WA State Supreme Court Justices under attack for corruption and criminal conduct!

By: Chief Activist

A grievance is going to be filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct that alleges, with ample evidence, that the WA State Supreme Court is a mere bunch of criminals.

The problem is, as we have been reminding ‘we the people,’ the Commission on Judicial Conduct is composed of judges of the court of appeals and judges of the superior court and lawyers of the WA State Bar and a few citizens chosen by these entities. So the question is do we have an impartial government or have the lawyers, who also serve in judicial, legislative, executive branches and on boards, commissions (as on the CJC), etc., commandeered our government. Are we citizens the mere play-toys for lawyers to use as they will?

The grievance that is anticipated states the following.

Statement in Support of Bill Scheidler’s Grievances against Supreme Court Justices Madsen, Gonzalez, Yu, Owens, Stephens

MadsengonzalezYuOwens2013stephens2013

The undersigned upon personal experience and knowledge makes these allegations against the above justices for fraud, official misconduct, violation of Art. 4, sec 28, violation of RCW 2.28.030, subornation of perjury, misprision of felony, and collusion in other crimes (RCW 9A.08). In addition to evidence of criminal conduct, allegations are these justices violated Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Especially these justices, in ruling on a matter of direct interest for which they are all disqualified, have colluded in violations by the lower court judges so as to establish their conduct acceptable – RULE 3.3 prohibits being a character witness for their own self-interest.
Under law, per RCW 42.20.080,

“Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.080, who shall willfully disobey any provision of law regulating his or her official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”

The law, RCW 18.130.180(7), notes that is professional misconduct in the …
“Violation of any state or federal statute or administrative rule regulating the profession in question, including any statute or rule defining or establishing standards of patient care or professional conduct or practice;”

For any “judge” to rule in favor of their colleague of the Bar, Scott Ellerby, and vouching for the conduct of the lower courts’ judges, is in every sense “vouching for the character of their colleagues” as well as ruling in a matter in which they are disqualified under Rule 2.11 and RCW 2.28.030(1). The conduct of one judicial official is conduct representative of and precedent for all judicial officials within the judicial branch. Judges who ignore the law to disqualify themselves in such matters are ruling upon conduct they have a direct interest in, including the very disqualification statute that applies to them and which they routinely violate. As such judicial branch judges have established themselves arbiters of and character witnesses of their own conduct and no law or ethical obligation will contain them.

Rules 1, 2, and 3 are incorporated by reference and provided in part below.

Rule 2.11 Disqualification (in part)
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household,* has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.

Rule 3.3 Acting as a Character Witness
A judge shall not act as a character witness in a judicial, administrative, or other adjudicatory proceeding or otherwise vouch for the character of a person in a legal proceeding, except when duly summoned.

RCW 2.28.030 Judicial officer defined — When disqualified. (in part)
A judicial officer is a person authorized to act as a judge in a court of justice. Such officer shall not act as such in a court of which he or she is a member in any of the following cases:
(1) In an action, suit, or proceeding to which he or she is a party, or in which he or she is directly interested.
(2) When he or she was not present and sitting as a member of the court at the hearing of a matter submitted for its decision.

RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

A judge may ONLY exercise powers granted by law. There are NO laws that grant any judge the power to do what they have done in this case! See RCW 2.28.050 and 2.28.060 (full citations incorporated by reference)

BACKGROUND: This grievance has its genesis in my effort to remedy false and misleading instructions disseminated by the Kitsap County Assessor James Avery. These instructions, which misstate controlling law, are provided to those retired/disabled/widowed/low income applicants seeking their constitutional (Article VII, Sec 10) and statutory (RCW 84.36) exemptions.

In support of this grievance and for the Board’s convenience, so it doesn’t need to go to the official records noted as offers of proof below, the following documents are provided.

Exhibit 1 and 2, are copies of the Assessor’s 2008 application (the offending instructions are page 3 top paragraph), and a copy of a handout by the Dept of Revenue that tells Assessors how to respond to the offending instructions.

