addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

RE: [rawfood-213] Here's the suit. Give me feedback.

From: user 9.
Sent on: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:07 AM

Please remove me from your email list

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of George Henry
Sent: Sunday, April 29,[masked]:49 AM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [rawfood-213] Here's the suit. Give me feedback.

 

Interesting story. It seems that you have stated your allegations very clearly. The question is, how many witnesses will support them? Based on the points stated, it would appear that you are fighting an uphill battle against a "closed system" of cronies. That being the case, you may be very effectively expressing your disgust at the travesty of "justice" afforded by the local legal system, and may even succeed in propagating your view, but I question whether your lawsuit has a reasonable chance of succeeding in court.

Regards,
George

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:11 AM, ULTRAGABACHO! <[address removed]> wrote:

The Honorable Robert A. Jones Hono

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT SEATTLE

 

LEON S. BLATT,

                                 Petitioner,

 

                         vs.

 

PETE SHOVE, et al.,

                                 Respondents.

 

 

NO.  C[masked]             

 

DECLARATION OF LEON S. BLATT

IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO THREE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 

 

1.      In late August, 2008, I began renting a workshop from a Thomas Ivan Johnson (hereinafter, Johnson) who lived in an adjacent house at[masked]th Place NE, in Marysville. A few weeks later, Johnson asked me to help him pack up his defunct barber shop in neighboring Lake Stevens. While I helped him pack, Johnson called 911 to report a suspected theft by a former employee.

2.      Responding officers told Johnson it was a civil matter and declined to take a report.

3.      Before leaving, the officers turned their attention to us who were watching, none of whom were alleged to have been employees of Johnson. The officers asked us informally and randomly if we carried ID.

4.      When an officer asked me, I asked the officer for his need to know. He stated that he had no particular need; just a desire to check for warrants. I politely declined to engage, and the officer went in quest of easy prey.

5.      I noticed that the officers were making these inquiries without issuing Miranda warnings, so I offered to help by informing people of their right to remain silent. I told the people that unless the police were investigating a crime, their requests for ID were permissive in nature and there was nothing to be gained by volunteering ID.

6.      As one woman dove into her purse for her ID, I advised her she was acting unwisely because a warrant could have been entered into some database without her knowledge, or by mistake, or even in violation of law.  She snapped back, “I have nothing to hide!” and handed the officer her ID.

7.      The officer ran the woman’s ID and discovered a bench warrant. As he handcuffed her, I laughed.

8.      An officer turned to me and asked, “Are you a Constitutionalist?” I responded, “I’m not claiming to be anything.” The officer replied, “Well, you just keep up that attitude and see where it gets you.” I asked, “Is that a threat?” Without answering, the officers left. I thought that was the end of it. It was only the beginning.

9.      On October 12, 2008, as I was busy in the Marysville workshop, a bruised and crying woman entered. She identified herself as “Mellany”[1] and relayed that Johnson was holding her hostage in violation of his probation and an active No Contact Order. Mellany told me she feared for her life and asked me to help her get away. I urged Mellany to run from the house or call the police. I offered her my cell phone. She resisted, saying she had nowhere to go and that Johnson might kill her if he caught her talking to me. She hurried back to the house. Mellany Olson is 5’4” and 115 lbs.; Johnson is 6’2” and 200 lbs.

10.  Shortly after that, Johnson entered the garage in a rage. He jabbed a large knife at me, cutting my finger. Johnson chased me down the road in the black night. He tackled me to the ground near a group of houses, cursing. I yelled for help. After a struggle, I escaped Johnson’s grasp and ran to a lighted house at[masked]nd Place NE, which made Johnson beat a hasty retreat. I knocked and a young woman opened the door. I asked her to call 911.

11.  Soon, three police cars arrived. (With two officers in each car, nearly half the Marysville / Lake Stevens police department was present.) As an officer slowly approached me, I identified myself and began to tell what happened …  The officer interrupted, “Hey, I recognize you! You’re that constitutionalist! Nuh-uh, we’re not going to take your report. If you don’t have to follow the rules, we don’t have to follow the rules.” His words were loud and it was evident the other officers heard him. None of them objected to his words. In fact, as if on cue, they encircled me. As the officers closed in, I told them if they didn’t want to help me, they should at least help Mellany Olson who was being held by Johnson a few blocks away. The officers acknowledged Johnson – even informing me he had a “history of violence.” Yet they showed no interest in taking my report.

12.  In fact, court records show they had arrested Johnson multiple times in recent months [[SEE EXHIBIT A excerpts of 54-page docket]] for crimes of violence, including an attack on Mellany Olson on May 16, 2007, [[SEE EXHIBIT B Police Report of 2007]] for which he was on active supervised probation when I tried to report his attack; on July 23, 2008, and on September 30, 2008. 

13.  A sergeant ordered me to face him while another officer handcuffed me. It was self evident to each of the officers present that for spite against me, rogue officers were willing to leave a vulnerable woman alone with Thomas Johnson despite a protection order. Instead of stopping the rogue officers, they formed a perimeter to prevent my escape and assisted in the crime.

14.  An officer asked me why I did not use my cell phone to call 911. I answered, “Have you ever tried to call 911 on a cell phone while a madman with a knife is chasing you?”

15.  I tried to read the officers’ name tags as I was being led away – but they covered them.

16.  Officer Pete J. Shove #MP0081 drove me to jail. En route, he asked me to repeat my name. Now that I was under arrest, I elected to remain silent. Shove threatened that if I did not answer him I would be charged with Obstruction of a Law Enforcement Officer. I advised Shove, “Do whatever you think you can get away with, but remember: Time is money, and I charge for my time.” Shove scoffed, “Go ahead and try to sue me. People try to sue us all the time, but they never win.”

