Scheidler files lawsuit against Judge Kevin Hull, Legislators Jan Angel, Michelle Caldier and Jesse Young – Racketeering

Every citizen needs to recognize “At the core of our rotten government are the lawyers”! Please circulate this story via every social media outlet you have. It illustrates, step-by-painful-step, how lawyers use their positions within government office to engage in crimes, under the protection of the lawyers who become judges. It is a ‘racket” by lawyers for lawyers AT THE EXPENSE OF CITIZEN RIGHTS.

CBS 60 Minutes undercover video| Lawyers claim “we run the country”.

Representative Jesse Young
Representative Jesse Young

Friday, November 18, 2016, Bill Scheidler, the “reluctant activist” for www.corruptwash.com, filed a lawsuit alleging that Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Kevin Hull, and Washington State Legislators Michelle Caldier, Jan Angel and Jesse Young are “trading office” to protect criminal conduct committed by Kevin Hull and the Kitsap County Assessor.

The crime at the center of Scheidler’s lawsuit is the County lying to citizens by “misstating a law”. This “law” gives retired/disabled persons a break in their property tax. When the County misstates the law, they not only change an existing law, which is to engage in “legislation” – a prohibited act, but also commit a ‘fraud’ in misleading citizens by substituting “their law” in place of the true law so as to obtain an unjust result. This a prohibited act and a ‘criminal act’ – FRAUD. The motive is simple – the County, by their fraud, takes in more money which goes to pay the salaries, benefits and perks of all county personnel, including the Assessor, the judges, Kevin Hull, and legislators Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel.

When Scheidler discovered this fraud (…it wasn’t difficult, simply compare what the County said was the law to the actual statute passed by the legislature) he went to the Assessor, James Avery, and asked him to correct his error. Avery refused and continued to lie to citizens. Scheidler then went to the Department of Revenue, who said they don’t have jurisdiction to tell Avery to obey the law. Then he went to the Attorney General, who said they don’t have jurisdiction over Avery’s conduct. Then he went to his representatives who DID NOTHING!

Washington State Senator, Jan Angel
Washington State Senator, Jan Angel
This meant that the ONLY way to stop the fraud upon the retired/disabled was left to Scheidler. Scheidler petitioned the Kitsap County Court where the prosecutor and Judge claimed that Scheidler didn’t have standing to bring an action that would correct the fraud. They said Scheidler would first need to be the ‘frauds’ victim to have standing.

In other words, the judge and prosecutor wanted Scheidler to suffer an injury before they would address this fraud. What is most notable is that both judge and prosecutor take an oath to “protect individual rights” NOT engage in conduct that requires a citizen to relinquish their rights and become a victim of a crime. This is ‘aiding and abetting’. Without any other alternative, Scheidler became a VICTIM of the Assessor’s Fraud by following the Assessor’s lies as the Assessor demanded. This is “extortion” by forcing a citizen to file documents that are known to be false OR forfeit their rights. It is also know as a Hobson’s choice — a take-it or leave-it as there is no alternative.

Scheidler looked for a lawyer willing to address this fraud and found NONE in Kitsap County. Eventually Scheidler found a lawyer, Scott Ellerby, of the Seattle firm Mills, Meyers, Swartling. Ellerby agreed with Scheidler that Kitsap County was defrauding county taxpayers and depriving them of their constitutional rights by lying about the law. Ellerby took Scheidler’s case at a reduced fee.

Lawyer Scott Ellerby - extorted from representing Scheidly by the Kitsap Prosecutor
Lawyer Scott Ellerby – extorted from representing Scheidler by the Kitsap Prosecutor

When Kitsap County read the complaint that Ellerby was going to file with the Washington State Board of Tax Appeal that exposed their fraud, the Kitsap Prosecutor threaten Ellerby with his law license ( aka., a Washington State Bar Complaint) unless Ellerby withdraw from Scheidler’s case. This is “extortion” committed by Washington State Bar lawyers (the prosecutor), using the Washington State Bar as leverage, which licenses lawyers like Ellerby, to manipulate our justice system. Said another way, Ellerby either played by “their rules”, which was to help cover-up a fraud, or lose his law license.

Because Ellerby was being ‘extorted’ from Scheidler’s case under threat to his Bar Licence, he withdrew from Scheidler’s case on the very night before a formal hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals to address Kitsap County’s fraud.

Scheidler was unable to find another lawyer to take Scheidler’s case for fear that they would become another target of “extortion” by the County Prosecutor. Scheidler was forced to proceed ‘pro se’ or there would be no one to expose and correct the County’s fraud upon retired/disabled people.

Representative Michelle Caldier
Representative Michelle Caldier
In order to proceed ‘pro se’ Scheidler needed the return of the money he paid to Ellerby – over $2000, for which he didn’t get what he hired Ellerby to provide — REPRESENTATION! Ellerby refused!

Now Scheidler has two problems: Kitsap County’s fraud, and Ellerby’s refusal to return all the money he charged for services which he didn’t provide — his representation.