Exhibit 3, is a copy of RCW 84.36.383. Subsection (5) is the controlling language which is misstated by the Assessor with the help of the DOR.

With respect to these exhibits, the differences are easily determined by simply comparing the Assessor’s version to the controlling law. It is not the same and neither will it be translated into the calculated result the law requires – the Assessor is defrauding the citizens of Kitsap county with the aid of WA State’s legal community – lawyers and judges.

Leaving this issue for now, the grievance now picks up with lawyer Scott Ellerby. When I met Scott Ellerby, he agreed with me that Kitsap County was defrauding me in the way they calculate the result contemplated by law. Ellerby agreed to take my case. However on the eve of a formal hearing Ellerby called and claimed that he had to withdraw. Ellerby told me Kitsap County, in the last hour after 6 months since Ellerby filed his notice of appearance, raised a “conflict of interest issue” that mandated his immediate withdrawal.

Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, are copies, respectively, of Ellerby’s official “Notice of Withdrawal”, Ellerby’s letter to Kitsap County asking they waive the conflict, and finally, Ellerby’s letter to me in explanation. These documents clearly and redundantly note that “Conflict of Interest” forced Ellerby to abandon me on the very eve of the hearing.

These documents, Ex 4,5 and 6, that Ellerby provided me are all a lie when compared to exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10 noted below.

Exhibits, 7, 8, 9, and 10, are copies, respectively, of an email from Larry Mills, Esq., and Ellerby’s sworn declarations that all claim that Ellerby’s withdrawal was at my request – not a conflict as he claimed. Per Mr. Mills, Esq., and per Ellerby himself stating in these exhibits, he was never disqualified nor withdrew due to conflict reasons.
After filing one or more grievance against Scott Ellerby for lying to me – which were dismissed by the WA State Bar, for which the WA Supreme Court is responsible, I filed two lawsuits.

One lawsuit was filed against Kitsap County for their FRAUD UPON RETIRE/DISBALED/WIDOWED/LOW INCOME applicants.
The other lawsuit was filed against Scott Ellerby, Esq., WSBA #16277. Both lawsuits were filed circa 2008-2009 as it was in 2008 did I learn of the lies Ellerby told, and in 2009, I re-established “standing” to sue Kitsap County, as I had to abandon my earlier case against Kitsap County due to being abandoned by Ellerby as Ex 1-10 document.

To this day the “merits” — the FRAUD by both Kitsap County and Scott Ellerby, to which Exhibits 1- 10 pertain, have yet to be addressed by a jury or a judge – despite a JURY REQUEST and payment in both cases. Rather these “officers of the court” have continued to lie, violate the law, and use their self-devised “court rule power” [court rules are NOT LAWS] to protect each other’s misconduct. All of what these “officers of the court” did for their own protection was at the cost of both the Citizens of Kitsap County and me personally.

Leaving these issues for now, the grievance now centers on the WA State Supreme Court Justices. In my 6-year effort presenting the court evidence for a redress of grievances and jury trial in both lawsuits, all of which have been thwarted at every instance by the legal community under claims of ‘court rule authority, the WA State Supreme Court had six opportunities to be honorable and insure my day in court before a jury – on the evidence – occurred. Art 1, sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 12 14 and 21 … among others have been rendered irrelevant by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

It is clear that our Courts by and through their judges and lawyers, are “obstructionist” when the reputation of the legal profession is threatened and they have no intention in addressing misconduct that occurs within their ranks. Rather the WA State Supreme Court “retaliates” against me by imposing ‘sanctions’, refusing to file pleadings, filing false reports by colluding in those other false reports, and to turn a blind eye by denying review of these important matters. This conduct by the WA SC, as the pleadings entered as evidence show, the Supreme Court Justices ‘retaliate’ against ANYONE who criticizes judges or their colleagues of the WA State bar.

