I've had four 'anti-harassment' restraining orders placed against me, the first two by State of Washington employees retaliating against fully lawful and 'respectful' accountability complaints. The first of these was in 1989, no long after the first of these laws were passed.
Below the jump is my response to the last of these, in 2010, a complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct another such lawless retaliatory accusation coordinated by the Cascade Land Conservancy.
The biggest point of law is the inappropriateness of assigning 'malicious intent' via a civil process, by common law precedent a very difficult thing to do and made too easy through these otherwise appropriate legal reforms. Applying these statutes to constitutionally protected free speech is of course statutorily exempted and the practice of ignoring such law shameful, conspiratorial, extortionary, and criminal.
Most evil in these practices is the way they have been used to take control of land use and transportation planning, and, increasingly, private business via these abusive practices. Many of these practices have arisen in the social service legal ranks, most notably the large number of Attorneys hired by current Governor Christine Gregoire during her tenure as Attorney General. There is an evident, and unfortunate, legal practice of treating some as second class 'trash' before the law in unwritten practice that is neither criminal nor civil in nature. It is the case that many social service clients have been inappropriately subject to these stigma, and worse. But reinventing the cycle of abuse for political and financial control is a whole level of predatory behavior that exceeds that of even a level 3 sexual predator.
There is precedent for standing against this politically convenient abuse, the Duke LaCrosse Player case as handled by the Prosecutor Michael NiFong.
But the situation in Washington State is much worse. It appears, in fact, that this technique has been politically successful, and has also made major inroads into many larger corporate businesses in the state, not just academia, government, and non-profits.
It is sadly ironic and illustrative that many so-called feminists have become 'hate whores' for the man allowing their once righteous concerns to be misdirected and manipulated unto the next generation of younger white males.
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS TOOLEY
THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORIAL ACTIONS OF
PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE JACK NEVIN
February 19, 2011
Introduction
This complaint alleges a massive violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as part of a pattern of practice that originally arose in King County, Seattle and the Attorney General’s Office under Christine Gregoire. It is the petitioner’s belief that these violations also rise to the level of criminal complaint and conspiracy.
The case at hand regards allegations of harassment in constitutionally protected speech completely without evidence in a complaint brought before Jack Nevin by the Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) in a conspiracy to control the State enterprise via additional organizations, some of which may be under the control or influence of that organization and its officers and directors.
Harassment law is historically a relatively new field of practice and a few comments in that context are appropriate. This petitioner supports the development of this area of practice but finds that the practice of it needs substantial review so that it not become just another turn of the cycle abuse, or worse a tool of hate control of the citizenry of the United States by those who have never been victimized.
1. Civil practice is predisposed to finding just settlements without attribution of malice. Malice is certainly a factor in civil law, but generally it requires a high level of evidence and process to accomplish. Although harassment law is written to avoid the awarding of monetary damages in justifying its expedited proceedings the external effects upon the respondent can be as great or greater than those upon a former felon convict, perhaps even rising to the level of the stigma associated with a level 3 sexual predator.
2. Civil actions for the finding of malice are, in the judgment of this petitioner, and acceptable substitute for misdemeanor prosecution, however practice standards should require that the burden of proof is equal, or the issuance of no-fault orders.
3. The petitioner has a record of four anti-harassment orders, the first two of which were politically motivated from State employees in retaliation for well founded complaint. These orders were issued during the rise of current governor Christine Gregoire’s rise through the legal and operational ranks of Olympia, including tenure as the Director of the Department of Ecology, a field where the petitioner has substantial professional and civic experience. The fourth order is addressed in this complaint and it should be noted that Ms. Gregoire has substantial connections with the CLC and its associated individuals. The petitioner has substantial academic, professional, and civic experience in the particular ‘business’ model core to the mission of the CLC.
4. It is the belief of the petitioner that the evidence indicates he has been used as a ‘prototype’ and political scapegoat in order to manipulate both mid-level elected officials and the professional civil service and that his case has federal aspects, as yet not fully determined or pleaded.
5. Petitioner is currently disabled and homeless as a result of the larger pattern of this harassment ‘practice’, including similar legal practices in his current (and past) field of work. This fact is not an argument for dismissal as some would make, but rather a greater cause for the expedited resolution of this malicious judicial practice. Petitioner has faced considerable retaliation from the State of Washington concerning his allegation of State caused disability; he has however won a civil case in Federal Court on this general argument concerning discharge of his Student Loans.
Complaint
The allegation of harassment stems from responsible email requests for information regarding a disciplinary action some of the parties – the disciplinary act being a retaliation for a lawful complaint over the abuse of environmental laws by the City of Tacoma Department of Public Works and a single appointed citizen representative. (The disciplinary act had allegedly been performed under the authority of another, the identity of whom was sought.) The specific language objected to was an allegation of harassment as part of the reinvention of the cycle of abuse and a description of the full effects upon myself, along with an appropriate warning to the parties regarding constitutional due process and equal justice.
The court documents in this matter fully document these allegations. A correct interpretation of the petitioners’ rather lengthy and convoluted pleadings may be difficult. Reconstructing the sequence of events in forward chronological order however should mostly indicate the correct pattern of escalation. I’d personally welcome the opportunity to sift through these documents with a qualified investigator so that I myself am better able to articulate the specific abuses therein.
