Activist Bill Scheidler filed an ethics complaint with the Legislative Ethics Board against his 26th District Legislators, Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel. During the Board’s Oct 11, meeting, Scheidler addressed the Board during the Board’s invitation for public comment. Scheidler began to speak about the obligations legislators have to protect and maintain individual rights and that duty extends to their check and balance function over judges who violated the laws that apply to judges. Scheidler began addressing the Board by saying,…
the legislature’s constitutional powers to remove judges, or the attorney general or any prosecutor from office for ANY reason. It can be said, due to the 1933 passage of the Washington State Bar Act, codified by RCW 2.48 that all Judges, the attorney general, all prosecutors must all be members of the Washington State Bar Association. So hereafter I’ll refer to “judges, prosecutors and the attorney general” as Bar Associates.
The Legislatures power to remove Bar Associates from office is found in Article 4, Section 9 and Article 5 of Washington’s constitution.
While Article 4 and Article 5 provide the power to remove these officials from office for ANY reason, when these Bar Associates violate the laws that apply to Bar Associates the Legislature MUST remove them from office for their misconduct.
The Courts state When the legislature fails to act “..courts can assume that a legislature acquiesces in the judicial construction of statutes”. See Gig Harbor Improv. Asso v. Pierce County, 106 Wn.2d 707 (Wash. 1986); Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 177 Wn.2d 718 (Wash. 2013); Bowles v. Wash. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 121 Wn.2d 52 (Wash. 1993).
This presents a constitutional crisis … the legislature is prohibited from legalizing the “unauthorized or invalid act by ANY official”. See Article 2, Sec 28(12). Therefore when Bar Associates, violate any provision of law that regulates their official conduct, which is a gross misdemeanor under both RCW 42.20 and RCW 9A.80, the legislature may not acquiesce to their misconduct nor permit them sit in judgement of their own conduct by allowing them to interpret the laws to escape their duty and obligations to the harm of citizens.
To do otherwise is not only unconstitutional but sends the message to judges, prosecutors and the attorney general that they are above the law. To be above the law is a privilege no other citizen, corporation or class of citizens enjoys – and this too violates Article 1, Sec 12 prohibiting “privileges and immunities”. When the legislature acquiesces in the misconduct by judges, prosecutors and the attorney general they place EVERY Washington State Citizen at RISK of ever increasing frequency of judicial misconduct.
When Scheidler began to describe the criminal conduct committed by judges, and the fraud perpetrated against retired/disabled citizens these judges help cover-up, the Board’s chair interrupted and said Scheidler’s time was up. Immediately one member of the audience said he relinquishes his time to Scheidler … that was followed by another …. and another… then another.
Scheidler continued his comments saying …
At the core of my grievance is a fraud being perpetrated upon retired/disabled citizens. The Fraud undermines Washington’s constitution Article 7, Sec 10 property tax rights that is intended to help the old and helpless with their property tax payments.
The fraud is simple – misstate the law and present this misstated law as true so as to illegally deny Article 7, Sec 10 rights. The Fraud is devised and protected by Washington State Bar Associates who hold office throughout government.
In my effort to correct this fraud being perpetrated upon those most vulnerable I’ve been targeted for destruction all my life’s saving have been stolen by Washington State Bar Associates who occupy decision-making offices within government: judges – in this case, Judge Kevin Hull — county prosecutors, the attorney general, legislators, county officials…. even Lawyers in private practice are involved. Each of these “officials” are either directly or indirectly in breach of their duty to act to uphold the constitution and to protect individual rights, but act to undermine our constitution and eliminate individual rights
Here is how it works.
Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 attached to my written complaint amply illustrates this fraud.
First, the ONLY “authorized conduct” a public official my take in the administration of Article 7, Sec 10, is established by the legislature In RCW 84.36.385(6). In this statute the legislature specifically delegates to “The department and each local assessor is hereby directed to publicize the qualifications and manner of making claims under RCW 84.36.381 through 84.36.389” so as to obtain the Article 7, Sec 10 exemption.
The legislature specifically states the qualifications in RCW 84.36.383 by the following explicit words, “As used in RCW 84.36.381 through 84.36.389, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: … (5) “Disposable income” means adjusted gross income as defined in the federal internal revenue code, as amended prior to January 1, 1989, or such subsequent date as the director may provide by rule consistent with the purpose of this section, plus all of the following items to the extent they are not included in or have been deducted from adjusted gross income:
(a) Capital gains, other than gain excluded from income under section 121 of the federal internal revenue code to the extent it is reinvested in a new principal residence;
(b) Amounts deducted for loss;
(c) Amounts deducted for depreciation;
(d) Pension and annuity receipts;
(e) Military pay and benefits other than attendant-care and medical-aid payments;
(f) Veterans benefits, other than:
(i) Attendant-care payments;
(ii) Medical-aid payments;
(iii) Disability compensation, as defined in Title 38, part 3, section 3.4 of the code of federal regulations, as of January 1, 2008; and
(iv) Dependency and indemnity compensation, as defined in Title 38, part 3, section 3.5 of the code of federal regulations, as of January 1, 2008;
(g) Federal social security act and railroad retirement benefits;
(h) Dividend receipts; and
(i) Interest received on state and municipal bonds.
Now review documents found Appendix 3 and 4.
Clearly government officials tasked with the duty to publicize the “qualifications” “alter the words and meaning” of “disposable income” as both Appendixes 3 and 4 clearly demonstrates. The altering of statutory language is “unauthorized”, “invalid” and contrary to the express intention of the legislature noted in RCW 84.36.385(6) and RCW 84.36.383. For any official to violate any provision of law regulating his duties, such as defying the express language of the legislature, as shown here, is a gross misdemeanor crime under RCW 42.20 and RCW 9A.80. Such criminal conduct MUST never be legalized. Article 2, Sec 28(12) expressly prohibits legalizing “unauthorized or invalid acts by any official”.
Just as Scheidler began to tell the Board that the beneficiaries of this government fraud upon Retired/disabled were Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel, Jamie Pederson interrupted and demanded Scheidler stop his comments. Jamie Pederson’s salary, perks and benefits are also paid, in part, from the governments’ fraud upon retired/disabled citizens. And the Ethics Board itself is funded, in part, by this fraud. Scheidler refused and those in attendance wanted to hear all that Scheidler had to say. But the Legislative Ethics Board would not allow “free speech” on “matters of public importance” to be heard by those who ‘assembled to hear’ these issues.
Scheidler refused to stop speaking and was approached by “Security” and ordered to stop speaking. When Scheidler refused the State Patrol was summoned to escort Scheidler and all those in attendance to leave the room so the Board would end the “public comment session” and go into “executive session”. While waiting from the State Patrol to arrive a member of the public asked for Scheidler’s notes and proceeded to take up Scheidler’s comments until the room was emptied of all members of the public
I am told this is the first time the State Patrol needed to remove citizens from a Legislative Ethics Board Meeting because members of the public were commenting at the time set aside by the Board for public comment!
WELCOME to Washington State 2016 … a State formed in 1889 for the sole purpose to “protect and maintain individual rights” … such as “free speech, freedom to assemble for the public good and to petition for the redress of grievances where justice is administered openly and without delay.