In the most recent despicable act that is part of this grievance, concerns the SC justices ruling to deny my petition to review Division II’s clerk, David Ponzoha’s unilateral decision to lie about my opening brief as ‘non-conforming’ and based in that lie refuse to file the brief unless it was modified (edited) under some undefined scheme that only David Penzoha understood. Then Ponzoha’s unilateral decision to dismiss the entire ‘appeal’ when I confronted Ponzoha and his lies and demanded he file my brief as the law requires him to do. The law controlling Ponsoha’s duties is RCW 2.32.050, which states at subsection 4

“it is the duty … (4) To file all papers delivered to him or her for that purpose in any action or proceeding in the court”

The evidence for this allegation is all contained in the official file in COA II case #454351 and SC case #902887 and these files are included as offers of proof.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it shows neither lawyers or the judges they spawn have any regard for the law, the truth, or their ethical obligations to protect and maintain individual rights and to promote the integrity of the judiciary. Rather it is about covering up legal misconduct rather than excising it from our society.
In fact, Scott Ellerby, Esq., who lied to me, lied to Mr. Mills, lied to the Courts in filing perjured documents in official proceedings as the Exhibits offered show, was rewarded and made a hearing officer with the WA State Bar and serves the Bar’s ethics committee.

For me, I was sanctioned under the courts self-styled court rules as many as four times by judges in an aggregate amount in excess of $140,000 for bringing a petition for a redress of grievances and for a jury trial against Ellerby, a member of the WA State Bar, which, which, to this day has been “obstructed” by the legal establishment.

Because all of what I say herein is a matter of court record, grievances and sworn testimony made in earlier proceedings, I include by reference those records in the following actions as offers of proof for this grievance.

Kitsap County Superior Court case numbers; all against lawyers/gov. and dismissed under court rule.
1. 08-2-02882-0
2. 09-2-00660-3
3. 12-2-02161-1
4. 14-2-00042-3
5. 14-2-00474-7
Court of Appeals II case numbers: all against lawyers/gov. one reversed in part on sanctions, others upholding dismissal.
1. 387816
2. 397498
3. 425912
4. 454351
WA Supreme Court case numbers: all against lawyers, dismissed under court rules.
1. 848149
2. 848971
3. 857164
4. 876592
5. 879672
6. 902887
US District Court, Western Washington case number – against lawyers and judges, dismissed.
1. 3:2012cv05996
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case number, presently under review.
1. 13-35119
Grievances filed with the WA State Bar and dismissed.
12-00015, 12-00018, 12-00037, 12-00038, 12-00039, 12-00045, 12-00101
12-00102, 12-00151, 12-00258, 12-00259, 12-00264, 12-00280, 12-00285
12-00286, 12-00287, 12-00288, 12-00290, 12-00455, 12-00493, 12-00533
12-00536, 12-00650, 12-00698, 12-00721, 13-00546, 13-02125, 13-02309
14-00061, 14-00096, 14-00713
Past grievances filed with the WA State Commission on Judicial Conduct and dismissed.
7186, 7584, 7410, 7467. Note: other grievances are anticipated to be filed and additions to this list updated.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct: See GR 13(b)

September 24, 2014, Port Orchard, WA _____//Bill Scheidler_________________

3 Comments

  • Dr. Charles W. Heckman:

    There are long-standing grievances against the Washington State Supreme Court from veterans of the Vietnam War and later conflicts because the court has consistantly refused to review the decisions based on the precedent set by the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1, in Seattle in the case Mitchell v. Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (2001). Mitchell did not appeal his decision, but several other veterans did. Certiorari was denied in every case. This decision made Washington the first state in the Union to declare veterans’ preference unconstitutional. The results can be seen at freeway exits and shopping center entrances all over the state, where veterans must beg for quarters to eat.

  • ann dorian masotti:

    Bill, your model here can and should be used for those Grievances for every State in the Nation. Too often the obvious nepotism and collusion among certain attorneys and judges is all too blatant, and as Dr. Hackman aptly stated, refusal to review the decisions resulted in denial to be heard. This is unconstitutional. Our democracy is/has given way to demogagary and has to be stopped. Our rights are being ignored and discarded. New York is as bad….we have a Governor who would be KING, not President which he so avidly is pursuing.

    Continued Courage Bill….let’s get this out on the Internet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Visitors since August 2016

wordpress stat
Back to Top
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com