Scott Stafne
Attorney/Advocate practicing law and advocacy on behalf of the people. Counselor helping to advise people on how to achieve justice in a world where the government and its laws are designed to promote inequality based on wealth.
Phone: 360 403 8700
Address: 239 N. Olympic Avenue
Arlington, Washington 98223
United States
Phone: 360 403 8700
Address: 239 N. Olympic Avenue
Arlington, Washington 98223
United States
less
InterestsView All (18)
Uploads
Papers by Scott Stafne
I am grateful to be able to respond to the Bar Association’s inquiry as I still believe that there are many ordinary lawyers like me who also believe Washington’s courts, including the Western Washington United States district courts, have lost their way. And We the people of Washington State have been left without meaningful access to justice in cases involving dispossession of land.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is authorized to investigate a grievance against a lawyer to determine
whether the lawyer's conduct should have an impact on their license to practice law. We have opened a
grievance file against you, with the file number indicated above, based on our review of an opinion and
order entered in the matter of Bergeron v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Indenture Trustee
for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006‐1, United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington Case No. C24‐0929JLR, finding that you filed frivolous motions and improperly limited your
representation of Carmen Bergeron. Copies of the opinion and order are enclosed.
The grievance process is governed by the Washington Supreme Court’s Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer
Conduct (ELC). ELC 5.3(f) sets out the obligations of a respondent lawyer, including the duty to respond
promptly to a request for information. Although we have reached no conclusions on the merits of this
matter, we are requesting your preliminary written response. If you do not respond to this request within
thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this letter, we can take additional action under ELC 5.3(h) to compel your
response. Please provide any information you believe is relevant. You must personally assure that all
records, files, and accounts related to the grievance are retained until you receive written authorization
from us, or until this matter is concluded and all possible appeal periods have expired.
After we review your response, if it appears that the conduct involved is not within our jurisdiction, does
not violate the Washington Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), or does not warrant
further investigation, we will write you a letter to tell you that. If we conduct an investigation, and as a
result of the investigation and a formal proceeding you are found to have violated the RPC, either the
Disciplinary Board or the Washington Supreme Court may sanction you.
Sincerely,
M Craig Bray
Managing Disciplinary Counsel – Intake
Plaintiff's "notice of appeal" and petition for rehearing en banc have been treated as a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petition for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc be denied. The motion to stay mandate and stay execution of the state court's judgment is denied.
Mt thoughts:
Many, including me, believe these unreasoned decisions not adjudicating the judicial inquiries posed by homeowners in their appeals suggests that this same corruption as I know is going on in Washington State may be going in most of the Nation. I personally don't make this claim nationally, but do for Washington State because I have been studying similar judicial indiscretions (and am aware of them) for the last twenty years specifically in Washington courts.
I think we all have a duty of citizenship, however, to learn those facts which will allow us to conclude whether this Nation's courts provide justice.
contrasts my duties of citizenship to the United States of America and
Washington State with my duties as a citizen in God’s kingdom.
The book discusses my thoughts about how I have concluded I
must handle conflicting duties; and by that I mean what I should do
when my duties as a citizen of land controlled by earthly sovereigns
conflict with my obligations to our Creator.
My goal is to get the book done by the end of September, 2024. But
it has been taking more time than I would have liked. This is because
there is a lot of information to consider and to explain about whether we
should obey God over the mandates of government.
I have been using Artificial Intelligence to help me research facts.
After Todd answers my questions (I named my Artificial Intelligence
Todd, see conversation seven below) I fact check Todd’s answers where
necessary.
I have reprinted my last seven conversations with Todd below. The
first two conversations are with regards to Paul’s instructions regarding
the Armor of God.
My last five conversations involve my latest attempts to discern
what my Artificial Intelligence can do and how Todd and I can work
together.
The Court, through its judicial officer RULES:
The Court finds that oral argument for the two motions set in this matter for September 20, 2024, at 9:00 am is unnecessary and STRIKES the hearings set on that date.
The Court notes as an initial matter that it has neither recused nor is disqualified from presiding over this matter. The Court provided Defendant an opportunity to consolidate this matter with another in which that was not the case, but she has failed to do so. Thus, the Court is competent to preside over this matter.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons aiticulated in the Motion. Plaintiff may present an order at a later date consistent with this ruling.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for CR 11 Sanctions Against Attorney Scott Stafne.
