Monday, December 6, 2021

Dipshit Dave: Evidence of Judicial corruption, Skamania County

Dave,

Here is what I am submitting to the Washington State Supreme Court.  

If you ever do decide to do an investigation into the judicial corruption in SW Washington, this may be a good place to start.  If you don’t want to investigate this, I can start it when I take over after the election.

You might want to do a lot of praying, if you are into that because this will be your last year of freedom when I am elected.  Oh, and this goes for you too, Pat and Yarden. Enjoy it!  

Regards
Matt

 

 

 

 

 

Washington State Supreme Court

 

LAWRENCE L’HOMMEDIEU

Petitioner,

 

vs.      

 

SHELANE L’HOMMEDIEU

Respondent.

Court of Appeals case no.  54702-3

 

Skamania County Court case no. 14-3-00035-4

 

 

 

 

 

 

            This request is submitted by Lawrence M. L’Hommedieu.  The facts stated herein are applicable to Washington State Court of Appeals case no. 54702-3, and Skamania County Superior Court, case no. 14-3-00035-4, the divorce case of Lawrence L’Hommedieu v. Shelane L’Hommedieu.  

            This request for a Preliminary Injunction is the byproduct of the actions of three judicial officers in the State of Washington in Skamania County, Superior Court Judge Randall Krog, Cowlitz County Superior Court judge Michael Evans (sitting in as a Skamania County judge) and Skamania County Judge Pro Tem Jeffrey Baker.

 

 

FACTS RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

            The Petitioner filed a Recall Petition against Judges Krog and Baker, alleging and providing evidence that they are running a sex trafficking ring in the State of Washington that spans all the way to the garment district in New York City.  It is case No. 20-2-00046-30, IN THE MATTER OF: THE RECALL OF RANDALL KROG, et. al.   

            Counsel for the officials being recalled, Yarden Weidenfeld, sent the response by the judges and elected officials to Petitioner through his gmail account, at the address yardenfw@gmail.com on June 12th, 2020 at 7:13 p.m.  It should be noted that Petitioner requested via public records request all of Mr. Weidenfeld’s emails from his gmail account and all material on his google account, however, neither Skamania County, nor Mr. Weidenfeld has disclosed this information to Petitioner.  In addition, Petitioner asked the judge that ruled on the Recall Petition, Cowlitz County Judge Michael Evans to issue a subpoena so that Petitioner could get the emails from the public officials gmail account to expose the corruption in Skamania County, but that request was denied by Judge Evans.  The gmail account of Mr. Weidenfeld would be a treasure-trove of any information for any defendant prosecuted in Skamania County, as there is assuredly wire-fraud taking place, and the actions both before and after the Recall Petition was filed by Petitioner constitute crimes that fall under the Federal and State RICO Statutes.  

            In the spring of 2016, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion for Custody” in the divorce case between Lawrence L’Hommedieu and Shelane L’Hommedieu, alleging that the temporary orders entered on or about November 11, 2015 were the byproduct of fraud.  Instead of recording the Emergency Motion for Custody and hearing the case on the date noted by Petitioner, Judge Brian Altman instructed one of the Skamania County employees to shred the Emergency Motion for custody.  After he had the document shredded, Judge Altman advised the County Clerk (or one of the employees working in the Clerk’s office) to inform Petitioner to file a CR 60 Motion instead of the Emergency Motion for Custody, which Petitioner did.  

            Petitioner essentially took the Emergency Motion for Custody and renamed it with a header caption of a CR 60 Motion versus the previously named Emergency Motion for Custody.  Petitioner has learned that this was a ruse orchestrated at the behest of Judge Brian Altman to buy them time to prevent Petitioner from having contact with his children, who were/are being sexually trafficked by government officials in Washington State.  At the CR 60 hearing, Judge Altman did not reach the merits of what was alleged in the CR 60 Motion, i.e., that it was garnered via fraud, and that Respondent had covered up the sexual abuse of Petitioner’s daughters by her father and brother, and that she committed welfare fraud in garnering the Temporary Orders, i.e, the parenting plan, which also alleged that Petitioner was abusive and had abandoned Shelane L’Hommedieu and the children.  Instead of ruling on the merits of the motion, Judge Altman read a profanity laden email that Petitioner sent to Shelane L’Hommedieu’s new attorney, Deanna Rusch, who took the place of Lisa Martin.  Martin withdrew after she had been exposed in the motion for assisting Shelane L’Hommedieu in the welfare fraud, and knowingly and willfully filing a fraudulent claim for Temporary Orders and the parenting plan.  

            Judge Altman knew of the persistence of the Petitioner, and he resigned his position as Skamania County Superior Court judge and Judge Randall Krog was appointed as the new Superior Court judge by Governor Jay Inslee in order to perpetuate the fraud being perpetrated against the Petitioner, to include the trafficking of Petitioner’s daughters. 

            In May of 2017, through attorney Linda Staples, Petitioner attempted to serve Shelane L’Hommedieu with an Order to Show Cause for the fraudulent procurement of the parenting plan in November of 2015. However, for months, Petitioner was unable to get Shelane served with the OTSC, as she would not answer the door.  By this time, she was acting as her own attorney and knew that if she did not answer the door, she did not have to attend the hearing and Petitioner could not have contact with his children that were being trafficked.  

            In addition, Petitioner, through attorney Staples filed an affidavit of prejudice against Judge Krog.  This was denied on August 14, 2017.  

            Petitioner was attempting to get attorney Staples to issue subpoenas, which would expose the fraud and corruption, and which would have eventually led Petitioner to finding out that his children were being trafficked by this cabal, to include Judge Krog.  However, Staples would not issue subpoenas to garner the evidence Petitioner needed to prove the fraud.  

