Shining a Light on Corruption

The same disabled man applied for Aged, Blind, and Disabled benefits at the DSHS office in Port Angeles while waiting for his federal disability benefits to be reinstated. Despite submitting medical documentation proving his disability, the staff refused to approve his benefits.

After nearly three months of being homeless and destitute, the man visited the DSHS office in Bremerton. Within one week, his benefits were approved. This showed that people in Clallam County shouldn’t have to travel to another county just to get help. Employees in Clallam County are failing the public, who fund their salaries through tax dollars.

A man went into the Sequim Police Department to file a police report against an individual who was endangering him. As an older and disabled person, he felt the threat was serious. However, the officer at the desk not only denied him the opportunity to file a report but also made a call to the alleged perpetrator and joked with him. This denial is concerning, especially considering that the man had gone in person because the Sequim Police Department had removed the online reporting feature from their website, which had previously been available.

The officer who refused the man’s report was known to him from a prior incident, which raised concerns about bias. Another officer should have been called to take the report to ensure fairness.

The man later returned to the Sequim Police Department to file a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because Officer Martinez had denied him the chance to file the police report. The ADA “compliance” officer, however, refused to process his complaint based on the wording of it, despite the fact that the man had a traumatic brain injury, which should have been taken into account. With help from his family, he amended the complaint, but the compliance officer—without even reading the amended version—stated, "I’m just going to send you the same letter I did before," refusing to do her job and passing the responsibility to someone else.

Example 5: Sequim Bay State Park Incident

A homeless man went to Sequim Bay State Park in Clallam County to camp for a few days while seeking permanent shelter. He paid for a week in advance and informed the park staff that he was disabled and would need a ride to the campsite. However, one volunteer staff member was unsympathetic and called an out-of-county ranger from Jefferson County to expel the man permanently from all Washington State Parks, without allowing him due process.

The ranger used a law that did not apply to the man to justify the expulsion. What’s particularly concerning is that Sequim Bay State Park is located in Clallam County, yet staff there requested assistance from a ranger from another park, Dosewallips, in Jefferson County, to carry out the expulsion. This action is both inappropriate and unlawful.

The man was given a notice stating that he could appeal the expulsion in district court. However, when he attempted to seek this appeal, the county officials claimed they had "never seen the expulsion notice before" and are refusing to grant him due process through an appeal.

Example 7: Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) Policy Concerns

The man and his wife have both requested written clarification from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding the policy that allows him to be at home during the day but not at night. Despite several attempts to get this clarification, DOC staff, including one officer, refused to provide any written documentation.

This policy raises significant concerns, as it effectively imposes a partial no-contact order between the man and his wife, which has no apparent legal basis in RCWs or WACs, nor has it been enforced by any court order. The man and his wife believe this policy is not only unnecessary but harmful, especially since no home inspection or contact with their family was made as promised during his time in prison.

Example 7: Theft and Harassment at Clallam County Courthouse

On Friday, January 17th, 2024, a man and his wife left his personal belongings in oversized bags on a bench outside the Clallam County Courthouse, in plain view of security cameras. The man arrived at the courthouse before 11 a.m. to seek a temporary restraining order against a state employee who had been harassing him and imposing illegal conditions, leaving him homeless, despite having a home. He intended to file a restraining order to address this situation.

However, instead of being placed on the 1 p.m. schedule to request a judge’s relief, the Superior Court clerk directed him to District Court and insisted that he needed to consult with an attorney, despite the man explaining that he was filing pro se. After being denied access to the court and getting frustrated, the man and his wife went outside, only to find that his bags of personal belongings had been stolen.

When they contacted the Port Angeles Police to file a report, they were told that the security camera pointing directly at the bench where the man had left his belongings was "offline." As a result, the police could not provide any footage of the theft. With all the security cameras at the courthouse, the fact that one was "offline" raises serious concerns about security and accountability. Shouldn't this be investigated as a potential security failure?

To further add to the frustration, while the wife was at the bus shelter outside the courthouse, speaking with the police about the theft, a Clallam Transit bus driver rudely motioned to her and continuously honked his horn. When she informed him she wasn't getting on the bus, he flung open the door and told her, “Ma’am, if you’re not waiting for the bus or getting on, you can’t sit here.” Upon calling Clallam Transit to clarify this, the supervisor confirmed that the driver’s statement was incorrect, and she indeed had the right to sit at the bus shelter.

These incidents reflect the deep-seated corruption and disregard for citizens’ rights within Clallam County.

Example 8: Unlawful Imposition of Additional Conditions

Six months into a man’s one-year community custody, the Department of Corrections (DOC) arbitrarily required him to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for the remaining six months of his supervision. This condition was not outlined in the original Judgment and Sentence (J&S), nor was it mandated by any court order or RCW (Revised Code of Washington). The DOC's action constitutes an illegal imposition of additional conditions beyond what was legally authorized.

The DOC claims the authority to unilaterally impose new conditions, effectively bypassing judicial oversight. This practice allows the agency to enforce arbitrary and invasive measures, such as GPS monitoring, without any legal basis or accountability. Such actions undermine the man’s civil rights, contradict due process, and violate the principle of separation of powers.

The imposition of GPS monitoring was punitive, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment, and served as a form of harassment and stalking by the state. The unchecked power to enforce conditions that were never part of the man’s original sentence demonstrates a blatant abuse of authority and a dangerous precedent for overreach. 

Both I and my wife, Julie, believe that the implementation of a GPS ankle bracelet was not about lawful supervision but rather an invasive tactic to monitor and control my movements. This device seems to be used to track where I go and potentially interfere with my attempts to exercise my rights, such as filing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or seeking corrections to my Judgment and Sentence (J&S), which remains stuck without a hearing date in the court's Odyssey portal.

When we visited the courthouse to address these matters, we observed several unusual occurrences. The courthouse security guard was not present in the front lobby during our visit, and maintenance personnel were driving around the building at that same time. While we cannot say for certain that these events were coordinated, the timing raises questions about whether intentional obstructions are taking place.

Adding to these concerns, the theft of my belongings—including my sleeping bag and tent—outside the courthouse appears suspicious. Homeless individuals in the area typically respect each other's belongings, and the security camera covering the bench where my items were left was conveniently "offline" at the time of the theft. This, coupled with the lack of an emergency TRO filing date, adds to our concern about systemic interference.

Despite the clear urgency and merit of my legal actions, I have faced consistent delays and denials of my rights to due process. These experiences raise concerns about potential coordination between the Department of Corrections, court clerks, and possibly other local authorities.

These delays risk time-barring my valid lawsuits. By stalling my access to court and creating additional obstacles, these actions hinder my ability to pursue justice. Such tactics, whether intentional or the result of negligence, violate my constitutional rights and merit further investigation.

The ongoing actions described above raise significant concerns about the misuse of authority under the color of law, obstruction of justice, and retaliatory behaviors that violate constitutional protections. These actions not only harm me but also undermine public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice and fairness.

This is not just about my case; it reflects broader systemic issues affecting many individuals who lack the resources to defend themselves. The use of arbitrary conditions, denial of access to the courts, and failure to investigate critical security risks such as "offline" cameras create an environment where rights are easily trampled without consequence.

I stand firm in my commitment to exposing these injustices, not only for myself but for all those who have been silenced or ignored. The time has come for transparency and accountability. I will not allow these abuses to go unnoticed or unchallenged.