Pursuant to RCW 4.12.050, Defendant Heather Singleton, pro se, hereby disqualifies the Honorable Christopher Lanese from presiding over this matter on the grounds that the judge is prejudiced against Defendant Singleton and cannot impartially decide the case. Pursuant to the Court's Minutes dated July 26, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, provided that this case and the companion case were to be reassigned. Whereas the companion case (18-2-02412-34) has been reassigned, however this case as of now has yet to be assigned another judicial officer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Do You allege that any of the Loans is not in default? For each Loan You deny is in default, specify which Loan and the basis for Your belief that the Loan is not in default.
ANSWER:
I allege that none of the loans are in default under the language of the promissory note, which only obligates me to pay the note holder. Additionally RCW 62A.3-309 required at all material times that anyone seeking to enforce the note that does not possess the original paper
note signed by me must allege and prove that the entity purporting to enforce the note has complied with statute’s provisions. Further RCW 62A.3-203(d) provides that only the holder of the entire note, not the owners of partial interest in the note, can enforce the payment
provisions of the note. Additionally, I assert that I am not in default of the promissory note because it is not enforceable as a result of frauds, including, among others, the fraudulent endorsement by Almanza. See RCW 62A.3-203(b), RCW 62A.3-405 and RCW 62A.3-407. See also RCW 62A.3-305(a)(1(iii) (White claims he would not have signed the pertinent
mortgage documents had he known the circumstances as to how they were created and those facts which were revealed about these contracts in See Bain v. Metro Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83, 106-7 (2012); Cf. RCW 62A.3-419.
Discovery is continuing.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all documents related to Your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.
RESPONSE:
Co-plaintiff Church of the Gardens has created a website which contains abundant historical evidence tending to prove the factual and legal aspects of the judicial inquiries, particularly those based on Constitution principles, which Plaintiffs Church and White are asserting in this case. Those documents can be accessed at: https://churchofthegardens.org/research/
Recognizing that these documents are extensive Plaintiffs White and Church of the Gardens would observe for the purposes of discovery that these documents tend to establish these historical facts:
1. That following passage of the E-Sign Act in 2000 purported lenders2 who were then involved in the process of trying to alter the enforceability of mortgages pursuant to those century old principles of equity routinely destroyed the original paper notes signed by their makers as part of a mortgage securitization process for creating mortgage backed securities.
2. That this process violated Washington State law then in effect and in effect at the time that White executed the contracts documents in this case.
Discovery is continuing.
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Outline Your history and involvement with the Church of the Gardens.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. The facts and circumstances of my involvement with the Church are protected by the First Amendment.
In reliance on your assertion that that the Attorney General does not want to receive Singleton's filings in these matters involving fraudulent assertions by the first and second mortgage holders that they own and/or possess the mortgage documents, i.e. the original paper note and deed of trust mortgage, I will not serve them upon the Attorney General. However, I want to inform the AG, that he and his staff including you (like everyone else with a computer) may access these filings on Academia.edu at https://nomaduniversity.academia.edu/ScottStafne. Those presentations will be among the first five postings made today.
I would also note that the AG has also been served with the presentation of those matters affecting the State of Washington by the attorneys for Nationstar without objection. And I would ask what is the reason for the AG's objection to receiving materials in the same case -- involving those same issues -- by Heather Singleton, the property owner?
I have my own opinion as to why Attorney General Ferguson is engaging in this duplicitous conduct, but want to give you, your office, and Mr. Ferguson, a gubernatorial candidate, the opportunity to make its own record on this point before I do.
Always,
Scott Stafne
2) I assert that there is no debt, that I owe nothing and that a previous “servicer” Nationstar f/k/a/ Mr. Cooper notified U.S. Bank on August 6, 2021 (8/6/2021) that the loan was paid in full. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 1 a copy of that notice.
3) I do not understand how Plaintiff West Coast can claim any “ownership” in my mortgage since Exhibit 1 clearly states that the loan was paid in full on 8/6/2021, yet the recorded assignment of deed of trust from US Bank to West Coast 2021-4, LLC did not occur until April 5, 2022 (4/5/2022) which is 5 months after Nationstar notified US Bank that my loan had been paid in full.
