---

Meth, Heroin, freezing cold, murder, desperate women begging for $/meth, life on Olympia’s mean streets for the homeless.

---

---

---

by Brett Weinstein

Jeremy Lee Quinn is an independent investigative photo journalist; he discusses with Bret the various threads involved in left wing extremism today, and their origins decades ago.

---

Find Jeremy on The Public Report: https://www.publicreport.org/​ Find Jeremy on Twitter: @JLeeQuinn

---

Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.

---

Lifelong homeless defendant w/literally nothing appears in Thurston County Court on charges of ‘grazing’ (in Safeway) and FTA.

---

---

---

You have my sincere sympathy. I’ve experienced how colleges (e.g. TESC) give short shrift to due process and fairness. They’re almost a sacred cow in that courts are loathe to get involved in the school’s perfidy. So sue in federal court where you’re more likely to get a competent and impartial judge.

---

If I can be of assistance, call on me.

---

You’re poised, articulate, present well, and amazingly calm given the stress and outrageous abuse you’ve been subjected to. Not that it will help you feel any better, but know the attack on your fundamental rights and 1st Amendment prerogatives are part of a groundswell of cancel culture, de-platforming, and wholesale censorship by powerful social media corporations, colleges, universities, and ANTIFA.

---

Please, for all our sakes, don’t internalize this abuse or hide your light under a bushel. It’s apparent you’re a beautiful person who just may be a petunia in an onion patch. Elton John expressed these sentiments beautifully in Starry Starry Night. You’re doing the work of the angels.

---

---

Michael Cohen Thinks Donald Trump Issued Secret Pardons for Himself, His Children and Giuliani

BY CHRISTINA ZHAO ON 1/24/21 AT 6:22 PM EST

---

Former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on Sunday expressed his belief that the ex-president had issued pardons for himself, his children and Rudy Giuliani before leaving office.

---

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Trump granted pardons to 73 individuals and commuted the sentences of an additional 70, including Steve Bannon and rapper Kodak Black. But his list did not include preemptive pardons for himself, his family or Giuliani.

---

Cohen told MSNBC host Alex Witt that he started to ponder why the former president didn’t issue pardons for himself, his children or Giuliani after “knowing Donald Trump for well over a decade.”

---

“I started thinking to myself it doesn’t really make sense because it’s not like Donald Trump, so what am I missing?” he said.

---

Cohen concluded that Trump could have already pardoned himself, his children and Giuliani in secret, in what he referred to as “pocket pardons.”

---

---

“I kind of think I figured it out,” he said. “I think Donald Trump actually has given himself the pardon. I think he also has pocket pardons for his children and for Rudy and it’s already stashed somewhere that, if and when they do get indicted and that there’s a criminal conviction, federal criminal conviction brought against him, that he already has the pardons in hand.”

---

Cohen explained that he did some research over the weekend into “whether or not the Constitution requires that pardons be disclosed to the American people and to the press.”

---

“I couldn’t find anything that said that it does, and that to me is more in line with what George Conway is trying to say about how Donald Trump doesn’t care about the law, how he will skirt the law, how he will do anything to benefit himself, and that includes even, you know, doing something like this with a pocket pardon,” he added.

---

Newsweek reached out to Trump representatives for comment.

---

In 2018, Trump claimed that he had the “absolute right” to issue a self-pardon.

---

On January 7, Reuters and The New York Times reported that Trump suggested to aides and advisers that he wanted to preemptively pardon himself to protect from future legal action. The reports cited anonymous sources who were unauthorized to speak on record about the matter.

---

CNN later suggested that Trump had been talked out of issuing pardons for himself and his children.

---

If he had pardoned himself, Trump would have been the first president in U.S. history to issue a self-pardon, and the move would have once again placed him in unfamiliar legal territory.

---

The U.S. Constitution sets out that the president may grant pardons for offenses “except in cases of impeachment.”

---

“Such a self-pardon will have limited utility given the sorts of legal challenges that Trump may be forced to confront,” David Gray Adler, a U.S. constitutional law scholar, wrote in a CNN article.

