somers is a honest politician who holds true to his promises, I was ecstatic to hear that may be, possibly, Snohomish County government may have a chance of conducting itself in a honest and respectful manner.

Bigger question is whether Dave will continue the cover up for the criminals listed herein, or expose them with hell of a lot of Sunshine. Time will tell.

My only hope is that I don’t regret my decision to back Dave Somers as Snohomish County’s only clear chance for Sunshine in 2016, because I know that once he crosses what I consider to be an ethical line, my compassion for him will turn to stone and I will spend another century scrutinizing his conduct as well.

---

---

If the voters stop acting like sheep, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in.

 

Fixing Cases: Pre-Determined Results in Washington Courts

This case study illustrates how insiders have by-passed public law and due process guarantees — and make justice in Washington State a mockery.

 

State Agencies Corrupt Public Law

In 2004, we were new to Washington and looking for a home. An agent from the biggest real estate firm in Washington — Windermere Real Estate — put together a home-purchase/renovation package for us. But the agent did not tell us the contractor he brought into the deal was his business partner, unlicensed and unqualified to do the work. The contractor ruined the value of the home; to add insult to injury, one of the subcontractors sued us, claiming he had not been paid. Acting pro se, we defended ourselves and countersued those responsible. Details at http://www.RenovationTrap.com.

When we complained to the Department of Licensing (DOL) about the Windermere agent, DOL refused to sanction him. We then discovered other homeowners who had a similar story: Theyʼd been ripped off by Windermere agents, complained to DOL, and DOL looked the other way.

We told our story and theirs at http://www.Windermere-Victims.com. Another Windermere victim had his own website! http://www.windermerewatch.com.

We asked Attorney General McKenna to file a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Department of Licensing to enforce the stateʼs real estate licensing laws. The AGʼs office (AGO) wrote back that the AG would go to court only to defend DOL against such a writ!

Huh? An Attorney General who defends a government agency that flouts the public law? One Hand Washes the Other

We testified before the Legislature about the situation homeowners faced in Washington. We wrote

letters to the House and the Senate complaining about DOLʼs preferential treatment of Windermere agents. We sent one such a letter to our senator, Rodney Tom, Chair of the Senateʼs Consumer Protection and Housing Committee and Vice Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Tom was not sympathetic towards us: He himself was a Windermere agent/associate broker!

Windermereʼs Rodney Tom was the Chair of the Senate Consumer Protection and Housing Committee? Isnʼt that like the fox guarding the henhouse?

Blowing the Whistle on Windermere and Its Government Cronies. We went to public events and shopping centers with signs and pamphlets warning the public about Windermere and the government corruption that protected it. We appeared on national TV: MSNBCʼs Undercover series, “The Homewreckers.” The show was broadcast nine times nationally.

At one point, Windermere offered us a settlement (for a fraction of the damages) and demanded an onerous secrecy agreement. In a nutshell: “Take down your websites, and if you ever mention your experience with Windermere to anyone, you owe us $25,000 in damages — each time you mention us.” Actual settlement demand here: http://www.renovationtrap.com/files/windermere-settlement.pdf

Certainly Windermere regarded us as enemies and our activities has harmful to Windermere.

Getting Ready for Trial. If Only Weʼd Known …

We hired a young lawyer to take us to trial. He had just joined Lane Powell, one of the Northwestʼs largest law firms.

Unfortunately, we did not know the supervisor of the young manʼs practice group at Lane Powell was the Mayor of Bellevue, Grant Degginger — who at that time was presiding over Bellevueʼs biggest building boom ever. We did not know that the Washington Association of Realtors (“REALTORS”) was Deggingerʼs largest single election contributor (and every Windermere agent was required to be a member of REALTORS). Other development interests contributed to Deggingerʼs campaign, as did the Lane Powell law firm. That is, Lane Powellʼs Grant Degginger was beholding to the very interests we were opposing. Had we known any of this, we would not have engaged the firm. But no one told us.

During the course of litigation, we asked Lane Powell to tell the court about the malfeasance of DOL and AGO, but the firm refused. We later discovered that Deggingerʼs wife, a lawyer, had worked for AGO for 18 years …

Yes, the young man we selected scored a trial victory against Windermere. But during the course of trial preparation and subsequent appeals, Lane Powell bled our case for legal fees — and then gave away important awards. As soon as we could practically do so, we dismissed Lane Powell (August 3, 2011). By then, we had already paid the firm $313,808. On the day we dismissed the firm, Lane Powell filed a lien for an additional $384,881.66 plus interest against our upcoming Windermere judgment payout.

Details: http://www.everyones-business.org.

Two months later, on October 5, 2011 (before we received the Windermere payout), Lane Powell sued us for breaking our contract — and for the additional $384,881.66 plus interest — even though Lane Powell had promised in the contract not to demand the fees until after the Windermere judgment was paid.

“Judge Windermere” Assigned to Lane Powellʼs Lawsuit. If Only Weʼd Known …

The question before the presiding judge would be this: Would we, the Windermere victims, be the beneficiaries of our trial court win against Windermere? Or would Lane Powell be the beneficiary? If Lane Powell could absorb the lionʼs share of the award, a lesson would be taught the public: “Sue Windermere? Even if you win, you will lose.”