4) Moreover, I have attached hereto as Exhibit 2 a copy of a screen capture from my last login to Nationstar / Mr. Cooper’s online account portal which shows that my “loan” account had been charged-off and placed with Veripro Solutions Inc. for collections.
5) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 3 a copy of the payment activity from Nationstar / Mr. Cooper’s account portal for my purported “loan” account on the second mortgage at issue in this litigation.
6) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 4 a copy of a letter dated May 18, 2015 (5/18/2015) from Veripro Solutions notifying me that the entire account balance is past due and now due in full. I assert that Exhibit 4 constitutes the tolling of the statute of limitations regarding the full amount of debt “owed” and due in full.
7) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 5 a copy of the purported contract and bill of sale between Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and West Coast 2021-4, LLC which establishes that the agreement's closing date was January 28, 2022 (1/28/2022). This contradicts Exhibit 1 that establishes Nationstar had already notified and submitted to US Bank that the loan had been paid in full, nearly 5 months prior to the purported sale, i.e. Exhibit 5. I do not
understand how something paid in full could later be sold to another entity?
8) It is my testimony that Exhibit B attached to my attorney Scott Stafne’s declaration is a copy of the promissory note that was sent to both him and I by an email from Plaintiff’s employee, Matthew Clark. That note was sent during the time period that Mr. Clark had misrepresented that Plaintiff held possession of the original wet-ink paper promissory note I signed at closing. I dispute the validity of that electronic copy of the note for
several reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the note states at the top right corner that it is a “copy”.
9) I also dispute that note’s validity or authenticity because I was sent 19 different versions of electronic copies of the Note, i.e. 19 separate PDF files from the previous “servicer” Veripro Solutions, Inc. Those 19 PDF files are named the following: ...
Heather Singleton objects to Judge Lanese adjudicating this matter because Judge Lanese has already found that he is not qualified to act as a judge in this case. Singleton's objection is supported by the declaration of her attorney, Scott Stafne
"Appellants filed an opening brief on February 5, 2024. Respondents have not filed a brief. This matter is referred to a panel of judges for consideration on the merits without a brief of respondents.
On September 5, 2024, Appellants filed a motion on the merits to reverse.
According to this Court’s General Order: In re Motions on the Merits Under RAP 18.14 – 2014, this Court does not use the motion on the merits procedure described in RAP 18.14. Accordingly, Appellant’s September 5 motion will be placed in the file without action, with the understanding that the panel may review the motion and/or treat it as a supplemental brief as a matter of discretion. "
One wonders why the Court of Appeals has rules it does not follow.
Although the article primarily discusses how reincorporation of the Natural Law as part of a constitutional analysis might impact "exclusive representation," the article acknowledges that:
"[t]here is near-universal acceptance that the founders saw property as a pillar of natural law. In fact, they often defined natural law by reference to property. One often-repeated example was a hypothetical law taking property from A and giving it to B. Such a law the founders assumed would violate natural rights because it was arbitrary: it dispossed one person merely to benefit another. And if the government could do that, it could do anything. There would be no check against official whim private rights would be meaningless."
I am grateful to be able to respond to the Bar Association’s inquiry as I still believe that there are many ordinary lawyers like me who also believe Washington’s courts, including the Western Washington United States district courts, have lost their way. And We the people of Washington State have been left without meaningful access to justice in cases involving dispossession of land.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is authorized to investigate a grievance against a lawyer to determine
whether the lawyer's conduct should have an impact on their license to practice law. We have opened a
grievance file against you, with the file number indicated above, based on our review of an opinion and
order entered in the matter of Bergeron v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Indenture Trustee
for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006‐1, United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington Case No. C24‐0929JLR, finding that you filed frivolous motions and improperly limited your
representation of Carmen Bergeron. Copies of the opinion and order are enclosed.