---

“A presidential pardon does not extend to state offences, which means he could still face charges arising from state and city investigations currently being conducted in New York.”

---

---

9th & Pacific Ave, Tacoma, WA (1-23-21) —

---

Details presently unknown but appears to be a LEO panicked after being surrounded by a mob in his car and assaulted. Note: A mob is a deadly weapon and unpredictable.

---

---

---

---

Shelton, WA (1-20-21) — George Steele has been an attorney much of his life and, while no scholar, is familiar with the law–at least criminal law. But a judge’s judicial temperament is as important as his grasp of the law. Steele’s is brittle, harsh, and presumptuous.

---

Steele spent some years in Thurston County as a district court deputy prosecutor. He wasn’t especially good at it. He then spent a few years as a mediocre private practice attorney while sharing office space with Bob Brungardt, esq. and Bruce Finlay, esq. in Shelton. The office layout remains fresh because this reporter had to march into it to openly demand payment from George for process services George had requested. Despite the years, such arrogance affects Steele’s courtroom demeanor to this day. He remains an insensitive ham fisted martinet and an approximation of the federal judge (Julius Hoffman) who presided over the Chicago 7 trial.

---

There were some civil cases and a couple of criminal ones where I was either the opposing party or assisting them. George wasn’t hard to beat and lost all of those cases. Just because you graduate from law school and passed the State bar doesn’t make you a lawyer. Steele is proof of that.

---

Still, incompetence is as pernicious as corruption in the public sector or on the bench. In addition, exemplary judicial temperament is the sine qua non of a good judge. Steele has none. He’s brittle, almost intoxicated with the power attached to the king’s court, and, most importantly, barely masks a thinly veiled presumption of guilt and hostility toward pro se litigants. Conversely, he is more respectful of card carrying attorneys who are careful (e.g. Bob Brungardt, esq.) to suck up to George like any adroit sycophant would. Videos of the loud smacking noises and evidence of the baggage judge Steele and local attorneys bring to these hearings are being processed/edited. They will appear below, sometimes annotated, when completed.

---

One recent example consisted of a ZOOM session of assorted defendants being arraigned and many of their attorneys appearing via ZOOM. It became apparent that neither yours truly nor Steele nor the courtroom staff were sufficiently familiar with the software to accommodate a defense attorney’s request when she asked to speak with her client in a ‘breakout box’. After some apologies and fumbling around by the courtroom staff, the attorney and her client who made the request disappeared from the ZOOM screen…then a prompt appeared on mine inviting me to JOIN–which I did. The attorney immediately appeared/sounded uncomfortable with my avatar’s appearance in the breakout box and I ‘left’ it within seconds after recognizing she had sought a feature permitting her to conduct privileged communication with her client. She alerted Steele who immediately assumed the worst when he asked me to unmute. Rather than ask for an explanation/clarification despite his own confusion relating to the feature, he lead with threats to exclude an observer (myself) from present and future ZOOM court hearings–a direct violation of the 6 Amendment wherein the Constitution guarantees the right to transparency in ALL such proceedings not only to the public, but the litigants! Steele then launched into an insulting lecture about the privileged nature of attorney-client communications, prompting this reporter to opine “for the record, you learn something new [what ZOOM breakout boxes are] every day.” This recorded comment was made after proffering the fact of the prompt directing my avatar to join.

---

This is only scratching the surface of Steele’s inappropriate courtroom demeanor and deeply ingrained bias against defendants and scrutiny. He is incapable of restraining what goes against his punitive nature. In fact, when it became apparent he had won the race for the judicial position in an election against Eric Valley, esq., Mason County’s office for the public defender immediately announced it would invoke a blanket affidavit of prejudice against Steele (effectively removing him from presiding over any of those cases) which add up to over 80-90% of all the criminal cases heard by the Mason County District Court. This created a crisis of confidence among Mason County’s commissioners because the bill for a judge pro tem to replace Steele for the cases at issue would have been substantial.