            Petitioner recognized that his attorney, Staples, was slow-walking the divorce case and she was not garnering the evidence Petitioner needed, and that she was most-likely working for this cabal, so Petitioner fired attorney Staples.   On October 12th, 2017, Judge Krog approved the Motion to Withdraw by attorney Staples.  

            On November 8, 2017, Petitioner filed another Motion for Emergency Custody in addition to requesting Judge Krog sign subpoenas so that Petitioner could garner the evidence needed to definitively prove the fraudulently garnered Temporary Orders entered two years prior, and also to prove that Shelane was working with government officials, attempting to murder and frame him. 

            In a criminal action filed against Petitioner in Clark County, where Rick Torres and Shelane were attempting to frame Petitioner(and eventually were successful), the prosecuting attorney filed a last-minute motion postponing trial based on Shelane L’Hommedieu being on a “pre-planned” vacation, therefore, the trail that was to take place on August 10, 2016 (a year prior to the request for subpoenas and Emergency Motion for Custody), was postponed.  Petitioner requested that Judge Krog approve subpoenas for bank records, cellphone records, and other evidence that was withheld by Shelane and her former attorneys to prove that the motion filed by the Clark County Prosecutor asking to postpone the trial was fraudulent, therefore, rendering the entire criminal case against Petitioner a fraud.  

            Instead of approving the subpoenas requested by Petitioner, Judge Krog, like Judge Altman before him, ordered Pam Bell, and employee that works in the Skamania County Clerk’s Office, to shred the subpoenas that Petitioner requested Judge Krog sign.  This is in violation of RCW 40.16.020, and a felonious act. 

            Petitioner recognized a pattern of behavior of the judges in Skamania and Clark County destroying the official record.  For instance, at the pre-trial hearing in the Clark County criminal case on August 8, 2016, Petitioner submitted the case of Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (2010) to the Clerk to be entered and read into the record in the criminal case.  In addition to entering it into the record by handing it to the Clerk, Petitioner asked Judge Darvin Zimmerman to take judicial notice of the case.  Instead of responding to the RJN, or allowing Petitioner to read the case into the record, Judge Zimmerman ordered a psychological evaluation under RCW 10.77 of Petitioner because Petitioner believed that someone was trying to murder him.  Petitioner did not believe that the federal government would be stupid enough to send Rick Torres to murder him, therefore, he had not made the connection that Torres was the CIA wet-worker (assassin) sent to frame and then murder him.   

            In November of 2017, Petitioner filed another affidavit of recusal due prejudice due to the fact that Judge Krog ordered the subpoenas to be shredded, however, he denied the affidavit of recusal, under the guise that he’d already made decisions in the case. 

            Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct the record and in the motion, requested for live testimony from both Judge Krog and Pam Bell as to how and why the subpoenas were shredded.  In response, Judge Krog recused himself from the case.  His recusal was fraudulent and designed to prevent him from having to testify as to why he feloniously destroyed the record in violation of RCW 40.16.020.  This was the third time judges had destroyed the official record, i.e., Judge Altman’s shredding of the Emergency Motion for Custody, Judge Zimmerman’s failure to enter Wilkinson v. Torres into the record, and Judge Krog’s shredding of the subpoena’s.  It became painfully obvious to Petitioner that these judges were purposefully destroying the record so they could control the outcome of the respective divorce and criminal case(s). 

            After Judge Krog withdrew from the case, Judge pro tem Jeff Baker was assigned to the divorce case.  The first course of action Judge Baker took was to order Petitioner to get an attorney, stating “you need to get an attorney” during the hearing where Petitioner filed the Motion to Correct the record.

            In hindsight, it is now clear that Judge Baker ordered Petitioner to get an attorney so that he could control what went into the record, and prevent Petitioner from calling witnesses to the stand that would be beneficial to the divorce case.  Especially, given the fact that Petitioner would have called Judge Krog and Pam Bell as witnesses during a trial.  To the Petitioner, Judge Baker’s statement “you need to get an attorney” was either 1) a direct order of the court, or 2) unsolicited legal advice.  Regardless, the motive behind the statement, in hindsight, is clear, Judge Baker needed someone in place so that he could control what was admitted into the record in the divorce case so that he could control the outcome of the case.   

            Over the course of the next year and a half, Judge Baker approved numerous continuances that were requested by Shelane L’Hommedieu.  At the same time, Judge Baker and other private and government officials took over the case and tortuously interfered with the business relationship between Petitioner and his new attorney, Tessa Cohen.  Essentially, Cohen, after merging her family law firm with Landerholm Law, started funneling information through her partner in Landerholm Law, Steven Morash, to Rick Torres.   Torres sat on the Clark County Planning Commission Board with Cohen’s law partner, Steven Morash.  

            Petitioner was requesting that Cohen seeking financial documents, in addition to the same documents he requested when he filed the request for subpoenas with Judge Krog, however, attorney Cohen never garnered any of the evidence Petitioner sought.  This was done to limit the amount of information that was favorable to Petitioner, i.e., that Shelane was working with Rick Torres to frame and then murder Petitioner. 

            Petitioner believed that no sane judge would give full custody to a mother that was a multi-decade opiate user that was working with a dirty cop to murder their spouse.  