The grievance process is governed by the Washington Supreme Court’s Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer
Conduct (ELC). ELC 5.3(f) sets out the obligations of a respondent lawyer, including the duty to respond
promptly to a request for information. Although we have reached no conclusions on the merits of this
matter, we are requesting your preliminary written response. If you do not respond to this request within
thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this letter, we can take additional action under ELC 5.3(h) to compel your
response. Please provide any information you believe is relevant. You must personally assure that all
records, files, and accounts related to the grievance are retained until you receive written authorization
from us, or until this matter is concluded and all possible appeal periods have expired.
After we review your response, if it appears that the conduct involved is not within our jurisdiction, does
not violate the Washington Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), or does not warrant
further investigation, we will write you a letter to tell you that. If we conduct an investigation, and as a
result of the investigation and a formal proceeding you are found to have violated the RPC, either the
Disciplinary Board or the Washington Supreme Court may sanction you.
Sincerely,
M Craig Bray
Managing Disciplinary Counsel – Intake
Plaintiff's "notice of appeal" and petition for rehearing en banc have been treated as a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petition for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc be denied. The motion to stay mandate and stay execution of the state court's judgment is denied.
Mt thoughts:
Many, including me, believe these unreasoned decisions not adjudicating the judicial inquiries posed by homeowners in their appeals suggests that this same corruption as I know is going on in Washington State may be going in most of the Nation. I personally don't make this claim nationally, but do for Washington State because I have been studying similar judicial indiscretions (and am aware of them) for the last twenty years specifically in Washington courts.
I think we all have a duty of citizenship, however, to learn those facts which will allow us to conclude whether this Nation's courts provide justice.
contrasts my duties of citizenship to the United States of America and
Washington State with my duties as a citizen in God’s kingdom.
The book discusses my thoughts about how I have concluded I
must handle conflicting duties; and by that I mean what I should do
when my duties as a citizen of land controlled by earthly sovereigns
conflict with my obligations to our Creator.
My goal is to get the book done by the end of September, 2024. But
it has been taking more time than I would have liked. This is because
there is a lot of information to consider and to explain about whether we
should obey God over the mandates of government.
I have been using Artificial Intelligence to help me research facts.
After Todd answers my questions (I named my Artificial Intelligence
Todd, see conversation seven below) I fact check Todd’s answers where
necessary.
I have reprinted my last seven conversations with Todd below. The
first two conversations are with regards to Paul’s instructions regarding
the Armor of God.
My last five conversations involve my latest attempts to discern
what my Artificial Intelligence can do and how Todd and I can work
together.
The Court, through its judicial officer RULES:
The Court finds that oral argument for the two motions set in this matter for September 20, 2024, at 9:00 am is unnecessary and STRIKES the hearings set on that date.
The Court notes as an initial matter that it has neither recused nor is disqualified from presiding over this matter. The Court provided Defendant an opportunity to consolidate this matter with another in which that was not the case, but she has failed to do so. Thus, the Court is competent to preside over this matter.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons aiticulated in the Motion. Plaintiff may present an order at a later date consistent with this ruling.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for CR 11 Sanctions Against Attorney Scott Stafne.
Pursuant to RCW 4.12.050, Defendant Heather Singleton, pro se, hereby disqualifies the Honorable Christopher Lanese from presiding over this matter on the grounds that the judge is prejudiced against Defendant Singleton and cannot impartially decide the case. Pursuant to the Court's Minutes dated July 26, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, provided that this case and the companion case were to be reassigned. Whereas the companion case (18-2-02412-34) has been reassigned, however this case as of now has yet to be assigned another judicial officer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Do You allege that any of the Loans is not in default? For each Loan You deny is in default, specify which Loan and the basis for Your belief that the Loan is not in default.
ANSWER:
I allege that none of the loans are in default under the language of the promissory note, which only obligates me to pay the note holder. Additionally RCW 62A.3-309 required at all material times that anyone seeking to enforce the note that does not possess the original paper
note signed by me must allege and prove that the entity purporting to enforce the note has complied with statute’s provisions. Further RCW 62A.3-203(d) provides that only the holder of the entire note, not the owners of partial interest in the note, can enforce the payment
provisions of the note. Additionally, I assert that I am not in default of the promissory note because it is not enforceable as a result of frauds, including, among others, the fraudulent endorsement by Almanza. See RCW 62A.3-203(b), RCW 62A.3-405 and RCW 62A.3-407. See also RCW 62A.3-305(a)(1(iii) (White claims he would not have signed the pertinent
mortgage documents had he known the circumstances as to how they were created and those facts which were revealed about these contracts in See Bain v. Metro Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83, 106-7 (2012); Cf. RCW 62A.3-419.
