Scheidler files criminal complaint against Superior Court Judge, Michael Evans – official misconduct.

Superior Court Judge, Michael Evans

Today Bill Scheidler, the “reluctant activist” for, filed a criminal complaint against Judge Evans for official misconduct. The allegations are Judge Evans engaged in false statements to achieve an unlawful outcome that deprived another of a right or privilege by disobeying the laws regulating his official conduct.

The crux of Scheidler’s allegation concerns the scam orchestrated by judges to insure “judges-judge-judges” so any outcome in any court action is a product of this incestuous scam. Scheidler claims that judges-judging-judges violates Washington’s constitution and laws. He says,

Clearly Article 1, sec 1, places the “People” as the ultimate arbiter of governments’ powers, and whether or not the powers delegated to government are exercised in a “just” manner. For Judge Evans to undermine constitutional provisions not only deprives Mr. O’Hagan of a fair judge but is a fraud upon the court and a fraud upon society.

Judge Evans’ untrue statements that undermine Art 1, sec 1, are made for the benefit of himself and his colleagues, which are intended to increase their power over citizens. That is criminal – it is the diversion of pubic assets “to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter” – which is a felony crime under RCW 9A.68.050(1)(b).

Furthermore, state law specifically Article 4, sec 24 and RCW 4.36.070, addresses the power of judges as well as ‘jurisdictional disputes’. These authorities underscore what Article 1, sec 1 plainly states — that judges only have rule making authority for the administrative duties of the Superior court – not to govern the people of Washington state; and that jurisdiction is an issue of fact, for trial, and for a jury.

    ARTICLE $, SECTION 24 RULES FOR SUPERIOR COURTS. The judges of the superior courts, shall from time to time, establish uniform rules for the government of the superior courts.

    RCW 4.36.070
    Pleading judgments.
    In pleading a judgment or other determination of a court or office of special jurisdiction, it shall not be necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but such judgment or determination may be stated to have been duly given or made. If such allegation be controverted, the party pleading shall be bound to establish on the trial the facts conferring jurisdiction.
    [Code 1881 § 96; 1877 p 21 § 96; 1854 p 142 § 58; RRS § 287.]

    RCW 4.44.090
    Questions of fact for jury.
    All questions of fact other than those mentioned in RCW 4.44.080, shall be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to them.
    [Code 1881 § 224; 1877 p 47 § 228; 1869 p 56 § 228; RRS § 343.]

More importantly,

    Article 1, sec 4, The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.

    Article 4, sec 16 Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law.

Judge Evans’ claims that he (i.e., judges) are rulers over the people collides with these statutory and constitutional authorities cited above and creates a riddle without a legal solution – it results in judges-judging-judges. In other words, a litigant who is subjected to Judge Evans’ self-claimed authority only has a remedy of an appeal. (Ref: video will validate this allegation)

It is a forgone conclusion that Judge Evans’ aids and abets the “attempt to secure a particular result” – insuring judges-judge-judges, by the scheme concocted by Judge Evans to undermine Article 1, sec 1. Such a circular scheme that results in judges-judging-judges concerning the powers of judges further violates Article 1, secs 8, 12, 28, Article 4, sec 28 (supra), and RCW 2.28.030.

Clearly judges have a direct interest in their own powers and the laws that apply to judges. A scheme in which judges-judge-judges regarding the laws that apply to judges so as to grant themselves powers they do not have (the intended result) would constitution a privilege no individual or corporation enjoys (a violation of Art 1, sec 12). This direct interest and impermissible privilege to define one’s own authority that Judge Evans is orchestrating through his false statements is meant to achieve a result that is unlawful – to deprive the people of their ‘inherent powers’ as expressed by Article 1, sec 1, which are then claimed, unconstitutionally, by judges. It is government determining the extent of its own powers so as to achieve any result government wants.

Judge Evans’ circular scheme that is designed so judges-judge-judges is self-incriminating as such a scheme is unconstitutional. Judge Evans must adhere to law and clearly established rulings that comply with law. See RCW 4.04.010. It is the ‘People’ who are the be-all and end-all concerning governments’ just powers, as Article 1, sec 1 mandates – not judges deciding the ‘People’s’ authority; it is the “people” who assemble (e.g., via a jury) for the common good as Article 1, sec 4 clearly states – not “judges-judging-judges” so as to impose their views upon the People; and further the law prohibits ‘branches from measuring their own authority’. See Wash. State Labor Council v Reed 149 Wn.2d 48, 64 (Apr. 2003), Chambers concurring.— which is a holding consistent with RCW 2.28.030(1) that ‘disqualifies a judge from presiding over an issue in which they have a direct interest’.

This story will be updated as information becomes available.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.