17.  I noticed the booking officers treated Shove as though he worked with them; they gave him access to everything behind the counter, including computers. Therefore, I continued to decline to cooperate.

18.  Nevertheless, the booking officer could see that I was not disorderly; on his screening sheet under “Receiving Officer’s Observations,” he recommended I be housed with the “GENERAL POPULATION.” [[SEE EXHIBIT E]]

19.  I asked the booking officer to show me the authorization papers he was required to receive from Shove. The officer told me Shove did not provide any. So when the booking officer asked me to answer questions and perform tasks. I informed him that if he did not need anything from Shove, he did not need anything from me. I politely declined to answer questions, pose for booking photographs, give finger prints, or change into jail uniform. I asked to be freed.

20.  The Marysville jail staff were courteous, professional, and showed concern for those in their custody. They are not named in this suit.

21.  The next day, I was transferred to Snohomish County Corrections (SCC).

22.  At SCC I cooperated with booking, yet they denied my daily requests for phone to call an attorney during business hours, access to a law library, and writing materials.

23.  On October 16, 2008, I wrote a letter to civil rights attorney Elena Garella on Bible end-sheets, and enclosed it in an envelope fashioned from a jail kite sealed with toothpaste “glue.” I gave it to a guard for mailing, but it was never delivered to Ms. Garella. Defendant LOVICK alleges I was given an envelope addressed to Ms. Garella. To verify she never got a letter from me, call her at (206)[masked].

24.  Shortly after my booking, Mellany Olson and at least one other woman filed four separate protection order petitions against Johnson in the Snohomish County Superior Court. [[SEE EXHIBIT F]]  They wrote:

·         “I had 15-20 bruises. Then he threw me in the corner of his hot tub so hard I lost control of my bladder – he would not let me change clothes. When he finally fell asleep, I ran to a neighbor’s and called the Marysville Police… “

 

·         … “[H]e grabbed me and tried to pull me in the car – I was screaming + tried to get away. Someone called the police…”  

 

·         “’He told me he’d get me kill [sic] [] and nobody would ever know where I was. I don’t want to fear him.”

 

·         “[Johnson] tried picking me up and putting me in his car. 2 sheriffs cars came to help me. He got away” …

 

 

25.  During my incarceration, Johnson was criminally charged three separate times – at least one of which was for a violent crime.

26.  During my incarceration, the Marysville court was repeatedly jailing and releasing Johnson for sundry probation violations for his 2007 attack on Mellany Olson.

27.  Meanwhile Marysville was incarcerating me for being “disorderly” while trying to report a crime against Mellany Olson and me.

28.  On October 23, 2008, at 13:00 HRS, I was taken from the cell and transported to an interview room in the basement of the Marysville jail.

29.  The room was closed to the public and spectators were excluded. (Upon my release, I visited the building to see if there were provisions for public viewing of hearings; there were none and I saw no CCTV monitor. As soon as one enters the building, he is faced with a plexiglass window behind which is a police clerk. One cannot go further.

30.  A man in the room briefly handed me Shove’s incident report. [[SEE EXHIBIT D]] It was convoluted and rambling; however it made out the following allegations in chronological order:

 

1)      “Our agency” received calls from un-named informants.

 

2)      The un-named informants report that Blatt is on a porch screaming for help, pounding on the door, yelling that he was a police officer, demanding the residents open the door for him, and beating himself up. [2]

 

3)      Blatt was screaming that someone was chasing him. [3]

 

4)      Shove contacted Blatt, who told him “Tom” was chasing him and was trying to kill him. [4]

 

5)      Blatt had asked the residents to call 911 because he was in danger.

 

6)      Blatt denied identifying himself as a police officer.

 

7)      Blatt’s story “did not make sense.” [5]

 

8)      Blatt asked Shove if he intended to write a false report.

 

9)      Shove arrested Blatt for Disorderly Conduct.

 

10)  Enroute to jail, Blatt refused to answer questions.

 

11)  Blatt was charged with Obstruction for not answering.

 

12)  Blatt warned Shove of a lawsuit.

 

Shove’s report indicates:

·         The only witness interviewed was Mr. Blatt.

·         Blatt’s statements were exculpatory.

·         NO contradictory witness statements.

·         NO sign of criminal intent.

·         NO Corpus delicti

 

Surprisingly, after accusing Blatt of being “disorderly” and “beating himself up” Shove responded thusly to booking questions:

 

·         “Detention required to protect arrestee from him/herself?” Shove wrote, “No.”

·         “Danger / Threat to the community if released?”  Shove also wrote,             “No.”        

[[SEE EXHIBIT D]]

 

31.  Shove’s citation and notice cited “DISORDERLY CONDUCT 9A.84.030.” [[EXHIBIT C]] That statute allows a judge to hold a person for Disorderly Conduct, if it he is alleged to have:

·         Provoked an assault intentionally;

·         Disrupted a meeting intentionally;

·         Obstructed traffic intentionallyor

·         Disrupted a funeral intentionally.

32.  It was plain that Shove’s report alleged exactly NONE of these things.

33.  An interviewer named Ms. Gehlson (who will be dismissed as a defendant) entered the room and sat behind a desk. Gehlson announced I was charged with “Disorderly Conduct” and “Obstruction”, and asked if I understood the charges. I answered that I did not.

34.  Upon questioning, Gehlson admitted that neither a judge nor a prosecutor were present.

35.  I requested a showing that a crime victim, witness, or prosecutor had indeed brought an accusation, and that a judge found probable cause based on a sworn affidavit. Gehlson fumbled through papers on her desk before telling me, “I can’t find it.”

36.  Gehlson then asked me for my plea. I told Gehlson I had no plea because there appeared to be no prosecutor’s complaint, and therefore no case.