Discovery is continuing.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all documents related to Your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.
RESPONSE:
Co-plaintiff Church of the Gardens has created a website which contains abundant historical evidence tending to prove the factual and legal aspects of the judicial inquiries, particularly those based on Constitution principles, which Plaintiffs Church and White are asserting in this case. Those documents can be accessed at: https://churchofthegardens.org/research/
Recognizing that these documents are extensive Plaintiffs White and Church of the Gardens would observe for the purposes of discovery that these documents tend to establish these historical facts:
1. That following passage of the E-Sign Act in 2000 purported lenders2 who were then involved in the process of trying to alter the enforceability of mortgages pursuant to those century old principles of equity routinely destroyed the original paper notes signed by their makers as part of a mortgage securitization process for creating mortgage backed securities.
2. That this process violated Washington State law then in effect and in effect at the time that White executed the contracts documents in this case.
Discovery is continuing.
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Outline Your history and involvement with the Church of the Gardens.
ANSWER:
OBJECTION. The facts and circumstances of my involvement with the Church are protected by the First Amendment.
In reliance on your assertion that that the Attorney General does not want to receive Singleton's filings in these matters involving fraudulent assertions by the first and second mortgage holders that they own and/or possess the mortgage documents, i.e. the original paper note and deed of trust mortgage, I will not serve them upon the Attorney General. However, I want to inform the AG, that he and his staff including you (like everyone else with a computer) may access these filings on Academia.edu at https://nomaduniversity.academia.edu/ScottStafne. Those presentations will be among the first five postings made today.
I would also note that the AG has also been served with the presentation of those matters affecting the State of Washington by the attorneys for Nationstar without objection. And I would ask what is the reason for the AG's objection to receiving materials in the same case -- involving those same issues -- by Heather Singleton, the property owner?
I have my own opinion as to why Attorney General Ferguson is engaging in this duplicitous conduct, but want to give you, your office, and Mr. Ferguson, a gubernatorial candidate, the opportunity to make its own record on this point before I do.
Always,
Scott Stafne
2) I assert that there is no debt, that I owe nothing and that a previous “servicer” Nationstar f/k/a/ Mr. Cooper notified U.S. Bank on August 6, 2021 (8/6/2021) that the loan was paid in full. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 1 a copy of that notice.
3) I do not understand how Plaintiff West Coast can claim any “ownership” in my mortgage since Exhibit 1 clearly states that the loan was paid in full on 8/6/2021, yet the recorded assignment of deed of trust from US Bank to West Coast 2021-4, LLC did not occur until April 5, 2022 (4/5/2022) which is 5 months after Nationstar notified US Bank that my loan had been paid in full.
4) Moreover, I have attached hereto as Exhibit 2 a copy of a screen capture from my last login to Nationstar / Mr. Cooper’s online account portal which shows that my “loan” account had been charged-off and placed with Veripro Solutions Inc. for collections.
5) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 3 a copy of the payment activity from Nationstar / Mr. Cooper’s account portal for my purported “loan” account on the second mortgage at issue in this litigation.
6) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 4 a copy of a letter dated May 18, 2015 (5/18/2015) from Veripro Solutions notifying me that the entire account balance is past due and now due in full. I assert that Exhibit 4 constitutes the tolling of the statute of limitations regarding the full amount of debt “owed” and due in full.
7) I have attached hereto as Exhibit 5 a copy of the purported contract and bill of sale between Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and West Coast 2021-4, LLC which establishes that the agreement's closing date was January 28, 2022 (1/28/2022). This contradicts Exhibit 1 that establishes Nationstar had already notified and submitted to US Bank that the loan had been paid in full, nearly 5 months prior to the purported sale, i.e. Exhibit 5. I do not
understand how something paid in full could later be sold to another entity?