What Scheidler didn’t know at that time was that all of these ‘problems’ are INTENDED to escalate costs and cover-up crimes.

“At the core of our Rotten Government is a lawyer”

CBS 60 Minutes undercover video| Lawyers claim “we run the country”.

Scheidler’s effort to fix a wrong has been obstructed at EVERY turn by a lawyer. In Washington State EVERY lawyer must be a member of the Washington State Bar [WSBA]. And Every JUDGE must be a member of the Washington State Bar. THIS MEANS, whenever you are dealing with a lawyer or judge (EVEN Washington Supreme Court judges) you are dealing with the “policies, practices, customs and rules” that the Washington State Bar establishes, interprets, applies and enforces.

Kitsap Superior Court Judge, Kevin Hull
Kitsap Superior Court Judge, Kevin Hull
The County’s fraud upon retired/disabled citizens is protected by the Washington State Bar Associates who hold office in the Kitsap Prosecutor’s office, and serve as judges in all Kitsap Courts.

Ellerby (a Bar Associate) was “extorted” from Scheidler’s case against the county because of the “customs, policies, practices and rules” that the WSBA has in place to insure ‘crimes’, as discussed above, can occur and be covered up.

When Scheidler filed a WSBA grievance against Ellerby for refusing to return the money he was paid, the WSBA ‘delegated’ that grievance back to Scheidler to obtain a “judicial finding of impropriety”. By law, the WSBA is suppose to “investigate and address lawyer misconduct” NOT delegate that task back to the one filing the grievance and at taxpayer expense. Which is what the WSBA does. This is “misappropriation” of government funds. The WSBA, AT THEIR COST AND EFFORT, is suppose to insure all WSBA associates obey the law, not steal from their clients or EXTORT lawyers from representing their clients.

This is where Kevin Hull (a WSBA associate and prior Kitsap prosecutor) enters the picture. Rather than “investigate” the County’s fraud, Ellerby’s refusal to return money for which he didn’t provide his services, the “extortion” by the County’s prosecutor (Hull came out of the prosecutors office) … SANCTIONS Scheidler $120,000 for bringing a lawsuit that the WSBA delegated to Scheidler under their “customs, policies, practices and rules.”

When Scheidler was ‘defrauded’ again by a WSBA associate, Kevin Hull, he went to his legislators, Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel. Scheidler demanded they exercise THEIR constitutional obligations to “protect individual rights” and REMOVE judges, like Kevin Hull, who use their office to carryout crimes upon citizens under their ‘customs, practices, policies and rules’.

Jesse Young first agreed to address corruption, but upon taking office in 2014, reneged on that promise.
Michelle Caldier, in the words of her lawyer, David Horton, ‘if Michelle is re-elected she could “sit home and watch TV” and there would be nothing you could do’! Of course David Horton is a WSBA associate.
Jan Angel … Jan is simply brain-dead and a complete puppet.

Now Scheidler, in his lawsuit, is challenging these “public servants” and their self-established standards that “they could do nothing about the criminal conduct committed by other public-servants, and we citizens must accept it”

While Scheidler will prosecute this case ‘pro se’, if there is any lawyer out there who has the courage to go up against the WSBA and their ‘customs, policies, practices and rules’ please contact Bill Scheidler at billscheidler@outlook.com

complaint-against-jesse-young-filed

11 Comments

  1. Tell him to 1099 that attorney or Lawyer anything to do with these two always 1099 them for ANY payment you pay them because they are putting in the tax exempt trust account and half of them don’t even report it on their taxes! Get your W9 before you pay any attorney or Lawyer by LAW they have to or file a 3949a with the IRS because they will be fined then file a compliant with the BAR as well. Write it off then sue his for fraud and file another report with the BAR!

      • I think this 1099 refers to IRS form 1099 payments in the course of a business or trade. By reporting to the IRS any payment made to a business, then, in turn, that business will, as required, need to report it as income to the IRS. While individuals who are not engaged in business or trade are exempt from 1099 reporting … it nevertheless puts all parties on notice that a business has received “income” in THEIR business or trade.