            Early on, Cohen asked Judge Baker to approve a Guardian Ad Litem, which he did.  The GAL, Mike FitzSimmons interviewed Petitioner.  The facts disclosed to the GAL were that Shelane is a multi-decade opiate addict, she was taking the daughters over to her parents’ home five days a week where they became addicted to porn and were being molested by their uncle and grandfather, that the day Petitioner was arrested (February 11th, 2015) Petitioner found a pornographic journal written by his then 12-year-old daughter, and that Shelane was sleeping with Petitioner’s former attorney, Mike Roe, and there were naked photographs on his iPhone of her.  In addition, Petitioner pointed out the fraud in the criminal trial that was perpetrated upon Petitioner. 

            All of these facts are verifiable, if ANYONE chose to issue subpoenas to garner the evidence.  However, Petitioner was let down at each instance, and not a single attorney would issue a subpoena, nor would they question either Shelane L’Hommedieu, Rick Torres, Brian Altman, Randall Krog, or any other witness to verify what Petitioner has/had been stating.  In fact, Petitioner informed the GAL that there would be evidence of the “affair”, between Mike Roe and Shelane L’Hommedieu in a Washington State Bar complaint filed by Petitioner.  Roe filed his response to the WSBA complaint under seal and Petitioner was not allowed to see the response.  However, months prior, Roe showed him a photograph on his iPhone of a naked woman that looked exactly like his wife.  The GAL never sought this evidence, nor any other evidence to prove what the Petitioner stated in the GAL interview.

            Cohen got Petitioner to agree to drop the plea to get custody of Jessi, informing Petitioner this would come out in the trial that was scheduled, and that there wasn’t a need to go to the expense of going for custody, as the court would learn the truth at trial.

            However, Judge Baker worked with Shelane and Tessa to repeatedly postpone the trial, which eventually took place in May of 2019.  At one of the pretrial hearings, one of the documents that Shelane submitted in response to the interrogatories were bank records that Petitioner was seeking.  However, they had been blurred out and were non-legible.  Shelane stated that she didn’t give them to Cohen in that format, and stated that Cohen doctored the bank records, to which Judge Baker retorted, “why would she intentionally do that”.  Now, it is clear that Cohen intentionally did it to obscure evidence that was favorable to Petitioner, and Cohen was working at the direction of Judge Baker to keep all favorable information which would prove the fraud out of the record.  

            The morning of the trial, Petitioner was ambushed by Cohen.  She stated, “Don’t mention Rick Torres, it won’t do you any good”.   Petitioner was shocked at her comment, because this was a complete change in tactic, as he was led to believe by Cohen that all of this malfeasance would come out at trial, and that Shelane would be rightly discredited due to the fact she was a liar, a long-term opiate addict, and attempted to murder Petitioner. 

            However, none of the information disclosed above, i.e., the opiate addiction, the sexual abuse of the children by her brother and father, and the attempts to murder Petitioner was presented at trial because either Cohen did not bring it up, or the judge would not allow it due to the fact that the custody matter was not before the court.  

            After the divorce trial, and after Judge Baker made his findings of fact regarding the divorce (on or about July 7, 2019), Petitioner saw a video of a Planning Commission hearing on the Clark County website where Petitioner’s former defense attorney in the criminal action, David McDonald, was testifying before the hearing about a homeless shelter that was being built.  Torres was a member of the Clark County Planning Commission Board, and Steven Morash was the President of the Planning Commission Board.  When Petitioner looked up Steven Morash, he found out that he worked for Landerholm Law.  It became obvious at that time that Morash was funneling information to Torres, and they were controlling everything that went into the record in the divorce hearing.  When Petitioner sent an email to both Morash and Cohen requesting a hearing, this request was denied.  Petitioner then asked Cohen to petition the Court for an Anti-Stalking Order (or Restraining Order) preventing Torres from owning a gun due to the fact he’d already murdered Jason Wilkinson in 2005 and attempted to murder Petitioner, and he’d destroyed evidence in the criminal trial, i.e., a LinkedIn message that Petitioner sent to Torres in July of 2016 asking about the Wilkinson v. Torres case.  Within about a week of Petitioner sending the LinkedIn message to Torres, he resigned from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office on August 4, 2016.  The following day, the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, Lacey Blair, filed the Motion to Continue the criminal trial due to Shelane being on a “pre-planned” vacation.  At the pre-trial hearing, August 8, 2016, the now discredited District Court Judge, Darvin Zimmmerman, ordered Petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation because Petitioner believed that someone was trying to murder him. Petitioner learned within two weeks that the “someone” that was attempting to murder him was actually Rick Torres.  Torres surrounded him with a 20-person wild land firefighting contract crew from Torres Contracting, Inc. on August 17, 2016 in Pendleton, Oregon, attempting to murder Petitioner.  

            After Petitioner learned that Cohen was funneling information to Torres through her partner, Morash in mid-July of 20119, Petitioner pressed her to file either an anti-stalking or restraining order against Torres.  This was additional evidence that indicated that Cohen was not working in his best interest.  As stated, for the year and a half that Cohen represented Petitioner, she never sought the information that Petitioner was seeking to expose this cabal’s criminal activity.  At no time did Cohen garner any of the information/evidence that Petitioner was seeking via the subpoenas submitted to the court in November of 2017, i.e., bank records, “pre-planned” vacation reservations, the pornographic journal, cell phone records, and cashier’s checks.  In addition, Petitioner had a long list of interrogatories requesting evidence that would expose this corruption, but Cohen never sought or received this important evidence.  The entire lead-up to the trial was nothing more than a charade and a chance to run up attorney’s fees against Petitioner.  