---

Judge Steele Terrorizes Driving While Suspended Defendant

(A Court Order does not require a litigant’s signature to be effective nor does Washington law require a litigant to sign an order PROVIDED the court has in persona and subject matter jurisdiction. Here, Steele admitted he had no probable cause, thus no jurisdiction And while a judge is generally immune to lawsuits while acting in his official capacity, a judge loses immunity status from lawsuits stemming from the actions of a judge WITHOUT jurisdiction, such as here.)

Behold a monarchist tyrant eager to apply the law ON/AT the community rather than WITH the community:

The young Black defendant WAS out of his depth and smitten with misapprehensions over the meaning of corpus delicti: The facts and circumstances constituting a breach of a law–concrete evidence of a crime, such as a corpse. Of course, not all crimes involve a corpse or the person of a ‘victim’, especially status offenses as in the instant case. But our courts have ruled the state or its agency may, under appropriate circumstances, in law be considered a ‘victim’, e.g. welfare fraud. Our young Black patriot should (as should we all) have done his homework and filed an affidavit of prejudice against Steele before Steele had any opportunity to enter a discretionary order. I would think the one Steele admitted he coerced the young Black litigant into signing was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction which Steele effectively admitted by conceding he had no probable cause. The case SHOULD have been dismissed without prejudice under the circumstances.

---

Similarly, Steele makes it a point (as does the deputy prosecutor) to warn potential jurors against jury nullification (sitting in judgment of an unfair criminal statute or its application) and to consider only the facts presented for/against an accused malefactor. In fact, jury nullification is a fundamental right retained by the people–a long history of precedent supports that right. But it’s best not to twist the lion’s tail by voicing an opinion on the matter to the court or other jurors. Save that exercise for your most intimate and trusted confidantes. Understand, your fellow jurors will behave as a room of snitches. Nothing you say is private, no matter how superficially innocuous. Be confident, but keep your mouth shut and your own counsel.

---

If you’re a defendant, file an affidavit of prejudice (a procedural right you have if exercised BEFORE Steele renders any discretionary rulings) ASAP with the court clerk. This will remove Steele from your case…unless you prefer a judge who set bail at $1,000,000 for a defendant who was cited for driving on a suspended license.

---

Affidavit of Prejudice form (MS Word format)

Affidavit of Prejudice form (PDF format)

Stalking/Harassment Protection Order Packet

---

Disqualifying Judges: Expanding Washington Law

---

Author: Michael Kutzner

Guest Editor: Lara Cullinane-Smith

---

February 3, 2020 10:00am

---

Disqualifying one judge from a case in Washington is a fundamental right. No reasoning is needed. However, a judge may only be disqualified before the judge has made a discretionary ruling or order in the case. The RCW provided (now expanded) slim examples of actions by a judge which are not discretionary ruling or order. In Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., 453 P.3d 992 (2019), the Washington Supreme Court analyzes the few examples and adds another for clarification.

---

Godfrey was a bartender who handled wine bottles. On this occasion, the wine bottle he was handling shattered in his hand. He filed suit for against the winery, Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. and the bottle manufacturer, Saint-Gobain Containers Inc.

---

The case was assigned to Judge Johnson, who set the initial case schedule and discovery cutoff deadlines. The case was later assigned to Judge Stolz. Judge Stolz was presented a stipulated and jointly proposed order extending the parties’ deadlines to disclose witnesses. Judge Stola ruled on and entered the order. Two months later, prior to any other rulings, Godfrey filed an affidavit of prejudice and a motion for Judge Stolz’s recusal. Judge Stolz denied the motion. Judge Stolz subsequently presided over the bench trial.

---

Godfrey appealed the ruling at trial, arguing the trial court erred in rejecting his affidavit of prejudice and motion for recusal. The Court of Appeals agreed with Godfrey and held the trial court erred in rejecting the affidavit of prejudice.

---

The defendants petitioned for review. The petition was stayed pending a decision on point with the subject matter, which ultimately had this case remanded back to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appels reached the same conclusion as it did previously.