  2. Corporate Attorneys’ and Voluntary Associations have no standing in Court.
    “Attorney-at-Law, PC” [PC = Professional Corporation]
    MCL 450.681 Practice of law by corporations and voluntary associations prohibited; exceptions; penalty [1917] Sec. 1. “It shall be unlawful for any corporation or voluntary association to practice or appear as an attorney-at-law for any person other than itself in any court in this state or before any judicial body, or to make it a business to practice as an attorney-at-law, for any person other than itself, in any of said courts or to hold itself out to the public as being entitled to practice law, or render or furnish legal services or advice, or to furnish attorneys or counselor to render legal services of any kind in actions or proceedings of any nature or in any other way or manner, or in any other manner to assume to be entitled to practice law or to assume, use or advertise the title of lawyer or attorney, attorney-at-law, or equivalent terms in any language in such manner as to convey the impression that it is entitled to practice law, or to furnish legal advice, services or counsel, or to advertise that either alone or together with or by or through any person whether a duly and regularly admitted attorney-at-law, or not, it has, owns, conducts or maintains a law office or an office for the practice of law, or for furnishing legal advice, services or counsel.”
    – – Both a ‘corporation’ and a ‘voluntary association’ cannot act as an ‘attorney at law’ other than for itself.
    An ‘association’ is defined [BLD 4th.] as, “the act of a number of persons in uniting together for some special purpose or business. The persons so joining. It is a word of vague meaning used to indicate a collection of persons who have joined together for a certain object.” . . . “An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise.” . . . “It is not a legal entity separate from the persons who compose it.”
    ‘Association’ is defined [Webster’s 1926] as: 1. An associating, or state of being associated; union; connection, whether of persons or things. Some . . . bond of association” Hooker. 2. Mental connection, or that which is mentally linked or associated with a thing. 3. Union of persons in a company or society for some particular purpose. b. In the United States, as distinguished from a corporation, a body of persons organized, for the prosecution of some purpose, without a charter, but having the general form and mode of procedure of a corporation.
    Accordingly, a person can only practice as an attorney-at-law for himself, if he acts as an attorney-at-law for someone else he acts in a ‘mental connection’ joining and uniting together with another person for some special purpose or business.

  3. I believe my lawyers were in Cahoots with the Judge (Obama appointed) and vice versa. I tried suing University of Michigan for discrimination and my lawyer would not put the defamation of character (that was found out by a sworn deposition) on the Federal Suit. I had to take the defamation case against the individuals that were employed at UM- that also acted on UM’s behalf- to the Civil Court. see Sheri Barron on vimeo. http://WWW.google.com Sheri Barron RN,BSN

    • Sheri,

      I have been ‘connecting the dots’ over the past 15 years. The picture that has emerged is one of “risk management”. In other words, when a “jury renders a verdict” against a governmental or other large institution the “insurers” are on the hook to pay damages. This affects “interstate state trade” as damage awards ‘affect’ both the insurer’s profits, (investors’ returns) and the entity they insure as to its insurability and financial risk. For example, Imagine if some government entity was repeatedly sued and found culpable. Their ability to obtain “insurance” would suffer as no insurer would risk their profits to insure a known bad investment. This then adversely affects that government entity being able to continue to operate if it cannot pay its liabilities or obtain insurance. The REMEDY is to “rig the judicial system” so “risks are managed” and the insurance companies make profits and continue to insure government entities so they can do what government entities do … pay government workers (judges, lawyers…), politicians and lobbyists. Because judges and lawyers need “insurance” and THEIR premiums would be affected if they are guilty of violating rights … they operate in their own self interests and that of the government entity/insurance company whose money is at stake. It is all about “risk management” and that is just a euphemism for “case fixing”.

  4. It’s too bad you had to go through all of this and learn what everyone else who experiences the “justice system” learns: that it has become nothing more than a criminal enterprise with no external competition. We hope to change that by spreading the message in our book as you are nobly helping us do. As you’ve seen, complaints against lawyers and judges never make it very far, unless, of course, they are politically motivated and filed by powerful persons (ie, by the prosecutor against the lawyer you mention). Only 2% nationwide actually result in any discipline, and it is those just mentioned that fall into that category. We recommend everyone at least read our book sample, register on our blog, and look for our upcoming show, The Legal Power Hour, on The Liberty Beacon’s website. We ask that those of you who read this click on our book image near the top of the page when visiting our site. We thank you, and the country thanks you.

    • Yes indeed! One can simply look at the statistics and readily recognize our judicial system is corrupt. As you point out in your book, only 2% of complaints against judges result in any disciplinary action. Yet, according to a Gallup poll that has tracked “honesty and ethics” in different professions for over a decade, judges consistently rank among the “dishonest” professions with only 45% of judges found to be truthful and honorable. Other anecdotal evidence that factors into this issue that our judicial system is corrupt is in the number of lawsuits that are dismissed in relation to reports by the Better Business Bureau that are resolved. In other words, consumers can rely more on filing complaints with the BBB rather than prevailing in court. This shows that judges simply dismiss lawsuits to “clear their workload”, rather than decide the merits. Another statistic that is interesting is which type of complaints are most likely dismissed — while BBB grievances against banking, mortgage and insurance companies has steadily increased, the number of lawsuits against banks, mortgage and insurance companies have decreased. It doesn’t make statistical sense and is strong evidence that our judicial system is “bought by special interest groups” and not the “truth-finding institution” it makes itself out to be.

  5. This story doesn’t sound very credible and then just gets crazy. There is no way that Ellerby was forced to withdraw as counsel or lose his bar license. That’s ridiculous.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Lawsuit filed in Federal District Court of Pennsylvania – Good v Evil | Corrupt Washington

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*