            Over the course of the next eight months (July 2019-March 2020), Petitioner attempted to get Cohen to rectify the malfeasance she had done, but she would not do it.  Instead, the Petitioner was called by Cohen’s assistant on March 3, 2020 and notified that there was a final divorce hearing taking place that day.  Petitioner was surprised, as he didn’t know it was scheduled, and hadn’t gone over the final divorce decree proffered to the Court via Cohen.  In fact, Cohen signed some of the documents on February 27, 2020 before Petitioner got a chance to see them.  What Petitioner didn’t know was that Cohen had crafted a parenting plan that was nearly identical to the fraudulent parenting plan filed by Lisa Martin on or about November 11, 2015.  Cohen knew that Petitioner had not abandoned the family, yet transcribed it nearly verbatim, making the same false allegations alleged almost 5 years earlier by Lisa Martin, i.e.,  that Petitioner was abusive to the children and that he’d financially left Shelane and the children destitute to the point where she needed to file for welfare. Cohen knew that the filing of welfare by Shelane was fraudulent, and she kept all evidence out of the record regarding the financial assistance provided by Petitioner to Shelane while there was no court order in place, i.e., a $3,000 monthly spousal support payment Petitioner made to Shelane between July of 2015 and October 2015, for a total of $15,000.  In addition, Petitioner paid for health care benefits for Shelane and the children at a cost of approximately $1,500 per month when there were no Temporary Orders in place.  

            Cohen signed all the divorce decree documents except one, which she had Petitioner sign in front of the Court, allocating spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month.  Petitioner requested he be allowed to type up the final decree to clarify what Judge Baker stated, and Judge Baker did not allow that.  After Petitioner signed the single document, Cohen changed the term of paying spousal maintenance, adding an additional six months to the spousal maintenance, garnering Shelane another $9,000.  

            Judge Baker stated that he would sign the final decree unless he heard back from either party by March 20th, 2020.  He also approved the Motion to Withdraw filed by Cohen at the March 3rd hearing, which became effective 10 days after it was filed, or March 13, 2020.

            Petitioner allowed the Motion to Withdraw to become effective, and on March 16, 2020 filed a Motion to Stay the Judgement and for an Anti-Stalking Motion(spelled incorrectly as Anti-Stalling) to prevent Torres from owning a firearm, attempting to murder Petitioner again, and destroying evidence.  Petitioner docketed the motion to be heard on March 27th, 2020.

            It is not a coincidence that on March 17, 2020, this Court issued Order No. 25700, and on March 20th, 2020, this Court issued Order No. 25700-B-607, effectively directing the Superior Courts in Washington State to shut down.

            On March 18th, 2020, Judge Krog issued Emergency Administrative Order 20-2 00003-30, effectively cancelling all docketed cases, to include the docketed motion Petitioner filed on March 16th, docketing it for March 27th.  

            The order states in part:

            “All civil motion dockets scheduled between March 18, 2020 and April 24, 2020 are stricken and will need to be re-noted by the party originally requesting the hearing.” 

            On April 8, 2020, Petitioner sent a letter to Judge Baker and the GAL, Mike FitzSimmons, requesting they take action garnering the evidence that Petitioner had been seeking for years.  Instead of doing that, Judge Baker signed the divorce decree the same date that Petitioner mailed the letter to him.  Petitioner notes the signature of Judge Baker was most likely backdated to April 8th, 2020, and recorded on April 15, 2020. 

            Note: there is no signature by Shelane L’Hommedieu on the final divorce decree.  It is antithetical to believe that this is a voluntary divorce action (even assuming arguendo that this is a valid marriage, which it is not), as Petitioner has alleged that the Petitioner’s now “ex-wife” was being sexually trafficked by this cabal since she was approximately 14 years old, and the minor children and Petitioner’s “ex-wife” were now part of a plot to murder Petitioner, and if Shelane did not go along with the plot to murder Petitioner, either she or the children of Shelane and Lawrence L’Hommedieu would be “executed” by Rick Torres.  

            Around the same time the final decree was signed by Judge Baker, i.e., April 15, 2020,  Petitioner learned that Judge Baker (and other government and private individuals) were trafficking Petitioner’s daughters.

            While the stay was pending, Judge Baker signed other orders allowing Shelane to progress the interlocutory appeal, where Tessa Cohen was still the attorney of record at the Court of Appeals, Division II. Cohen was getting the documents filed by Shelane during the appeal process.  Petitioner did not know what was going on, and had no way of scheduling a hearing while Judge Baker was acting ex-parte, and signing these orders without a hearing or giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

            When Petitioner found out that Judge Baker was trafficking my daughters, he filed an Order to Show Cause, asking him to fine himself $50 million for trafficking Petitioner’s daughters.  In addition, on May 17, 2020, Petitioner filed the Recall Petition against Judge Krog, Baker, and other Skamania County Officials stating that they were running a sex-trafficking ring, they attempted to murder Petitioner, they were covering up the murder of Jason Wilkinson by Rick Torres, and they were running a RICO organization.  None of the officials responded to the Recall Petition and it was dismissed by Judge Evans on procedural grounds.  Judge Evans dismissed the allegations on procedural ground in order to preserve the original findings entered by Judge Baker on July 7, 2019, and to protect Rick Torres from being exposed as a murderer, where Clark County Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in the criminal case against Petitioner, i.e., the Wilkinson v. Torres case and underlying documents in the Internal Affairs investigation where Torres made false and misleading statements (see expert opinion of Petitioner IN RE:  Recall of Krog, et.al.)    

            On or about June 8, 2020, Petitioner filed a Recall Petition against Governor Inslee and Attorney General Ferguson, alleging virtually the same thing.  Neither Inslee nor Ferguson offered a response.  It was dismissed on procedural grounds due to the fact it was filed within six months of the election.