---

The Washington Supreme Court then granted review on whether an affidavit of prejudice was timely under then Washington law when it was submitted after entry of a stipulated order extending discovery deadlines.

---

Judicial acts which had been carved out as acceptable prior to an affidavit of prejudice include: arranging the calendar, setting a date for a hearing or trial, issuing an arrest warrant, presiding over criminal preliminary proceedings under CrR 3.2.1, arraigning the accused, fixing bail, and presiding over juvenile detention and release hearings under JuCR 7.3 and 7.4.

---

The Washington Supreme Court previously held an order granting a joint trial continuance motion was discretionary because the decision to grant or deny such a request required the judge to ‘”consider various factors, such as diligence, materiality, due process, a need for orderly procedure, and the possible impact of the result on trial.” Defendants urged the Court to follow this reasoning.

---

However, the Court held rulings on pretrial stipulated orders relating to scheduling and deadlines fall within the exception for “the arrangement of the calendar,” making the above analysis moot. Therefore, the entry of the stipulated order did not render Godfrey’s affidavit of prejudice untimely.

---

The Court’s holding compelled a change in the wording of RCW 4.12.050 to include “ruling on an agreed continuance” as permissible prior to the filing of an affidavit of prejudice. Thus, parties now have greater latitude and, potentially, time in making a proper decision of whether or not to disqualify a judge from the proceedings. Whether this is favorable or not will depend on the subjective desires of each respective party. Proper case analysis and strategy are imperative to keeping the law on your side.

---

George Steele Threatens the Press

[Look here for future videos of George in all his judicial splendor, marking how obsequious certain local attorneys appearing in his court behave. It’s embarrassing.]

---

---

---

---

James Lindsay on Repressive Tolerance & Free Speech

---

The shocking assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 has been followed by widespread censorship and de-platforming of Americans, including President Trump, with the professed goal of preventing violence.

---

James Lindsay, co-author of the bestseller “Cynical Theories,” argues the Capitol breach has been used to implement a major power grab and “apply Leninism to the American context, using corporations as part of the toolset.”

---

This is the “woke” movement in action, Lindsay argues. The ideology involves an inverted morality, he says, allowing it to apply double standards when it comes to political violence.

---

In this episode, James Lindsay, founder of the New Discourses website, gives us his take on our current political moment.

---

---

Washington State Superior/Family Court (Mason County) Commissioner Robert D. Sauerlender typically presides over the domestic family court hearings/proceedings involving matters like juvenile court, divorce, child custody and support, maintenance, division of property, etc. Roy Cohn once said, “I don’t care what th law says, just tell me who the judge is.” There’s a lot of truth in that quote. Worse, Washington law provides no right to exclude a court commissioner through an affidavit of prejudice, only judges despite the fact a court commissioner has virtually the same effect as a judge when he/she presides. A dissatisfied litigant’s ONLY remedy is to seek a review de novo per the following authority:

---

Article 4, section 23 of the Washington Constitution and RCW 2.24.010 provide for the appointment of superior court commissioners.   By statute, commissioners are authorized to hear and determine a variety of matters including  juvenile offense proceedings.  However, in all matters decided by a commissioner the parties are entitled to revision by a judge of the superior court.  A party seeking revision of a court commissioner’s ruling must file a notice of the motion for revision within ten days of the ruling they seek to revise.  A demand for revision of a commissioner’s ruling is “an appeal to a superior court.”

---

This video reveals Court Commissioner Sauerlender adjudicating a distraught father’s motion to hold his ex-wife in contempt for foot dragging and alleged noncompliance with the visitation schedule of their parenting plan along with suggestions/hints she may have exacted alienation of his daughter’s affections in the bargain. Alienation of affections involving a child is, unlike for adults, actionable and all too common. Listen carefully to how Commissioner Sauerlender handles all this, bearing in mind these kinds of procedings often are adjudicated more on the fulcrum of the judge’s biases than the law. Judges are given wide latitude in such matters and Washington residents have no right to a jury trial for actions in equity. (e.g. Divorce/custody disputes). So choose your venue and judge wisely/carefully.

---