37.  I also told Gelson that there had been no probable cause determination to hold me beyond 48 hours. Gehlson shot back, “I find probable cause now.” [emphasis Gehlson’s] I shot back that probable cause must be based on an affidavit, within 48 hours of arrest -- not 11 days, as here -- and must be determined by a judge.

38.  Gehlson declared that my plea was Not Guilty and that I was released on my promise to appear. I thanked Ms. Gehlson for releasing me, but I revoked the plea and made clear that I did not promise to appear. Gehlson tried several times to re-enter her plea, but I revoked it each time. I demanded to be left alone.

39.  Gehlson ordered me released but threatened that if I fail to be at the Marysville Municipal Court in 4 days, police would stalk me. I was escorted out of the interview room with no paperwork – no citation, no complaint, no knowledge of the charge aside from the titles. I was handed only a slip of paper stating “Public defender: VANCE O’DELL.”

40.  Although I never applied for representation, Marysville staff led me to believe that O’DELL could tell me what was going on. For the next 4 days, I searched doggedly for O’DELL. He had no website, and I could not find him in the phone book. Not even the Snohomish County Bar Association could give me current contact information for him.

41.  On October 28, 2008, I asked the Marysville court clerk to let me see the case file. She would not or could not provide it to me.

42.  I entered the courtroom and learned O’DELL was at counsel table. I introduced myself to O’Dell and explained to him that the police committed a conspiracy and their police report failed to allege a crime and I was denied a PC determination and I require a real judge and prosecutor. I asked him to let me have a copy of the charging instrument.  O’DELL stared straight ahead, refusing to acknowledge me.

43.  I asked O’DELL to speak with me privately so I could know how to proceed. O’DELL refused to leave the counsel table, or even look at me. He responded, “We can talk here [at counsel table, which was miked and was less than 10 feet from the bench].” O’DELL refused to even set a time for us to talk. I had to beg to get his phone number. (It later turned out to be a nonworking number.)

44.  Without paperwork, knowledge of the case, or counsel to talk to, I had no choice but to sit and wait for my name to be called.

45.   Interviewer LORRIE TOWERS called “Leonard Blatt.” I answered, “I am present with regard to that matter.” TOWERS asked me if I was the defendant. I told TOWERS, “It appears you are having trouble identifying me because a plaintiff is unable or unwilling to identify me as the accused. Why therefore would I do the plaintiff’s job?” TOWERS asked me why I was there. I told her I was there because Gehlson threatened to have armed men stalk me if I was not there.

46.  TOWERS repeated that I was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstruction, and asked me to enter a plea. The ensuing colloquy was a virtual repeat of the Gehlson colloquy at the jail.

47.  TOWERS announced that a Not Guilty plea was entered on my behalf. I revoked the plea. TOWERS kept trying to re-enter her Not Guilty plea and I kept revoking it.

48.  A clerk handed me a Promise to Appear contract and TOWERS ordered me to sign it. I asked TOWERS, “What will happen if I don’t sign it?” TOWERS answered, “You’ll be jailed on contempt.” I grabbed the contract and began to sign as follows: “Signed under threat of physical violence …” When this was brought to TOWERS’ attention, she ordered me seized. I still was given no papers or information about the alleged case. All I learned about the matter was that Marysville was now demanding a $2500 ransom for my release.

49.  At no point during this encounter did O’DELL present any pleadings, motions, or utter a word. Nor did any prosecuting entity or representative ever speak or make their presence known.

50.  On October 30, 2008, I served a notice to the City of the situation stated here. I addressed it to the court and the prosecutor. I sent it to City Hall. [[EXHIBIT G]]             It was met with silence.

51.  On ___________________ I was taken from the cell and transported to the Marysville jail interview room for the ________ time.

52.  While waiting in the room, I again protested to ASHBACH that I was denied a probable cause determination. In response, ASHBACH got up, walked over to the interviewer’s desk, and removed a rubber stamp bearing these words: “PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND.” ASHBACH held up the bottom of the stamp so I could see that it matched the stamp on file documents, and said, “See Mr. Blatt? They stamped it with this. It’s no use.”

53.  ASHBACH’s ready access to a rubber “PROBABLE CAUSE” stamp caused me even greater concern: if a defense attorney could simply walk up to the interviewer’s desk and grab a rubber stamp – ANYBODY could grab it. The interview room was located in the Marysville jail – which has already shown it gives plenary access to officer Shove. [[PLEASE SEE PARAGRAPH 17]] The crime against me was literally rubber stamped.

 

DENIAL OF LAW MATERIAL IN JAIL AND INTERVIEW ROOM

54.  During my stay in jail, I was taken past the jail’s law library exactly 32 times at various times of the day. At no time did I ever see it being used.

55.  At SCC, I sent daily kites for law library access. Each request was denied on the basis that I was “represented.”

56.  I had never applied for representation.  

57.  I tried every day to call O’DELL, but he steadfastly refused my calls.

58.  I was confined with convicted criminals in violation of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. I objected in writing to the jailer, but he told me that the right to be free from contact with criminals that other citizens enjoy did not apply to me. 

59.  On October 31, 2008, I was transported back to the Marysville Jail interview room. Fred GILLINGS was now seated at the interviewer’s desk. No prosecutor, crime victim, or complaining witness was present. This third colloquy was again a déjà vu of the Gehlson and Towers interviews.

60.   GILLINGS ordered me released. I was taken from the room without being given any information about the matter or dates to return.

61.  On January 19, 2009, police stalked me on orders from GILLINGS. I was again in jail.

62.  I sent many kites requesting law library access. All were refused, denied, or ignored.

I sent a kite stating:

Please provide me law library access. I do not need to be declared ‘pro se’ to get this access. This is an attempt to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil rights lawsuit. This suit will be filed on February 3, 2009, if no meaningful law library access is provided me by then. Please provide a copy of this demand for the court’s file, and return a copy to me stamped ‘Received.’