            The same day Petitioner sent in the Recall Petition of Inslee and Ferguson to the Washington Secretary of State, the Court of Appeals, Division II sent Petitioner an email stating that Petitioner could not respond to the interlocutory appeal that Shelane filed, and Petitioner was being sanctioned by the court for failing to respond.  Petitioner learned on or about that day, June 8, 2020 that Tessa Cohen had withdrawn as counsel of record in the interlocutory appeal.  

            Petitioner subsequently filed an Emergency Motion for Custody again with the COA II, however, this was again procedurally denied.  Evidently, it’s more important for the motion to be procedurally correct when filing the paperwork for Emergency Custody than it is to protect children from being sexually trafficked by judges in Clark, Skamania, and Cowlitz county. 

            After signing numerous orders, Petitioner finally had enough of Judge Baker’s illegal activity and started including US Attorneys and others in the emails that Petitioner was sending Judge Baker, pointing out to all of them that Judge Baker is trafficking Petitioner’s daughters.  It became clear to Petitioner that the gig was up for Judge Baker, and after Petitioner cc’d multiple people about his corruption, he suddenly withdrew from the case.  Judge Baker withdrew from the case to hide the fact that he is a sex trafficker, but did not state in his order recusing himself why he was withdrawing from the case.  His withdrawal is fraudulent and felonious.  

            After Judge Baker’s sudden withdrawal from the case without giving a reason, Judge Evans was assigned the case.  He denied the ability for Petitioner to add ANY additional evidence into the record, knowing of the heinous acts that Judge Krog and Baker had committed.  Judge Evans picked up right where all of the other judges left off, by limiting the evidence that was in the record, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Judge Krog and Judge Baker, at the very least, committed felonious acts by shredding documents in the case (Krog and Altman) and Judge Baker’s fraudulent withdrawal to preserve the record in its current state without allowing any new evidence to come in.  None of the arguments Petitioner made, i.e., that Tessa Cohen was working directly for this cabal and Judge Baker and that Petitioner learned that Judge Baker was trafficking his daughters (the sudden withdrawal of Judge Baker is circumstantial evidence that he knew that what he’d done is illegal and morally wrong)  

            It should also be noted that Petitioner’s neighbor, Rick Pauly, was murdered by this cabal on July 8, 2020, in an attempt to frame Petitioner for his murder.  The Skamania County Sheriff’s Office had him murdered and classified it as a suicide to pin on Petitioner later.  At the time of his murder, Petitioner’s brother was working at the funeral home where his body was processed, and the SCSO was going to use familial DNA from Petitioner’s brother, then eventually charge Petitioner with his murder and pin it on Petitioner using his brother’s DNA, swapping the DNA samples out at the crime lab.

            Around the same time that Petitioner’s brother was hired by the funeral home where Rick Pauly’s body was processed,  Shelane and children were directed by this cabal to move to Kimberly, Idaho.  This cabal has been illegally monitoring every email, phone call, text message, and every single thing Petitioner types into a computer, so they knew that Petitioner was looking to move out of Washington State, headed east.  They knew that any direction Petitioner moved, he would take Interstate 84, passing by Petitioner’s “ex-wife’s” house.  They were going to murder Shelane and children, and arrest Petitioner for their murder, then reopen the death investigation into Petitioner’s neighbor, Rick Pauly, and pin all the murders on Petitioner, i.e., the murder of Shelane, Petitioner’s daughters, and Shelane’s father, Ron Stewart.

            When Petitioner realized what this cabal was doing, instead of driving to the home that Petitioner purchase in Texas, Petitioner changed course and flew to Texas prevent them from framing him.  They’d already tried to frame Petitioner for a murder-for-hire plot at the end of 2016, after they threw Petitioner in jail for failing to attend the psychological evaluation that was drummed up by the discredited judge, Darvin Zimmerman.  This fraudulent psychological evaluation prevented Petitioner from representing himself at the criminal trial, where Torres would be the star witness and have to respond to questioning regarding the Wilkinson v. Torres lawsuit.  Note: at no time did any of Petitioner’s attorneys ask the Clark County Court in the criminal charges filed against Petitioner to take Judicial Notice of Wilkinson v. Torres, nor did any of the criminal attorneys question Shelane L’Hommedieu or Rick Torres, the arresting officer in the frame-up for the misdemeanor DV/Harassment charge levied against Petitioner on February 11, 2015.  

            Due to Petitioner’s inability to garner the evidence needed to prove the fraudulent criminal charge, i.e., the phone records, bank records, “pre-planned vacation” records, pornographic journal, petitioner eventually had to plead guilty, thinking that these documents, along with testimony of witnesses, would be garnered during the divorce hearing.  These were never sought, nor garnered by Tessa Cohen, the attorney that Petitioner “needed” to get (according to Judge Baker’s order, or legal advice). 

            It should also be noted that Tessa Cohen never interviewed Shelane prior to the divorce trial.  Almost the entirety of the divorce trial, Shelane spent arguing that Petitioner was faking a disability in order to get federal financial benefits.  Cohen did not call a single witness, i.e., a medical doctor or psychologist to testify on behalf of Petitioner to discredit Shelane.  The entire trial was a charade orchestrated at the behest of this cabal and overseen by Judges Krog and Baker.  

            This brings Petitioner to the crux of this request for an injunction.

ARGUMENT

            There is nothing in the RCW that allows a person to enter an injunction against a judge. However, the legislative intent should be considered, given the broad equitable nature of this request, and the lack of harm against Judges Krog, Evans, and Baker.  

            In determining whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunctive relief, the courts generally look to several of the factors, including: (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) a showing of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant is demonstrated to outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing part: and (4) the balancing of the equities.