Please note especially the allegations of Mr. Benjamin regarding a separate effort under the control of the CLC concerning the controversial extension of Sounder Commuter Light Rail. Although Mr. Benjamin asserts that he had to kick me out of a larger effort due statements regarding that the fact is that I was an active member of the ‘real’ effort meeting outside of the CLC with its own definite identity. Please note also that the CLC eventually reversed its support of that effort ‘backstabbing’ the group, around the time of these allegations. Please note that this petitioner has a long history with Sound Transit, being a strong supporter of the effort including in the conceptual construction of ST1, as adopted on the second vote in 1996. Please also note that as a part of Mr. Benjamin’s larger effort Mr. Tooley took a leadership role on High Capacity Transit in Tacoma generally including the current I-5 HOV expansion project in Tacoma.
Specifically:
RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Nevin showed complete contempt for the constitutional basis of our system of law and evidence making his decision based on the political associations of the corporations and individuals conspiring.
RULE 1.2
Promoting 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 impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Judge Nevin has completely destroyed any basis for individual confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of his Judiciary contemptuously all concerns for propriety as it concerns our constitutional system of law and government.
Mr. Nevins order was so crafted as to have authorized the political assasination of the petitioner should he exercise his constitutional rights as citizen. Mr. Nevin also willfully ignored the CR33 submission concerning the disability of the petitioner caused by this pattern of abuse.
RULE 1.3
Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Judge Nevin acted as an controlling agent in a conspiracy under the Judicial Branch of the State of Washington and its associated officers in order to control our government, its private sector expenditures, and its employees.
RULE 2.1
Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office
The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over all of a judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities.
Judge Nevin has an extensive record of extrajudicial activities which have clearly interfered with his ability to handle matters as required by the facts. The timing and substance of his actions clearly indicate this.
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly
and impartially.
The complete absence of evidence in support of the petitioners lengthy pleadings makes it clear that his decision was biased and nothing but fair.
RULE 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making reference to factors that are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
Judge Nevin’s actions are nothing but a pattern of bias and harassment in legal practice as established by the Seattle Superior Court of King County and former Attorney General Christine Gregoire. This bias evidence the problems with harassment law specified in the introduction to this complaint. Judge Nevin specifically encouraged the spreading of this practice through his lack of responsible action and the parties, witnesses, lawyers and all those who have since become aware of the case.
RULE 2.4
External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or authorize others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Judge Nevin conveyed and authorized via his decision of the practices of this sexually degenerate, armed and potentially violent, conspiracy which has taken over our government and much of the private sector via the politicization of rightful clamor over concerns of abuse of authority of any kind as a reinvention of the cycle of abuse, not for reasons of previous victimization but fully conscious evil intent.
RULE 2.5
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and diligently.
(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.
Judge Nevin is incompetent and shows a reckless disregard for the safety of the individual members of the public citizenry. His cooperation with other members of the Judiciary and Court Officials constitutes criminal conspiracy, the full extent of which is still being determined as this, and other matters, proceed.
RULE 2.12
Supervisory Duties
(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to act with fidelity and in a diligent manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under this Code.
(B) A judge with supervisory authority for the performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure that those judges properly discharge their judicial responsibilities, including the prompt disposition of matters before them.
Presiding Judge Nevin failed to act on a complaint of harassment against a member of the District Court’s clerical staff – the referenced act proving many of the problems in harassment law addressed in the introduction to this complaint.
RULE 2.14
Disability and Impairment
A judge having a reasonable belief that the performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall take appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.
Judge Nevin does not appear to be impaired, however this particular sort of malicious behavior has not been fully studied due the controlling nature of the profession, including over the profession of psychology. If suitable expert can be found Judge Nevin should be examined for signs of Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Sociopathy(a complex curiously absent from the current DSM).
RULE 2.16
Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities
(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.
Petitioner is well known for addressing these practices previously, including Bar complaints regarding the corruption of Washington State legal practice. The only proportionality evident in Mr. Nevin’s order and judgment is the degree to which the profession has previously disgraced itself.
RULE 3.1
Extrajudicial Activities in General
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:
(C) participate in activities that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality;
Given the nature of this complaint a full investigation of Mr. Nevin’s extrajudicial activities should be conducted and disclosed.
(D) engage in conduct that would be coercive
Judge Nevin’s status as lecturer at the Seattle University School of Law makes it likely he is continuing the spread of these practices upon those just entering the profession and over whom he has substantial ability to economically coerce, or more.
RULE 3.8
Appointments to Fiduciary Positions
(A) A judge shall not accept appointment to serve in a fiduciary position, such as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other personal representative, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
(B) A judge shall not serve in a fiduciary position if the judge as fiduciary will likely be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves, or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
(C) A judge acting in a fiduciary capacity shall be subject to the same restrictions on engaging in financial activities that apply to a judge personally.
(D) If a person who is serving in a fiduciary position becomes a judge, he or she must comply with this Rule as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than one year after becoming a judge.
One of the most damning ramifications of Mr. Nevin’s actions is the breaching of the fiduciary responsibility of the government to the public in the use of their funds.
RULE 4.1
Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
(A) Except as permitted by law, or by Rules 4.2 (Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections), 4.3 (Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office), and 4.4 (Campaign Committees), a judge or a judicial candidate shall not:
(10) knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement;
The judgment in this case constitutes a knowingly false statement with reckless disregard for the truth and the Constitutional system of the United States, the property of each of its citizens.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
Judge Nevin’s may well have introduced the particular form of abuse of process to Pierce County from its origins in King County and elsewhere. The parties, legal counsel, witnesses, and all those aware of this case are now part of this criminal ‘undertaking’.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true.
Douglas Tooley 2/19/2011
Pierce County, Washington