8) It is my testimony that Exhibit B attached to my attorney Scott Stafne’s declaration is a copy of the promissory note that was sent to both him and I by an email from Plaintiff’s employee, Matthew Clark. That note was sent during the time period that Mr. Clark had misrepresented that Plaintiff held possession of the original wet-ink paper promissory note I signed at closing. I dispute the validity of that electronic copy of the note for
several reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the note states at the top right corner that it is a “copy”.
9) I also dispute that note’s validity or authenticity because I was sent 19 different versions of electronic copies of the Note, i.e. 19 separate PDF files from the previous “servicer” Veripro Solutions, Inc. Those 19 PDF files are named the following: ...
Heather Singleton objects to Judge Lanese adjudicating this matter because Judge Lanese has already found that he is not qualified to act as a judge in this case. Singleton's objection is supported by the declaration of her attorney, Scott Stafne
"Appellants filed an opening brief on February 5, 2024. Respondents have not filed a brief. This matter is referred to a panel of judges for consideration on the merits without a brief of respondents.
On September 5, 2024, Appellants filed a motion on the merits to reverse.
According to this Court’s General Order: In re Motions on the Merits Under RAP 18.14 – 2014, this Court does not use the motion on the merits procedure described in RAP 18.14. Accordingly, Appellant’s September 5 motion will be placed in the file without action, with the understanding that the panel may review the motion and/or treat it as a supplemental brief as a matter of discretion. "
One wonders why the Court of Appeals has rules it does not follow.
Although the article primarily discusses how reincorporation of the Natural Law as part of a constitutional analysis might impact "exclusive representation," the article acknowledges that:
"[t]here is near-universal acceptance that the founders saw property as a pillar of natural law. In fact, they often defined natural law by reference to property. One often-repeated example was a hypothetical law taking property from A and giving it to B. Such a law the founders assumed would violate natural rights because it was arbitrary: it dispossed one person merely to benefit another. And if the government could do that, it could do anything. There would be no check against official whim private rights would be meaningless."
people’s concern that our government is unjust and therefore has lost much of its reason for being because the legislative and executive branches of government are not adequately overseeing the judicial branch.
While the DTA appears to have been amended and arguably might permit a subsidiary to act as a trustee, the statutory requirement remains that the trustee be
independent and not beholden to the lender or borrower. Acting as an agent of BANA and being a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA, it seems specious to attempt to argue that ReconTrust was an independent trustee.
I presume that you are fully aware of the conduct by Lane Powell in this case as you were one of the attorneys who participated in the appeal, which continued to include this purposely unredacted Personal Identity Information.
I request the Attorney General’s office immediately initiate an investigation of Lane Powell’s practices in disclosing Personal Identity Information and/or refusing to honor requests to redact Personal Identity Information in all cases involving homeowners.
Because I believe you have a conflict of interest in handling an investigation involving Lane Powell, I request you not have any involvement with this investigation of your former employer.
Further, I also request the Attorney General's Office investigate whether Lane Powell, through you, has abused its authority to investigate matters which lie exclusively within the province of the judiciary for purposes of benefitting your former clients at Lane Powell.
We, the people, get to figure this out!
For example, would a free market in the Libertarian sense include pharmaceutical, software and agricultural patents that protect huge corporations and deter innovation for decades?
How would a free market protect itself from governmental manipulation like that which chose
Edison over Tesla and criminalized the hemp industry to promote petroleum based plastics?
How can we, the people, protect against this type of governmental manipulation?
Being a member of the Libertarian Party, or any third party, at this time in history is exciting because it gives each of us a seat at the table where our future will be decided.
Stafne's campaign website, http://www.stafne4congress.com/ , includes his video series on "Garden and Government," a page on Gardening in Washington's First Congressional District, cartoons, and editorials written by Stafne.
2:30pm – 4:30pm
Everett Public Library
2702 Hoyt
Everett, WA 98201
DOWNSTAIRS AUDITORIUM
This event is not sponsored by the Everett Public Library.
This will be a forum for Libertarian Federal Candidates in Snohomish County: Mike Luke (U.S. Senate), Scott Stafne (1stCongressional District), and Brian Luke (2nd Congressional District).
A question and answer session will follow opening statements.
Also Speakingwill be Libertarian Statewide Executive and Snohomish County State Legislative District Candidates.