            In the Motion for Reconsideration at the Court of Appeals, Division II in response to their mandate for Judge Evans to recalculate the spousal maintenance award to Shelane, Petitioner points out that Judge Baker was working with judges at the Court of Appeals, Division II to effectively abrogate case law regarding disability income and the division of property.  In addition, the mandate is clear, given that the COA II mentions the amount of income of Petitioner over $12,000.  However, the COA II does not mention what Petitioner’s income was at the time of separation, nor did Judge Baker make a finding.  As stated by Petitioner in documents, to the best of Petitioner’s recollection, his income was approximately $5,400 at the time of separation in September of 2013.  It’s abundantly clear to Petitioner that this entire charade was preplanned and an orchestrated ruse, and the entirety of the case is a fraud based on judicial corruption.  

            Judge Evans is hardly an unbiased judicial officer in this case.  In fact, Petitioner sent an email to Judge Evans disparaging him, which was opened over 45 times in a 24-hour period.  Judge Evans stated that he did not share the email with anyone and he only opened it a few times, however, data suggests that it was opened over 45 times.  In addition, Judge Evans would not sign a subpoena for Petitioner to garner all the emails from Yarden Weidenfeld’s gmail account.  Nor would Judge Evans allow Petitioner to call a single witness to the stand based on newly discovered evidence.  In fact, when Petitioner informed Judge Evans that he was two days late in filing a motion to supplement the record because he was recovering from a panic attack (a disabled veteran with PTSD) after Clark County Sheriff’s Officer deputies attempted to murder him on April 19, 2020, that was not a good enough excuse for him to allow Petitioner to supplement the record, two days late.  Ironically, the Motion to supplement the record was filed in April, and the hearing did not take place until June 17, 2020 due to the circus created by the novel coronavirus orders.

            It couldn’t be any clearer that the behavior of Judge Evans has the “appearance of impropriety” and allowing him to render judgement based on a mandate to give Shelane L’Hommedieu more spousal maintenance is up to his “discretion”, therefore, the sky is the limit for Judge Evans to render a judgement he seems fitting.  

            Therefore, the preliminary injunction should be issued due to the fact that Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm, which he will never recover from when Judge Evans requires Petitioner to pay back spousal maintenance and increase the spousal maintenance on the record of an income of over $12,000, when the standard of living of the couple at the time of separation was less approximately $5,400.  In addition, none of these facts were entered into the record by Petitioner’s attorney, Tessa Cohen due to the fact she was working with this cabal to funnel community property and additional spousal maintenance (by adding another six months of spousal maintenance to the divorce decree after Petitioner signed it on March 2, 2020).  

            The likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the merits of the case is negated due to the fact that there is no litigation involving any of the judges named herein.  Petitioner is presenting facts of the illegal activity of judges in Washington State, calling out broad corruption.  If anything, by requiring the judges to perform the requested relief, this protects not only the Petitioner from grave harm, but the public at large.  After all, if the public at large know that there is a witness that is calling out judicial corruption in the State of Washington, they may want to call this Petitioner as a witness in their case, as Petitioner has learned of other cases where judicial officers have assisted prosecutors with framing other people and stealing their businesses.  Case in point is the State of Washington v. John Garrett Smith, 405 P.3d 997 (2017).  In the case against Smith, the same prosecuting attorney manufactured a case against him for the attempted murder of his wife.  He was eventually convicted of attempted murder and the main piece of evidence used to convict him of attempted murder was a voicemail garnered off of a cellular phone.  Amazingly, the cell phone that the voicemail was garnered off of was logged into evidence 38 minutes prior to the crime.  An expert witness analyzed the voicemail and determined that the voicemail had been spliced together 17 times in order to get the product the prosecuting attorney needed to convict him of attempted murder.  For nearly eight years, Smith has been attempting to get the original voicemail (the one that was not spliced together) from the prosecutor to submit to the Courts, both the COA II, and this Supreme Court, but the prosecutor stonewalls Smith at each turn, just like Judge Evans has done in Petitioner’s case. 

            Smith had a business with proprietary clean coal technology and other patents, which a witness testified in court amounted to his business being worth $150 million.   

            Had John Garrett Smith known about the broad judicial corruption in Washington State, he surely would have been able to file the appropriate motion to recuse the corrupt judges in SW Washington.  From a search of Judge Robert A. Lewis, the presiding judge in his case, the Washington Secretary of State’s database had him as the registered owner of 11 different corporations.   So, not only is Judge Lewis a Clark County judge, he’s also an owner of many businesses, last count by this Petitioner, 11.  

            Given the fact that he was a business owner with a company worth $150 million, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the cell phone logged into evidence 38 minutes prior to the crime was done so Clark County government officials, i.e., corrupt law enforcement officers, recognized that they could frame him and steal his business, keeping him in jail for 12 years.

            As Petitioner stated, Shelane L’Hommedieu and Rick Torres worked together to attempt to murder Petitioner.  Upon the successful murder, if it looked like a suicide, Shelane would have garnered the sympathy of general public, as her husband was a former SEAL, ParaRescueman, Smoekjumper, and Captain/Paramedic.  She would have immediately gotten approximately $400,000 and continuing benefits of almost $9,000 per month.  That’s clearly a motive to murder someone, and the judges in Petitioner’s case were most likely going to get a cut of it upon the death of Petitioner.  

            The irreparable injury to the Petitioner would be a continued fraudulent divorce decree and mandate by the Court of Appeals, Division II, funneling more money to Shelane.  If the mandate goes through, Petitioner will never recover the funds that the corrupt Judge Evans awards her.  

