Shining a Light on Corruption

The same disabled man applied for Aged, Blind, and Disabled (ABD) 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 Clallam County DSHS staff refused to approve his benefits, leaving him homeless and destitute for nearly three months.

Desperate for help, the same man traveled to the DSHS office in Bremerton.

Within one week, his benefits were approved without issue.

This blatant discrepancy highlights a systemic failure—residents of Clallam County should not be forced to travel to another county just to receive the assistance they are legally entitled to.

🚨 Clallam County’s DSHS office is failing the very people they are funded by—taxpayers.

The same man, an older and disabled individual, went to the Sequim Police Department to file a police report against someone who was endangering him. Given his age and disability, he took the threat seriously and sought law enforcement assistance.

However, instead of taking the report, the officer at the desk refused to document the complaint. Worse, the officer called the alleged perpetrator directly and joked with him.

The same man had no choice but to report in person because the Sequim Police Department had removed the online reporting feature from their website—a tool that had previously allowed for reports to be filed remotely.

Additionally, the officer who denied his report was someone he had encountered in a prior incident, raising serious concerns about bias. Given this conflict of interest, another officer should have been assigned to take the report to ensure fairness and impartiality.

Frustrated by the police department’s refusal to take his report, the man returned to the Sequim Police Department to file an official complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Officer Martinez for denying him the right to file a police report.

However, instead of following proper procedure:

• The department’s ADA "compliance" officer refused to process his complaint based on the wording of it.
• This was despite the fact that the man has a traumatic brain injury (TBI), which should have been taken into account when reviewing his complaint.
• When he later amended the complaint with assistance from his family, the compliance officer refused to even read the revised version.

The officer dismissively stated:

👉 "I’m just going to send you the same letter I did before,"

🚨 Refusing to do her job and improperly passing responsibility to someone else.

This blatant denial of police protection, refusal to take a valid complaint, and failure to comply with ADA requirements demonstrates:
✔ Negligence in handling public safety concerns
✔ Potential bias in refusing to document threats against a disabled person
✔ Violation of federal disability laws by dismissing an ADA complaint without review

The Sequim Police Department’s failure to act not only denied this man justice but also put his safety at risk.

Example 5: Sequim Bay State Park Incident

A homeless and disabled man went to Sequim Bay State Park in Clallam County to camp for a few days while seeking permanent shelter.

• He paid for a full week in advance.
• He notified park staff of his disability and requested a ride to the campsite.

However, instead of providing reasonable accommodation, a volunteer staff member took matters into their own hands and:

• Called an out-of-county ranger from Jefferson County to handle the situation.
• Had the man permanently expelled from all Washington State Parks without due process.

The Jefferson County ranger used a law that did not apply to the man as justification for expelling him.

🚨 What makes this especially alarming: 🚨
✔ Sequim Bay State Park is in Clallam County—yet a ranger from a different county (Dosewallips State Park in Jefferson County) was called in to execute the expulsion.
✔ This raises serious legal and jurisdictional concerns—a Clallam County official should have handled the matter, not an out-of-county ranger.

The man was given a notice stating he had the right to appeal the expulsion in district court.

However, when he attempted to exercise this right:

• County officials claimed they had never seen the expulsion notice before.
• They refused to grant him due process by denying his appeal.

🚨 Expelling a disabled, homeless man without legal grounds and then refusing to process his appeal is a clear violation of due process and equal protection.

Washington State Parks are public land, not private property. Rangers do not have unlimited authority to deny access based on their own discretion—especially without legal justification.

This case exemplifies how officials manipulate laws to remove vulnerable individuals without accountability.

.

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

The same man and his wife have repeatedly requested written clarification from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding a bizarre and unexplained policy:

🚨 DOC claims he can be at home during the day, but not at night. 🚨

This effectively imposes a partial no-contact order between the man and his wife—without any legal justification.

Despite multiple attempts to obtain written clarification:

• DOC refuses to provide any documentation explaining this policy.
• A DOC officer personally refused to put it in writing, leaving the couple with no formal explanation.

This arbitrary restriction is concerning because:
✔ There is no RCW (Revised Code of Washington) or WAC (Washington Administrative Code) that supports this policy.
✔ No court has imposed such a condition.
✔ DOC made no effort to conduct a home inspection or contact the family as they had promised during his time in prison.

The man and his wife believe that this unwritten rule is not only unjustified but also harmful—placing unnecessary strain on a family already impacted by wrongful legal actions.

🚨 Why is DOC enforcing conditions that do not exist in law or court orders?

This policy raises serious concerns about DOC acting beyond its legal authority, imposing restrictions without accountability or explanation.

Example 7: Theft and Harassment at Clallam County Courthouse

On Friday, January 17, 2024, a man and his wife left his personal belongings in oversized bags on a bench outside the Clallam County Courthouse. The bags were in plain view of security cameras.

That morning, the man arrived at the courthouse before 11 a.m. to file a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a state employee who had been:
✔ Harassing him
✔ Imposing illegal conditions
✔ Forcing him into homelessness, despite having a home

His goal was to have the matter heard by a judge that afternoon at the 1 p.m. session.

Instead of allowing the man to file his TRO as a pro se litigant, the Superior Court clerk directed him to District Court and told him he needed to consult with an attorney.