According to the King County Superior Court webpage, “A judge is randomly assigned by the clerk at the time of filing.” At the time Lane Powell filed its suit there were 32 (thirty-two) judges sitting on Bench.

Only one (1) was married to a Windermere agent/broker, enjoyed a marital share in the Windermere real estate commissions she earned, and was a beneficiary of the Windermere Retirement Plan.

That judge was Richard D. Eadie. And, SURPRISE! Lane Powellʼs lawsuit against two Windermere whistleblowers was assigned to Richard D. Eadie, the Windermere beneficiary. Against 32-1 odds …

From our very first pleading, we told Judge Eadie about our history as whistle blowers against Windermere and the corruption of the captive regulatory agencies. http://www.renovationtrap.com/ In violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Eadie did not disclose his Windermere connections to us.

On the same day Lane Powell filed suit, it served discovery requests demanding we produce all communications we had with our attorneys on any subject whatsoever — not just matters pertaining to Lane Powellʼs lawsuit — thereby waiving all attorney-client confidentiality on all subjects. The message was clear: “Pay up, or your confidences will be published in court.” We believe thatʼs extortion under color of law. http://www.everyones-business.org/

Lane Powell told provable and repeated lies to Judge Eadie; when we provided documentation exposing the lies, Eadie simply ignored it and incorporated the lies in his rulings. He hammered us with one unfair decision after another. After ten months of this punishment, we found out about his Windermere connection and asked him to recuse (step down). He refused.

Extortion Under Color of Law. As for the confidences that Lane Powell threatened publish: Judge Eadie first granted, and then denied he had granted, discovery protection. Throughout, we refused to waive our attorney-client privilege. In defiance of the laws safeguarding privilege, Judge Eadie declared we were in

contempt of court for refusing to relinquish our confidential information and that, by refusing, we had stymied Lane Powellʼs case against us. He then used our refusal to waive our privilege to dismiss our defenses and counter claims. He held a Summary Judgment hearing on November 16, 2012, finding for Lane Powell. Four witnesses at that hearing swore out affidavits attesting to the Judge Eadieʼs obvious disregard for truth and prejudice in favor of Lane Powell. Ultimately, Judge Eadie awarded $842,734.67 to ex-Mayor Degginger and his colleagues at Lane Powell.

The message to other would-be Windermere whistleblowers? “Sue Windermere? Even if you win, you will lose.”

Who says cases arenʼt fixed in Washington?

We appealed Judge Eadieʼs refusal to recuse, using an excellent lawyer, James Lobsenz of Carney Badley Spellman, an expert on judicial recusal. The Court of Appeals misrepresented the issue on appeal, and then found against us — on the basis of its own misrepresentation. We then went to the Supreme Court. But even knowing that Judge Eadie kept his Windermere connections secret while hearing a lawsuit against two Windermere whistleblowers, that Lane Powell lied in court, that Judge Eadie had knowingly incorporated those lies into his rulings, and that the four citizens witnessed the judgeʼs prejudicial conduct during the Summary Judgment hearing — the Supreme Court refused to grant us an appeal. (Story at http://www.everyones-business.org)

And Grant Degginger has been appointed to chair of the Public Disclosure Commission … It all passes for justice in the State of Washington.

We have filed a Complaint with the Washington State Bar Association — complete with more that 4,000 pages of documentation. (Synopsis at http://www.everyones-business.org/BarReport/Synopsis.pdf ) But WSBA will take no action, stating we have “insufficient evidence” of the misconduct.

And it all passes for justice in the State of Washington. Written by Carol & Mark DeCoursey *

The Gold Bar Reporters are proud supporters of those who dedicate their lives to fighting the criminalS who are ruining our democracy.  Carol and Mark are ” Gold Bar Reporters Citziens of 2015″

Another great American exposes corruption inside Washington State agencies

PRESS RELEASE FROM WWW.CORRUPTWA.COM

Bill Scheidler has been advocating for citizen rights for the past 17 years.  This included Scheidler’s challenge of the Kitsap County Assessor’s scheme to defraud the Retired/disabled/widowed/low income homeowners of their constitutional (Article 7, Section 10) and statutory, RCW 84.36-39 rights.

Kitsap County, through the ‘tactical nonsense’ of the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s office, Alan Miles and Ione George, have caused delay upon delay to avoid a trial on the merits of Scheidler’s claims.  On March 30, 2015, after nearly 6 years in trying to get the merits of Scheidler’s case heard by an ‘impartial decision maker’, the Federal 9th Circuit determined that Scheidler’s case against the County’s fraud must be heard and his ‘complaint’ against Kitsap County Assessor James Avery, Kitsap County Judge Karlynn Haberly, WA State Board of Tax Appeals Chair, Kay Slonim, and Kitsap County Prosecutor, Alan Miles  can be amended. The following link is to a story that has the 9th’s memorandum and some of the pleadings filed in this case.

http://www.corruptwa.com/opinion/judges/federal-9th-circuit-says-activist-scheidler-prevails-sort-of-in-suit-against-kitsap-county/

chief activist at www.CorruptWA.com