 

63.  My requests for access to a law library, lawyer calls, and writing paper were denied. I warned jailer John Lovick and other jail staff that I would file a claim for damages if they continued to damage me. Instead of providing me access to law materials and a phone to call a lawyer, they brought me form to file a civil rights suit.

64.  On February 9, 2009, I sent a “Notice of Human Rights Violations” to FRED GILLINGS, and JOHN LOVICK, which told what happened and that I was being denied law material. I demanded a hearing for determination of probable cause. 

65.  On Thursday, June 18, 2009, I was hailed into GILLINGS’ interview room and ordered to stop trying to call the public defender.

66.  On June 29, I sent a 13-page petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus to the Superior court. However, the court’s response put me in a catch-22  -- it demanded information to process the writ that I could get only from a law library or an attorney.

67.  On July 15, 2009, after eight attempted interviews, I was taken for a ninth and final session. As I rounded the corner into the interview room, I found myself behind a woman who I overheard telling a man facing her, “I have to be careful to avoid liability.” When the man alerted the woman to my presence, she turned around and appeared startled to see me.

68.  GILLINGS attempted to pretend that there was a bona fide case against me and that I had no right to law material. When I tried to respond for the record, GILLINGS tried to squelch me, arguing that I had no right to speak because counsel was assigned to represent me. However, I clarified that I never applied for representation, and besides, “I’m not sure that I qualify for one.” After a period of nervous silence, GILLINGS exclaimed, “You can’t talk any more! I don’t have time to hear it!” I was bum’s rushed out of the interview room and locked back into the cell.

69.  On July 16, 2009, a public defender visited me for the first time. He told me that certain persons want to know whether I intend to sue if I were allowed to go home. I was silent on the matter. I was released that evening.

70.  In November, 2009, I requested the audio transcripts from the Marysville Municipal Court. The clerk told me the transcripts were destroyed.

 

I certify under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed in Seattle this 20thth day of April, 2012.

 

____/S/  Leon S. Blatt_____

Plaintiff -- Leon S. Blatt

[address removed]

9115 SW 236th Street, B

Edmonds, WA 98026

(206)[masked]



[1] I previously misidentified Mellany as “Christie.” Mellany Olson was the woman whose captivity I tried to report to the defendant police officers just before they arrested me.

[2]  Shove, in his incident report, claims I accused the informants of “lying.” This is not true, for I never for a moment believed the informants said those things.

 

[3]  I don’t think I was “screaming”; but it can be hard to tell how loud your voice is when your adrenalin is pumping and you are out of breath.

 

[4] This is in fact not true. I of course had no way of knowing what Tom’s subjective intent was. He could have wanted to kill me, scare me, impress his friends, or he could have simply been of unsound mind from drugs.

 

 

 

[5]  Shove report fails to indicate what part did not make sense, or to whom it did not make sense, whether he asked for a clarification, or how not making sense can be a lawful basis for arrestThe Honorable Robert A. Jones

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT SEATTLE

 

LEON S. BLATT,

                                 Petitioner,

 

                         vs.

 

PETE SHOVE, et al.,

                                 Respondents.

 

 

NO.  C[masked]             

 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

THREE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 

 

I.                    INTRODUCTION

This is the classic civil rights violation that the 42nd congress labored to remedy when they enacted the Civil Rights Act OF 1871. During that time, hooligans were running around attacking negroes, and the police were either ignoring it or aiding and abetting it. Negroes were attacked for trying to exercise their rights under the constitution – in other words, they were “constitutionalists.”

 

Here, because police deemed me a “constitutionalist” I was fair game for violent assault. Rather than investigate my report of assault, the police added to the crime by arresting me.

The events described in my complaint are an atavism of the state lawlessness endemic to the south in 1871.

 

II.                  I REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

Rule 15(a) applies where a plaintiff expressly requests to amend even though their request “was not contained in a properly captioned motion paper.” Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, 522 F.2d 1110, 1116 n. 8 (9th cir. 1975). See also Edwards v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990) (Request for leave to amend should have been granted even though the request appeared in the opposition to motion for summary judgment and was not formally tendered.)

 

I will be the first to admit my original complaint is shabbily formulated, and I apologize to anyone inconvenienced by it. I saw that rule 8 required me to file a short and plain statement of the claim, and that is what I endeavored to do. Now I learn it is too short and not so plain. I also understand the rules are to ensure fairness, and I strive to obey them.

 

I have tried to find a lawyer to advise me on this case. Apparently, even with section 1988, congress has not provided enough incentive for practitioners to specialize in civil rights. Only a handful of local attorneys hold themselves out as civil rights attorneys, and by “civil rights” most of them mean employment or housing. I have found some willing to take my case, but they admit being unfamiliar with section 1983 and plan to learn it on the fly.    This does not engender my trust, because I have heard law professors (on lawline.com) characterize section 1983 suits as more challenging than complex corporate litigation.

 

Civil rights attorney Elena Garella (mentioned in this suit passim) has agreed to meet with me on or shortly after Thursday, May 4.  [Please see EXHIBIT A -- email from Elena Garella]  I ask that if the court finds that I have alleged insufficient facts or theories of law, I be granted leave to amend my complaint after conferring with her.

 

A leave to amend will also give me time to locate Mellany Olson so she can join this suit. She will have standing to sue, as she has yet to discover that the defendants’ fraud is what caused her damages. This is in the interest of justice.