• This was despite the man explaining that he was filing pro se—meaning he had the legal right to represent himself.
• The clerk’s actions deliberately prevented him from accessing the court that day.

After being denied access to the court, the man and his wife stepped outside—only to find that his bags had been stolen.

When they contacted the Port Angeles Police Department (PAPD) to report the theft, they were told:

🚨 The security camera that pointed directly at the bench was ‘offline.’ 🚨

✔ Despite multiple security cameras at the courthouse, police claimed they had no footage of the theft.
✔ The timing of this incident raises serious concerns about courthouse security and accountability.
✔ Was this a failure of security—or something more deliberate?

Shouldn’t an alleged camera failure that coincides with a theft on government property be investigated as a security breach?

To make matters worse, while the man's wife was speaking to police about the theft at a bus shelter outside the courthouse, a Clallam Transit bus driver began harassing her:

🚨 He repeatedly motioned to her and honked his horn.
🚨 When she informed him she wasn’t getting on the bus, he flung open the door and said:
👉 "Ma’am, if you’re not waiting for the bus or getting on, you can’t sit here."

When she later called Clallam Transit for clarification, a supervisor confirmed that the bus driver’s statement was incorrect.

✔ She had every right to sit at the bus shelter.
✔ The bus driver’s behavior was unnecessary and harassing.

🚨 A man attempting to file a restraining order was obstructed from doing so.
🚨 His personal belongings were stolen outside the courthouse while security cameras were "offline."
🚨 His wife was harassed for simply sitting at a bus stop.

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

Example 8: Unlawful Imposition of Additional Conditions

Six months into a one-year community custody sentence, the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) arbitrarily imposed a new condition:

🚨 The man was forced to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for the remaining six months of his supervision. 🚨

This new restriction was never outlined in:
✔ His original Judgment and Sentence (J&S)
✔ Any court order
✔ Any RCW (Revised Code of Washington) that mandates GPS monitoring in his case

The DOC's actions constitute an illegal expansion of sentencing conditions without judicial approval—a clear violation of due process.

The DOC claims the authority to impose new conditions at will, bypassing:
✔ Judicial oversight
✔ The sentencing court's authority
✔ State law that governs sentencing conditions

This practice allows DOC to enforce arbitrary and invasive measures—such as GPS monitoring—without legal basis or accountability.

🚨 This is a blatant abuse of power that undermines civil rights and due process. 🚨

This was not a legal supervision tool—it was:
✔ A form of harassment and stalking by the state
✔ A punitive measure amounting to cruel and unusual punishment
✔ An attempt to exert unchecked control over a free citizen

The unchecked power to modify a person’s sentence after the fact is a dangerous precedent for government overreach. If DOC can unilaterally impose conditions never ordered by a judge, what prevents them from escalating beyond GPS tracking?

🚨 DOC must be held accountable for imposing illegal conditions without legal authority. 🚨

The separation of powers exists for a reason—sentencing is the role of the courts, not DOC officers acting without oversight.

This case demonstrates a serious civil rights violation and sets a disturbing precedent for future government overreach.

I 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 appears to have been used to track my location and interfere with my ability to exercise my rights, including:
✔ Filing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
✔ Seeking corrections to my Judgment and Sentence (J&S), which remains stuck in the court’s Odyssey portal without a hearing date

When I visited the courthouse to address these legal matters, I observed several unusual occurrences:
✔ The courthouse security guard was not present in the front lobby at the time of my visit.
✔ Maintenance personnel were driving around the building at that same time.
✔ While I cannot confirm coordination, the timing of these events raises serious concerns about possible intentional obstructions.

Adding to these concerns, my personal belongings—including my sleeping bag and tent—were stolen from a bench directly outside the courthouse.

🚨 Key facts that make this highly suspicious:
✔ Homeless individuals in the area typically respect each other’s belongings.
✔ The security camera covering the bench was conveniently "offline" at the time of the theft.

This, combined with the unexplained delay of an emergency TRO filing, raises further concerns about systemic interference in my legal actions.

Despite the clear urgency and legal merit of my filings, I have faced:
✔ Consistent delays in processing court filings
✔ Denials of my rights to due process
✔ Barriers preventing me from addressing legal injustices

🚨 These experiences suggest possible coordination between the Department of Corrections, court clerks, and other local authorities to obstruct my legal efforts.

By stalling my access to court and creating additional obstacles, these delays risk time-barring my valid lawsuits.

🚨 Such tactics—whether intentional or the result of negligence—violate my constitutional rights and merit further investigation. 🚨

 Retaliatory Actions and Intentional Obstructions

✔ The same man was accompanied weekly to the DOC office 360-417-8563.
✔ He and his wife followed all instructions, attended check-ins, and tried to comply despite impossible conditions.
✔ Suddenly, without explanation, he was issued a restraining order against his own wife.

🚨 Then came the GPS ankle monitor. 🚨

When questioned about why the tracking device was placed on him, Lovell’s response was:

👉 "I want to see if your husband will be nicer to you."

🚨 What kind of reason is this for government surveillance and a no-contact order?

This is not law enforcement.
This is abuse of power.

 images showing the impact of forced homelessness on his health.