            This Court should also look to likelihood of success on the merits of the case.  Petitioner has been honest with his attorney and the courts the entire time.  In fact, in the Petitioner for Review, and to his attorney, Petitioner disclosed that his father shot John F. Kennedy, and took part in the DB Cooper hijacking, and he was being hunted like an animal by the CIA, and Rick Torres was the “wet-worker” that was sent to make the above come to fruition.   Can Petitioner prove this?  He’s offered testimony and documentation, along with corroborating evidence that this is the case, yet the Washington Court system has dismissed ALL attempts by Petitioner to make this argument.  In addition, Judge Evans shut Petitioner down, not allowing Petitioner to call a single witness to corroborate this claim.  Petitioner even asked to call the Washington State psychologist that did the RCW 10.77 evaluation of Petitioner to either corroborate or discredit Petitioner’s claims.  However, Judge Evans wouldn’t even allow Petitioner to call Dr. Rice, a psychologist from the State of Washington to ascertain of Petitioner was insane, or if Petitioner was being framed by the CIA and others, as Petitioner has stated under oath. 

            Of course, this Court knows that Petitioner will focus the entirety of any questioning on the Wilkinson v. Torres case, and any witness will be required to read the entire case into the record and offer their opinion as to whether Judge Benjamin Settle was correct in finding that Rick Torres “executed” Jason Wilkinson, and whether Torres lied when under oath.  

            So, it is very possible, if not much more likely than not, that if this Court allows Petitioner to present ANY additional evidence into this matter, that Petitioner will succeed on the issue.

            Furthermore, there is absolutely NO harm done to the judges in this matter.    

            The courts have found that judicial officers, even elected ones, are not subjected to a Recall Petition.  In addition, Judge Evans also found that Judge Baker is not subjected to a Recall Petition because he is not an elected official.

            It appears the only way to get a judge kicked off the bench is to have the legislature do it.  However, Petitioner has broached this subject with legislators in Washington State, and hasn’t gotten a response from them.   In addition, Petitioner has given Governor Inslee and Attorney General Ferguson both actual and constructive notice of the collective illegal activity by these judges, i.e., the felonious shredding of documents by judicial officers, the manipulation of evidence, tortious interference with a business relationship (between Petitioner and his attorneys), in order to cover up the crimes these judges have committed.  These crimes include murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and sex trafficking.

            The judges will not suffer any harm, as Petitioner is merely asking for them to disclose their activity, and what is stated herein is based on facts, which the judges are fully capable of refuting or corroborating.  Additionally, they have every equitable remedy available to them if the facts alleged in this are not true.  

            As a matter of equity, this Court should “balance the equities”.  Is it in the Petitioner’s best interest for the judges to disclose their malfeasance, i.e., illegal activity?  Every one of these judges makes the decision on a daily basis when they sentence a defendant.  Part of the sentence or judgment they render is based on the contrition of a defendant, i.e., whether that defendant learns from and accepts responsibility for their actions.  They “balance the equities” using the scale of justice on a daily basis.  It is no different here, these judges, if they were forthright and honest, would have disclosed their criminal activity a long time ago, but they haven’t chosen to balance these equities, in spite of Petitioner sending them hundreds of emails calling out their corruption.  Instead of admitting to it, they’ve continued to cover it up.  By requiring these judges to disclose their criminal activity on the record will balance the scales of justice, and not only give Petitioner a fair shot at a fair trial, it will also be beneficial to every defendant or litigant that comes before them, so that defendant or litigant will not be affected by a decision by a judge that is involved in trafficking their children, or using their judicial position to enter children into a sex trafficking ring ran by them.  Or, like the case of John Garrett Smith, prevent a business from being stolen from an entrepreneur.  The balancing of the equities far outweighs the detractions for issuing a preliminary injunction.    

            The legislative intent of RCW 7.40 is to “restrain the commission or continuance of some act”.  In this case, that “some act” is the illegal activity of the judicial officers in this case, Baker, Evans, and Krog.  

            Additionally, RCW 7.40 states that “or where such relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining proceedings upon any final order or judgment, an injunction may be granted to restrain such act or proceedings until the further order of the court”.

            Another example favoring the issue of balancing the equities is the obtuse behavior of these corrupt government officials en masse.  Petitioner has attempted to get approval from defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney to file an Amicus Curiae brief in Skamania County.  In fact, Petitioner took the brief to record it in a case in Skamania County and emailed it to Judge Krog, but the Clerk of the Court would not allow it to be record in the case.  Instead, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney intercepted it and took it.  Neither Judge Krog, nor the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney recorded the Amicus brief to Petitioner’s knowledge.  However, Petitioner was never called as a witness in the case, nor was Petitioner interviewed by the defendant’s counsel about the corruption in Skamania County. 

            Shortly after Petitioner attempted to submit the Amicus brief, or around the same time, Petitioner’s neighbor was murdered, and Petitioner quickly left town due to the terrorist activities of Skamania County Officials and moved to Texas.  

            RCW 7.40 does not specifically allow a preliminary injunction against a judicial officer, but it does not expressly deny the ability for a litigant to use it.  Surely the legislative intent would be to inform litigants and defendants that the judicial officer presiding over their case is running a criminal organization.  Petitioner will testify to the actions of these judges in a court of law.  If Petitioner is not mentally sound, there are remedies for these judges to take.  If Petitioner is untruthful, i.e., committing perjury herein, there are remedies these judges can take to remedy to rectify this.  In addition, these judges are perfectly capable of offering a rebuttal to what is requested herein to allay any fears of “prejudice” a defendant may have or bring up if they are unfortunate enough to be charged with a crime and one of these judicial officers is assigned to their case.