 

“Under well established Ninth Circuit precedent construing rule 15(a), the court abuses its discretion in not granting [] leave to amend.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 Ff.2d 696, at 701 (9th Cir. 1990). The standard for granting leave to amend is generous. If the court can “conceive of facts” that would render plaintiff’s claim viable and could discern form the record no reason why leave to amend should be denied, it should be granted. Balistreri. “Leave to amend should be granted if underlying facts provide proper grounds for relief or if the complaint can be saved by amendment.” Balisreri, at 701 (citing Breier v. Northern California Bowling Prorprietors’ Assn., 316 F.2d 787,[masked] (9th Cir. 1963). “[L]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Id. At 790 (quoting 3 Moore, Federal Practice, section 15.10 at 838 (2d ed. 1948).

 

“[P]ro se pleadings are liberally construed, particularly where civil rights claims are involved.” Balstreri, at 699. “This court recognizes that it has a duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claims due to ignorance of technical requirements.” (quoting Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990) 

 

III.                OPPOSITION TO LOVICK’S MOTION

First, the effect of denying me access to law material was to deny me access to the courts – but I assumed that was self evident and did not need to be spelled it out.

 

Second, Lovick claims he had a right to lock me up and deny me knowledge of why I was locked up or how to get out only because I was represented by a lawyer. First, I was never represented by a lawyer. Lovick has shown no bases for declaring so. O’DELL and ASHBACH  never represented me. [1] If they did, they would have at some point paid me an attorney visit – of which the jail would have a record. However, Lovick can point to no jail record showing an attorney visit. He has demonstrated thoroughness in scouring jail records. Furthermore, Lovick fails to produce any signed contract I may have had with O’DELL or ASHBACH  or anyone for representation. That contract can even be in the form of an application for public defense – but that contract does not exist. At no time did I ever apply for public defense. Nor does Lovick allege that I constructively contracted by failing to affirmatively object to representation foisted upon me. The Washington state constitution guarantees my right NOT to be represented. Washington constitution, article 1, section 22 (guarantees a person’s right to “defend in person, or by counsel”) I have never claimed a right to representation. I do not believe such a right exists. I cannot find such a right in either the state or federal constitutions. [2]  

 

Third, so Lovick wrote a collection of self-serving rules in his Inmate orientation handbook. That makes it law? Lovick fails to explain how his orientation handbook controls. Unless the wording in his booklet mirrors some authority such as a statute or court rule, Lovick’s little red book is no more authority than Mao’s Little Red Book.

 

Fourth, yes I gave tried to warn every single person who would listen, that this day would come. I did not want to be in jail, and I wanted to give them every chance to stop. I would be remiss had I failed to give fair warning to all culpable parties that they would be held accountable for their actions. To quietly let damages accrue and surprise everyone with a summons would not be acting in good faith. Yet the allegation that I claimed to “want[] to stay a [sic] long as possible in jail” is a pure fabrication.  I would never say such a thing. The record shows I have been circumspect in my speech to the police and booking staff. Lovick acknowledges that I offered to end the hunger strike if I were allowed to call attorneys. If I wanted to stay in jail, why would I want an attorney? He also acknowledges my hunger strike was to get attention and even go to the hospital, presumptively to either get media attention or escape from the hospital – either way, to get OUT. The Marysville booking staff reported that I began the strike to get media attention. The statement that I “will get $1000 per day” is a nonsense statement that I would never make: even a cretin would know that a wrongly jailed person will not be compensated an amount certain; it will depend on circumstances and negotiations.

 

Fifth, also a lie is the computer entry “GAVE INMATE LEGAL ADDRESSED ENVELOPE TO ATTNY ELENA GARELLA”. The envelope would have been given to me in response to a kite. However, it takes several days to a week to get a response to a kite. You can see this by comparing the sent/returned dates on other kites in the record. [3] So the Elena Garella envelope being provided to me the day after being booked is nonsense. The false computer entry was no doubt made to look like 10/15/08 because they noticed my pleadings state I desperately fashioned an envelope to mail a letter to Ms. Garella on that date. The jail never honored my request for an envelope addressed to Ms. Garella, This is likely because Ms. Garella is famous for her success in defending a blogger’s right to post personal data on police officers and jail guards on the internet. For further proof that this claim of providing me an attorney envelope is a lie, see Ms. Garella’s response to this claim.  [[SEE EXHIBIT B – email from Elena Garella]]

 

Lovick’s words cannot be trusted. When I was booked in to SCC, I saw a booking officer holding Shove’s report. I sent a kite requesting a copy. Tad Seder’s Exhibit E, second page, shows the response: “We do not have a copy of the arresting officers report in your file.” However, lo and behold, Tad Seder’s Exhibit A is the copy he does “not have a copy” of!

 

Seventh, Lovick is correct that I was out of jail a few times and so had access to lawyers, et cetera. The first time I was out four days during which I was sent on a wild goose chase to find O’DELL. The second time I was out, I did visit an attorney -- and found out I was right: there was no lawful case. But even if I had not bothered to “access lawyers, legal material, law libraries” … So what!  I was under no obligation to do so as I had a reasonable expectation to continue my freedom, absent the filing of a criminal complaint and finding of probable cause, which I knew had not and could not be done. While free, there was no reason for me to pursue law to get out of jail. Only in jail do I need to get out of jail.

 

Eighth, Lovick alleges I refused to waive speedy trial rights. This is not accurate. I never claimed a right to a speedy trial because I had no such right. As a person against whom no criminal complaint had been filed, I had no standing to claim a right to speedy trial.

 

Ninth, for most of my stay in jail, I had no idea who, if anyone, was assigned to assist (or “represent”) me. At various times various names were given to me by jail staff and persons in the Marysville court and Marysville jail interview room. I never received an attorney visit, legal mail, or phone calls to discuss my incarceration. I was just jailed and forgotten about.

 

Tenth, if I neglected to name Lovick in his official capacity, it was by oversight.