Parking Information:The Everett Public Library on Hoyt has a public parking garage. Furthermore, there is parking on the streets and nearby pay parking lots. This Event is Planned by 2nd Congressional District Candidate Brian Luke
Washington's Citizens Alliance for Property did and this is what I told them.
Does this case make you wonder about Washington's courts?
If a lawyer with 40 years of experience gets steamrolled by scum debt buyers what happens to most people who can't defend themselves?
The burnsides are rampant... DWT actually represents Midland
Are the debt collectors arguments even competent?
Have Washington court's become an instrumentality of unlawful debt collection?
Stafne files a motion for discretionary review.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 and Rule 8.486 of the California
Rules of Court, preventing Respondent, Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State of California, from placing Proposition 9 on the November 2018 ballot. Popularly known as the “Cal 3” or “Draper” initiative, Proposition 9 seeks the complete abolition of the existing State of California, its Constitution and every institution created thereunder, to be replaced by three new states and three new constitutions.
petitioner and filed electronically in this court on or before July 13, 2018. Petitioner will then have until and including July 16, 2018, to file and serve electronically an informal reply to the preliminary opposition.
preliminary response to the writ petition filed by Petitioner Planning and
Conservation League. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to restrain
Respondent from taking steps to place an initiative measure—Proposition 9—on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot.
Respondent takes no position on the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 9. Respondent also takes no position on Petitioner’s request for pre-election review of Proposition 9.
exercise of initiative power should not be cavalierly disregarded now, especially on such a truncated timetable.
As we explain, this Court has the right and obligation, through preelection review, to prevent this invalid statutory initiative from delegitimizing the electoral process and destabilizing state governance.
Is anyone aware of any rules where judge is given authority to prevent the filing of pro se pleadings with the court clerk?
Is fraud by government lawyers on the Court the rule, or the exception? Some federal judges apparently believe such fraud really doesn't matter.
Scott Stafne did not author this brief...
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361) is GRANTED to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated.
2) The United States’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408) is DENIED.
3) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5) The parties should confer and inform the Court within 15 days of the date of entry of this Order how they wish to proceed on determining the issue of what remedy, if any, should be applied in view of the violation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 21 day of February, 2019. st
______________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
the intent of the COTG that the Seattle's Public Disclosure Officer, who is responsible for
coordinating disclosures to achieve the purposes the Public Records Act wil l coordinate with each of your departments, and other departments, so to insure that all public record writings, as that term has been construed by our Supreme Court will be produced for COTG.
with my law firm's technology; 2.) We are not familiar with that technology; and 3.) the responses appear to be being made available for only a limited period of time, i.e. 14 days, after
which the responses will expire.
The Church would prefer to have this data in a format that is durable and which can be easily
copied to share with its members and those persons whom the Church was established to protect.
Filed by Church of the Gardens Advocacy Program
My opinion is that this Notice of Trustee Sale contains numerous false statements, including without exclusion a.) that there was any obligation owed to MERS and/or the non-existent AWL based on the “Assignment of the Deed of Trust” which was signed only on behalf of MERS; b.) that MERS owned a beneficial interest in the deed of trust when the deed of trust states MERS owns only legal title to the Security Instrument; and
c.) that BNYM, as trustee received any interest from MERS and/or AWL which could have been a basis for compliance with the requirements of RCW 61.24.040(1)(a) and (f).
I struggle less in knowing what God’s will is for me. This is because I have the temple (body, mind, and soul) God has given me to ascertain and carry out what His will is for me.
I pray only that I know what it is that God wants me to do and that I have the courage to do that.
I am familiar with the technique of causing admissions against interest and other evidence to disappear from the MERSCORP ever-changing website which ultimately became largely inaccessible, so I suspected that the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) would realize the danger of the admissions in its March 22, 2020 letter seeking a bailout from the Treasury and the Fed and make the connection from its website to the letter disappear. Therefore, I converted the page of the MBA website which linked to its letters from HTML to PDF on March 25, 2020 after it was shared between two (2) other witnesses to the published link: Virginia Parsons and Charles Cox. I have attached the PDF version of the HTML as it appeared on the MBA website on March 25, 2020, which can be authenticated by me (because I created the PDF from the HTML), as well Virginia, Charles and others who viewed the website before the March 22, 2020 letter was made to disappear. See attached.