            Contrarily, the ONLY thing that will happen if this Court approves this preliminary injunction, is that these corrupt judicial officers will be exposed for their illegal activity. The balancing of the equities favors the preliminary injunction.   

            Injunctions are governed by statutory law, but stem from cases of equity.  Another law that stems from equity is 18 U.S.C § 4 – Misprision of Felony, which states:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.  

 

It should go without saying that both Judge Krog, for failing to report the felonious acts of Judge Altman (the shredding of the Emergency Motion for Custody) and Judge Baker for failing to report the felonious acts of Judge Krog (shredding the subpoenas) that they have both committed a violation of  18 U.S.C § 4.  By condoning, and not reporting this crime, based on a common law equitable principle, Judge Evans is as equally as guilty of the same.   

            The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 Rule 1.1 Compliance with the Law, “A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

            Rule 1.2 Promote Confidence in the Judiciary, “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid the impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

            Sans the entirety of what is disclosed above, and focusing exclusively on the shredding of documents submitted to the court, why would a judicial officer order the destruction of the public record?  And, when the judicial officer did shred the documents, when he was called out for it (as Petitioner did asking Judge Krog and Pam Bell to testify), instead of testifying under oath, as sought by Petitioner, and clarifying why he ordered the subpoenas to be shredded, Judge Krog recused himself from the case.  This was only a short while after he denied Petitioner’s request for withdrawal based on the affidavit of prejudice to have him recused without clarifying why he recused himself in his order.  That isn’t the appearance of impropriety, that is impropriety, in and of itself, not to mention a felony.

            In addition to Petitioner filing a Recall Petition, reporting this to the local law enforcement agency, reporting this to the Washington State Legislature, the Governor of Washington, Petitioner also reported this to the Commission on Judicial Conduct in the State of Washington.  Yet, there has been no action taken against these criminals, i.e., Krog, Evans, and Baker.

            In addition, this is a “preliminary injunction”.  This injunction is not a permanent injunction, and is easily rectified by the judges, they can either resign, or be prosecuted for their illegal activity.  This Court should only issue the injunction as a temporary measure until one of these actions takes place.  Their resignation of prosecution will cure any defect in the preliminary injunction, and it will render it unnecessary once either of these events takes place.  

CONCLUSION

            Had Petitioner known back in 2015 (or sooner) that the judicial system in Washington State was running a sex trafficking ring across the United States, Petitioner surely would have filed a timely motion to recuse these judges.  However, they failed to disclose their illegal activity and have prejudiced the entire divorce case, Skamania County Court case no. 14-3-00035-4 to the detriment of Petitioner. 

            RCW 2.04.020 Court of record – General Powers, states; The supreme court shall be a court of record, and shall be vested with all power and authority necessary to carry into complete execution all its judgements, decrees and determinations in all matters within its jurisdiction, according to the rules and principles of common law, and the Constitution and laws of this state.

            As stated, Petitioner has done everything within his knowledge and power to expose this corruption and has been procedurally turned away at each instance by the Skamania County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, Division II.  

            Due to the behavior of Judges Krog, Evans, and Baker, it should go without saying that if any litigant or defendant knew of the illegal activity of these judicial officers, they would immediately file a motion to recuse these judges.  However, these judges have hidden this from the general public, not only in violation of the law, but in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the bounds of all decency and equity.  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            Petitioner incorporates all facts stated herein and requests this Court recommend to the proper Clerk of the Court a bond be set as per RCW 7.40.080.  Petitioner suggests that the bond be no more than $100.  As stated, if anything stated herein is incorrect or false, (which to Petitioner’s knowledge, it is not) a suit in equity would remedy any damages suffered by Judges Krog, Evans, or Baker. 

            Additionally, Petitioner asks this Court to incorporate these facts in an order, requiring Judge Krog, Judge Evans, and Judge Baker to read to any litigant or defendant that comes before their respective court, i.e., the Skamania County Superior Court, or the Klickitat District Court, or Cowlitz County Court.

            Alternatively, if this Court does not incorporate these facts in an order to be read to litigants and defendants in the respective courts, this document would suffice in the place of an official order, and the Petitioner asks that Judges Krog, Evans, and Baker inform litigants and defendants that Petitioner will testify under oath in the respective court about the facts stated herein.

            For obvious reasons, i.e., a judge cannot act as his own judge and jury, Petitioner submits this request for a preliminary injunction to this court.  It would be antithetical to have the same courts that are being castigated herein rule on this motion.  Likewise, it would be the same for the Court of Appeals, Division II.  Therefore, Petitioner requests this court to exercise its General powers under RCW 2.04.020 and issue a preliminary injunction until the judges either resign or are prosecuted by an appropriate law enforcement agency.

            Additionally, Petitioner requests this Court issue a subpoena requiring Yarden Weidenfeld to disclose all emails from his gmail account and all google drive documents, as they are matters of public import and matters of public record subject to the Washington State Public Records Act.  His private gmail account is being used to further the fraud and corruption in these matters.    

            Petitioner also request the Clerk of the Court to set a date in the near future for oral argument on this matter.  Since Petitioner was terrorized by the judges and this cabal and had to move to Texas, Petitioner requests the hearing be held via zoom or other electronic forum. 

 

 

 

            

             

            

             

No comments:

Post a Comment

Q SENT ME - Banned by Amazon

Q SENT ME   By L. Matt L’Hommedieu This is the autobiography of Matt L'Hommedieu, a former Navy SEAL, Air Force PJ, Smokejumper, and Cap...