 

Eleventh, Lovick relies mostly on Lewis v. Casey. [4] Lewis is inapposite; it addressed tools “that inmates need in order to attack their sentences … Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental consequences of conviction.” Casey dealt with legal access rights afforded to convicted felons serving sentences in prisons. Such persons are presumed guilty until proven innocent. However, I was not convicted of anything. I was not presumed guilty. My rights to legal access were equal to that of any innocent person. Casey addressed the issue of prisoners’ rights to use the law library so they could bring grievances to a court. However, I was not demanding a law library to bring a grievance; I was demanding it to find out the court’s grievance against me.

 

Lovick says at page 9, line 1 that the jail chooses the “mechanisms and forms of assistance” it provides to prisoners. That is not at issue. I never complained about the “mechanisms and forms” of assistance; I was not even complaining about the denial of assistance. I was complaining about the jail preventing me from assisting myself. Unlike the respondents in Lewis, I was not demanding that jail staff read law books to me; interpret the law for me; train me in law; provide librarian services; buy me specialty books; provide a law clerk or legal assistants; provide Westlaw or KeyCite; or even provide a law librarian. All I wanted was to see the statute I was accused of violating, and a copy of the court rules for limited jurisdiction so I could know how to defend myself. Having failed in gaining access to the law library, I started sending kites asking that those two things be brought to my cell. It would have cost $1.00 in photocopies. Yet Lovick denied even those.

Twelfth, I do not need to exhaust administrative remedies because 42 USC 1997e(a) is inapplicable: I did not file this suit as a prisoner.

 

Lovick, in concert with the City of Marysville, conspired to deny me the ability to act on my own behalf – by limiting phone access (through time limits of 15 minutes, restricting times of day to call, lack of phones causing long line waits which were often interrupted by lockdowns, denial of 3-way calls, no 411 directory, no phone book, no internet, call blocks to all cell phones and most land lines, a collect call only policy, et cetera), denying knowledge of the law(s) I was charged with, denying visits with people who could retrieve law materials and mail them to me (visits are made virtually impossible by a requirement that the visitor arrive only at a time blindly pre-set by the inmate, and penalizing him if he schedules a slot when no visitor arrives.) Therefore, it owed a duty to either let me have counsel, or access to the courts via the law library.

 

Why was Lovick so hell bent on denying me law library access? It certainly was not to save money. Because of the law library denial, Washington tax payers spent thousands of dollars housing me, feeding me, and guarding me – money that made its way to Snohomish County and John Lovick. They are in the business of jailing people for the police and courts. Lovick’s customers are driven through the front door of his business at the point of a gun. No business wants to lose customers. If Lovick (or the county he works for) were to allow people to discover how to fight back, he would lose customers – along with the state and federal matching funds that come with it. If Lovick were to report that the inmate population fell from 2011 to 2012, his current funding levels could not be justified; demand for space at the jail creates value. There is only value in scarcity, not abundance. If people were allowed to find out how to fight bogus charges, room in Lovick’s jail would become more abundant, lowering its value. And that would be bad for business.

 

Lovick uses 20 filings to paint me as a seasoned, veteran litigation master. The fact that none of those 20 were dismissed on the merits shows that I am not veteran but green. I filed those suits mainly to preserve the statute of limitations while I sought out an attorney. However, because of the high number of civil rights violations by state officials, civil rights attorneys were too busy to take my case. Meanwhile, I did the best I could. The defendants get counsel from fellow attorneys down the hall, CLE classes, Westlaw, bar association membership, et cetera. I have none of that. Filing 20 complaints vs. 3 years of law school and ongoing experience – how can he make the comparison? I find it fascinating that Tad Seder expresses indignation that I would file this suit when he as county prosecutor files suits against people for a living, on a daily basis. It bring audacity to a sociopathic level.

 

IV.               OPPOSITION TO ASHBACH ’S MOTION

The United States Supreme Court has held that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional function as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.  Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325. However, ASHBACH  never performed such a role. All ASHBACH  ever did was fraud: he filed a perfunctory “Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery” and then collected money for doing exactly nothing. In fact, ASHBACH  went beyond doing nothing; he actively hung up the phone whenever I managed to get through to him. Whenever I was transported to the Marysville interview room, ASHBACH  did nothing but  answer, “ready” when GILLINGS would demand that the “case” be ready to go to trial. However, there was never a case to confirm for trial. Even when the “case” was dismissed, it was dismissed on the prosecution’s motion, not Mr. ASHBACH ’s. The sole attorney visit I got was from ASHBACH on the last day of my incarceration. He came to ask me, “They want to know, will you sue us if you’re released?” ASHBACH ’s interests were not with me; rather, they were with himself. ASHBACH knew that GILLINGS was his source of income and aimed to please GILLINGS so he would be awarded future appointments to indigent clients. Since GILLINGS was attempting to make the case go forward rather than to determine probable cause or require the filing of a complaint, ASHBACH ’s interests were in conflict.

 

The Marysville docket at 07/01/09 shows that while ASHBACH  attempts to ram me toward trial without a case:

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO OBEY COURT [to stop attempting to set the record for appeal or lawsuit] AND CONTINUOUSLY STATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED …”. [5]

 

The Marysville docket at 07/15/2009 – the day before the ordeal is over – shows that the court FINALLY faces the “ethical dilemma” of prosecuting Thomas Johnson for violence while prosecuting me for banging on a door to escape Thomas Johnson’s violence. [[EXHIBIT B – docket]] This “ethical dilemma” could have been resolved at the outset had O’Dell or ASHBACH  been willing to discuss the case with me. It would have saved the tax payers countless dollars that went to the defendants, and the defendants countless dollars they will now pay to me.