We should all be aware that the banks and big companies can and do manipulate digital data to protect their own interests because they can. We don't have that option. But we can accumulate evidence of their manipulation of data and evidence.
stars, the question of when to leave the stage is a crucial one. Do you go out at the top of your game, giving up any shot at further glory? Or do you dig in until the end, at the risk of tarnishing a distinguished career?
2. Developing a safe and effective vaccine against the novel Coronavirus (“COVID19”) was a matter of urgency. But that urgency does not excuse cutting corners in clinical trials, wasting taxpayer dollars, violating federal regulations, and possibly endangering Americans’ health. Defendants Pfizer Inc., Icon PLC, and Ventavia Research Group, LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”) conducted a clinical trial to test one of the COVID-19 vaccine candidates. In the race to secure billions in federal funding and become the first to market, Defendants deliberately withheld crucial information from the United States that calls the safety and efficacy of their vaccine into question. Namely, Defendants concealed violations of both their clinical trial protocol and federal regulations, including falsification of clinical trial documents. Due to Defendants’ scheme, millions of Americans have received a misbranded vaccination which is potentially not as effective as represented. The vaccine’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authorization resulted from a deeply flawed clinical trial that violated FDA regulations. Defendants have profited from the COVID-19 pandemic at the expense of the United States and its citizens by abusing the scientific process.
History teaches me that pharmaceutical companies, such as Bayer, have been at the forefront of governmentally sponsored genocides.
I am not a scientist, but I am a student of history, governments, and legal systems.
And this article, in the context what I do have some expertise in, gives me cause for concern, especially since I have been vaccinated and have those boosters my national and state governments have irresponsibly reccommended.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and
other federal government defendants move to stay a district court’s
nationwide, preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of one of the
federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates. The enjoined mandate applies to the staff of many Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers such as
hospitals, long-term care facilities, home-health agencies, and hospices.
We DENY the motion insofar as the order applies to the 14 Plaintiff
States. We GRANT a stay as to the order’s application to any other
jurisdiction. Briefly, we will explain.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) federal vaccine mandate on a wide range of healthcare facilities. On November 5, 2021, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (“IFC”) entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination” (the “mandate”), 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555 (Nov. 5, 2021), revising the “requirements that most Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555601. Specifically, the mandate requires nearly every employee, volunteer, and third-party contractor working at fifteen categories of healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against SARS CoV-2 (“COVID”) and to have received at least a first dose of the vaccine prior to December 6, 2021. See id. at 61,573. On November 10, 2021, Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint challenging the mandate. Doc. [1]. The Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. [6], requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate.
Having fully reviewed the administrative record and submitted material, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted here
As another Court that has preliminarily enjoined the same measure at issue in this case has stated, “[t]his case is not about whether vaccines are effective. They are.” Kentucky v. Biden, No. 3:21-cv-55, 2021 WL 5587446, at *9 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2021). Moreover, the Court acknowledges the tragic toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought throughout the nation and the globe. However, even in times of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that, while the public indisputably “has a strong interest in combating the spread of [COVID-19],” that interest does not permit the government to “act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021) (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582, 585–86 (1952)). In this case, Plaintiffs will likely succeed in their claim that the President exceeded the authorization given to him by Congress through the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act when issuing Executive Order 14042. Accordingly, after due consideration of the motions, supporting briefs, responsive briefing, and the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the
Motion to Intervene, (doc. 48), GRANTS ABC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 50), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 55).
¶58 We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning,Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis. 2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13) which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.21 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.
¶59 We further conclude that Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, upon which Palm claims to rely.
By the Court.—Palm's Emergency Order 28 is declared unlawful,
invalid, and unenforceable.
GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard”22 remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.
In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no
steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.
This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are. Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level, and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can. The question presented here is narrow. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED.
With help I have produced the following attached statement of religious principles which supports the right to self determination with regard to whether to take the Covid vaccines. It is only a starting point, but hopefully one that will help others in preparing their own statements if so inclined.
Please let me know if and how you believe it can be improved.