 

ASHBACH  acted under color of law. If he had been a private attorney, I would have had the power to fire him, and thereby access the law library, be heeded by the court, and get out of jail. It was only because he was appointed by the City to pose as my representative against my will that I was kept from both representation and access to law material and the court. ASHBACH ’a appointment was a sham. It was part of a Potemkin village to give the illusion of due process.  It effectively:

  • deprived me of my right under the 6th amendment to be apprised of the nature and cause of action.
  • silenced me in court, as the court was able to ignore my filings and words as along as ASHBACH  was posing as my attorney.

I have nothing personal against Mr. ASHBACH . In fact, on the few occasions I have spoken with him he was very nice. Unfortunately, this does not change the fact that he POSED as my attorney without acting as one in fact. This prevented me from obtaining another attorney, as no attorney will talk to a client who is represented. It also kept me from knowing what I was charged with. I spend each one of those 75 days in the dark.

We must all be accountable for our actions, or lack thereof. And with ASHBACH , the lack thereof was total. The docket and file shows he filed no material, save his initial perfunctory Notice of Appearance and Demand for Discovery. His appointment did not serve to ensure due process; it served to deny it. Mr. ASHBACH ’s sham appointment had the sole effect of keeping me ignorant of the charges, the statute, and what could be done about it. Further, it kept me from finding these things out on my own through the access to law material.

 

I mistakenly neglected to add THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN ASHBACH as a defendant; I ask that it be added, as well as ASHBACH’s spouse.

 

V.                 OPPOSITION TO CIY OF MARYSVILLE AND LAKE STEVENS’ MOTION

Certainly this court would never allow me or anyone else to saunter in with a half-cocked civil complaint in hand that fails to allege a single cause of action, and based on that marginal complaint order the arrest of O’DELL, GILLINGS, and ASHBACH while magistrate Jones prosecutes them for me without ever vetting my complaint or requiring me to appear in court (other than to hand in the complaint), while appointing sham attorneys to silence the defendants and keep them out of the law library.  Certainly not.

 

Yet that is exactly what the Marysville court did for the Marysville police.

 

There are third world countries where police can, without ever having to fear being held accountable, just grab innocent people off the street and have the courts “process” them without question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In America, there are supposed to be safeguards against that. Here, each safeguard was knowingly and intentionally dispensed with:

  1. First, police need a warrant or at least a witness, even if the witness is themselves.

 

  • Here there is no warrant or statement from any accusing witness. Nor do the police claim to have witnessed a crime.

 

  1. Next, police need to file an affidavit in support of a finding of probable cause.

 

  • Here the affidavit (declaration) claims I was “disorderly” while allegedly fleeing a knife-wielding assailant, yet the only information comes from the 911 operator(s) who dispatched them.

 

  1. Third, a judge needs to make a cursory inspection of the police’ affidavit to find probable cause to hold the accused in jail beyond 48 hours.

 

  • Here, I was never taken to a probable cause hearing and there is no credible indication that one was conducted even in my absence.

 

  1. Finally, a prosecuting authority must, within 72 hours, vet the affidavit and file a criminal complaint with a plain, concise, definite statement of the charge so an accused can understand what he is being accused of.

 

  • Here no criminal complaint was ever filed.

 

Due process in criminal proceedings is analogous to starting a car. The car does not just go.

 

The ignition switch must be triggered …

…by a filing of a citation

which activates the starter motor …

…by a finding of Probable cause

which activates the engine …

…by a filing of a prosecutor’s complaint

which requires a driver …

…by the participation of a procecutor

 

Each of these steps is constitutionally mandated to ensure innocent people do not spend 75 days in jail for nothing. This was a driverless car barreling down the road with no brakes.

 

 

Here is a summary of the applicable rules:

 

CrRLJ  2.1

 

ALL criminal proceedings shall be initiated by a complaint. It shall be signed by the prosecuting authority.

 

 

CrRLJ 3.2.1(F): PRELIMINARY APPEARANCE

 

(1) Unless a written complaint is filed…an accused, following a preliminary appearance, shall not be detained in jail…for more than 72 hours” of arrest.

 

(2) If no complaint has been filed within 48 hours and the accused has not otherwise consented, the court shall order that the accused shall be exonerated within 72 hours.

 

(2)(ii) If no complaint is filed within 72 hours, the accused shall be immediately released from jail.

 

ARLJ 13:

 

All Limited jurisdiction courts shall make an electronic record of all proceedings and retain the record for at least as long as the record retention schedule dictates. (Here the City of Marysville destroyed the record forthwith. It was a CD, cost little and took up little space. We must ask why they destroyed it.)

 

If the prosecutor was not driving the prosecution, who was. The judge:

 

 

SECTION 19 JUDGES MAY NOT PRACTICE LAW. 

No judge of a court of record shall practice law in any court of this state during his continuance in office.

 

Code of Judicial Conduct – Canon 5 (F):

Judges shall not practice law.

 

 

RCW[masked]  Restrictions on practice by certain officers.

No person shall practice law who holds a commission as judge in any court of record

 

RCW[masked] Practice of law, seeking nonjudicial elective office prohibited.

No judge, while in office, shall engage in the practice of law. 

 

RCW[masked] Qualifications of judges — Practice of law prohibited.

… No judge of said court during his or her term of office shall engage either directly or indirectly in the practice of law.

No prosecuting authority was involved and no judge can practice law:

 

Were the police prosecuting Mr. Blatt?  No. Once their report was filed, the police had no further involvement.  Police are of the executive branch, not the judicial, and are trained in making accusations, not prosecuting them. An accuser is not presumed to know the ramifications of starting a criminal action. That is why CrRLJ 2.1(c)(7) requires a judge to vet a complainant  to ensure he “is aware:

 

  1. of the gravity of initiating a criminal complaint,
  2. of the necessity of a court appearance or appearances for himself or herself and witnesses,
  3. of the possible liability for false arrest[,] and
  4. of the consequences of perjury.”

 

 

Was the Marysville prosecuting authority prosecuting Mr. Blatt?  No. File 35102 shows that once officer Shove’s report found its way into the file, the prosecutor’s office had no further involvement, other than to dismiss it many months later.

 

JUDICIAL LIABILITY

3.1 A judge that makes decisions, that has not properlyestablished jurisdiction, loses judicial immunity and becomesliable to civil action.“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in theface of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him ofjurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard

(1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den Zeller v. Rankin

101 S.Ct.2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326."

 An official will not be excused from liability

if he failedto observe obvious statutory or constitutional limitations onhis powers or if his conduct was a manifestly erroneousapplication of the statute." Owen v. City of Independence 100S. Ct. 1398, (1980)“This court also has held that the initiation of accusatoryprocesses, such as criminal prosecutions or civil contemptproceedings, is a non-judicial act that

 may subject a judge toliability

.” Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6thCir.1984).“

Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially, but

ministerially, having no judicial immunity

and unlike courtsof law do not obtain jurisdiction by service of process noreven by arrest and compelled appearance.” Boswell v. Otis., 9Howard 336 to 348“There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who actswrongfully, although in good faith, is

nevertheless liable ina civil action

and cannot claim the immunity of thesovereign.” Cooper v. O'Conner

,

99 F.2d 133“A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purelyAdministrative, non-judicial capacity”. Forrester v. White

,

484 U.S. at[masked], 108 S.Ct. at [masked];Stump v.Sparkman,435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106.Mireles v. Waco 

,

112 S.Ct.286 at 288 (1991)

 

 

 

MARYSVILLE “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”

 

The Marysville Police Department had a “special relationship” with Mellany Olson due to its formal agreement to protect her. This agreement was entered into by the Marysville court’s issuance to Olson of an Order of Protection against Thomas Ivan Johnson, in conjunction with placing Johnson on “active supervised probation.” Implicit in the protection order and active probation is the understanding that any person reporting a violation of that protection order is also to be protected. All Marysville police officers were noticed of this protection order and Johnson’s probation status on their car computers. The records were instantly available to any police officer by checking the database. Marysville police and Lake Stevens police had previously arrested Thomas Johnson for acts of violence, and knew he was violent and knew of the probation and NCO. Therefore, they had a heightened duty to protect me when I reported he violated his probation and NCO by kidnapping Mellany Olson. The first step was to investigate my report. However, they refused to contact Mr. Johnson or even interview the neighbors whose door I knocked on. Because I was a person involved in the City’s promise to protect Mellany Olson, the City vicariously had a “special relationship” with me and owed me a duty of protection as an individual and not just as a member of the public in general. The Marysville court ordered the police to specifically protect Mellany Olson. The only way for police to do that is to accept reports of violations from informants. A witness making a report that a protection order is being violated is owed the same duty of protection as the subject of the protection order, for his effort to report the violation and the danger it entails. The witness is an integral part of the issuing court’s protective process for Mellany.

 

There is in general no constitutional duty of state officials to protect members of the public at large from crimes. However, such a duty may arise by virtue of a “special relationship” between state officials and a particular member of the public. Ketchum, 811 F.2d at 1247; Escamilla v. Santa Ana, 796 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1986). The defendants did not protect me from Thomas Johnson; in fact, instead of protecting me, the defendant officers compounded Johnson’s violence by adding some violence of their own. I did not want to be taken to jail. The only way to take me there was by force or the threat of force. This could not be accomplished without, at very least, unwanted touching. That is battery.

Therefore, the City of Marysville and Lake Stevens had a special duty to receive reports from citizens whenever Johnson violated the terms of his probation. This duty was owed not only to Mellany Olson,lbut to witnesses (me) who reported those violations. The City of Marysville and its officers were on notice

 

 

I certify under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed in Seattle this 20thth day of April, 2012.

 

____S/  Leon S. Blatt_____

 



[1] The only lawyer that discussed the case with me was Loren Waxler – and he is not sued.

[2] The Sixth Amendment does guarantee a right to assistance of counsel, which I had no objection to. I did have an objection to “representation” which simply gives the court legal cover to squelch the accused.   

 

[3]  Records show I hunger striked for eleven days because my 10/16/08 kite offering to end the strike in exchange for being allowed to contact an attorney received no response until 10/23/08 – a week, as is routine.

 

[4] Lovick’s attorney, Tad Seder, also uses deception in his citations to this court. On page 9, line 3, he directly quotes Lewis v. Casey as saying, “Of course we leave it to prison officials to determine how best to ensure inmates … have a reasonably adequate opportunity to file non-frivolous legal claims …”. However, Seder removed three words from the sentence that change the context to make it seem applicable. The three words are “with language problems.” Casey dealt with two section 1983 petitioners who did not speak English or were mildly retarded, and therefore their suit was about more than simple access to a law library; they needed staff to hold their hands and to translate and read the law books to them, et cetera. 

 

[5]  The entry goes on to say that I requested a new attorney and/or to be pro se. This was due to confusion by the non lawyer docket entry person in interpreting what was actually being stated. In fact, I was NOT requesting to have a new attorney, nor to be pro se. My request was for a probable cause determination and that the case be prosecuted (i.e. pressed forward) by a prosecuting authority as it is improper for a case to be prosecuted sua sponte by the court. The issue whether I have an attorney or am pro se, is only a means to an end. I was not concerned with the means of getting due process. My concern was the due process itself. This is further shown in the docket entry at 07/15/09: “DEFENDANT HAS NO REQUEST ON WHETHER OR NOT ATY ASHBACH WITHDRAWLS. [sic]  





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by ULTRAGABACHO! ([address removed]) from Raw Network of Washington's Meetup Group.
To learn more about ULTRAGABACHO!, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by George Henry ([address removed]) from Raw Network of Washington's Meetup Group.
To learn more about George Henry, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy