24-3-00791-22 | JUDITH GUINN and WILLIAM KUENNIGER Case filed in Lincoln Countyh on 6-3-2024; (509)725-1401 Judith’s Atty: Maxey, Mason Jerome, Retained (509)326-0338 #56935 1835 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99201-1819 masonm@maxeylaw.com & riccik@maxeylaw.com fax:(509)325-4490
Bill’s Atty: Alek Christopher Reiber (509)252-3013, #61303 $6,000 Hughes & Nelson, 505 W Riverside Ave Ste 600, Spokane, WA 99201-0513 alek@hughesnelsonlaw.com
Itemization (15″ minimum@ $100/hr) 00.25′ 25.4.18 @ ~6:55pm phone w/B. Kuenniger 00.50 25.4.15 @ 9:41am w/Mason Maxey, atty (settlement offer, discovery) 00.25′ Phone w/Judith Guinn (Settlement Offer) 00.50′ 25.4.7 @ OCCU w/Bill Kuenigger 00.50′ Tue, Mar 18, 2025, 12:42 PM phone w/Bill Kuenniger 04.00′ 25.3.5 Collating, Reformatting, Organizing, Posting case files & records 00.50′ Phone w/Lincoln Co. Clerk/Admin arranging Case records purchase 02.50′ Misc Phone calls w/Bill Kuenniger re case history & strategy/settlement 01.00′ Wed, 25.4.23 @ 12:45pm E-mail to Mason Jerome Maxey, atty, & Bill 03.00′ Wed, 25.4/23 @ 8:05pm Bank Statements collating and forensic analysis 01.50′ Thur, 25.4.24 @ 12:30am Typing & editing Interrogatory to Petitioner 00.25′ Thur, 25.4.24 @ 12:50am E-Mail to Respondent re Interrogatorry 01.50′ Thur, 25.4.24 @ 10:30am acquiring Gold Hill RE FMV, deed, sale history, data 01.00′ Fri, 25.4.25 @ 2:00pm phone reminding Bill of his duty to respond to interrogatory, com ply w/court process, furnish documents, provide list of all separate and community assets including mother’s will, any liens against her estate, social security statements calculating benefits based on his contributions, medical documents supporting his claims of fragile health needs along with unbroken 5 year history of bank records and explanation of the line items in said bank statements.
Case Number 24-3-00791-22
Court Lincoln
File Date 06/03/2024
Case Type DIN Dissolution of Marriage with No Children
Judge Cobb (while Brown, and Goodell were still sitting judges) signed an Order in 2024 restricting the public and Press from attending Superior Court hearings via Zoom video sessions. (Case #24-2-00002-23)
Judge Cobb excuses the public restriction citing lack of an explicit Constitutional mandate requiring Zoom sessions for the public/observers/press along with arguments citing the expense of Zoom subscriptions and maintaining control over courtroom proceedings. But, this is a very 20th Century argument at best–contrary to good public policy benefitting the community, litigants, and Court alike. The 6th and 1st Amendments are not discretionary or largesse belonging to the Court or even the litigants, but to the public intrinsically and inalienably. In the famous words of JFK’s inaugaurul address to Congress, “The rights of man do not flow from the largesse of government, but are endowed upon us by our Creator.”
The following case law and dissertation emphasizes the word ALL (see Jafar v. Webb, WA Supreme Court case about civil fees for access to justice; Abeda JAFAR, Petitioner, v. William Douglass WEBB, Respondent) in the context of a bar to restricting the public’s access to observe court proceedings according to strict scrutiny standartds. i.e. The state/government has a very heavy burden (strict scrutiny) to meet in demonstrating a compelling (but least restrictive) reason to attenuate the public’s right to observe all stages of court proceedings. Zoom sessions have become the optimal mode of accommodating the poor, the handicapped, the press, and medically vulnerable wishing to monitor the critical functions of the judiciary–the most expensive portion (58%) of Mason County’;s budget.
The fact judge Cobb finds Zoom sessions irritating is insufficient to overcome the public’s right to utilize what it has already paid for. Jails are expensive. Judges are expensive. Court appointed attorneys, clerks, computors and prosecutors are expensive. Yet they, along with a fair trial, are necessary. It is not enough that justice be done. It must be seen. Not only is fairness requuired, but the appearance of fairness. This is black letter law. It is not discretionary. The value of transparency also acts to temper the unbridled unaccountability of sitting judges. The public can watch, unhindered, the temperament and suitability of their elected judges. Mason County courts should encourage more transparency, not less. In the 21st Century, that means utilizing modern telecommunications video technology to transcend time and distance, minimizing public health/pandemic risks–democratizing access to the courts for even the least of citizens who otherwise would not have the means/ability to physically reach the threshold of the courthouse doors and beyond.
Please take the time to read and ponder the well stated arguments (below) favoring more transparent courtroom proceedings and meaningful access to those proceedings, expecially for the public.
Arguably, litigants, witnesses and their attorneys are required to personally attend court hearings to meet the confrontation clause of the Constitution. This is not a valid argument against the public’s right to observe the proceedings, even remotely.
The Court has seen fit to arraign defendants remotely for its own efficiency and to reduce expenses. Those same considerations should be given to the public’s right to observe courtroom proceedings. Bad things happen behind closed doors…even if they’re kept open a crack. Zoom sessions allow the public and sunlight to shine on proceedings that often affect entire families and communities. Consider voting a judge out of office who makes it more difficult for the public to observe court proceedings–including the attenuation of remote access through Zoom sessions. The public is entitled to what it has paid for despite the personal biases of judges who dislike the technology.
Case Information
24-2-00002-23 | ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS vs MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
Case Number 24-2-00002-23
Court Mason
File Date 01/02/2024
Case Type MSC2 Miscellaneous – Civil
Case Status Completed/Re-Completed
Party
Plaintiff ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
Defendant MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
Events and Hearings
1 02/26/2024 Non Case Type Administrative Order View Document Non Case Type Administrative Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Comment THIRD AMENDED
2 03/08/2024 Oath View Document Oath Comment Pro Tempore
Misc Order (Zoom session admiotance) 24-2-00002-23 Cobb criminal Zoom ID:907 729 4239 The Case of Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) Argued:March 29, 1982 Decided:June 23, 1982 Syllabus U.S. Supreme Court Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court No. 81-611 Argued March 29, 1982 Decided June 23, 1982 457 U.S. 596
BACKGROUND AND LEGAL STANDARDS – PUBLIC RIGHT TO ACCESS TO REMOTE HEARINGS DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC1 Many courts across the country have transitioned to conducting remote proceedings during the pandemic or restricting public access to courtrooms. As courts make this transition, many have considered the public’s right to reasonable notice and access to court proceedings, both civil and criminal, is consistent with traditional practice in state courts and with federal and state2 precedent as discussed below.
The 6th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States affords defendants the right to a public trial, including all phases of criminal cases.
The Supreme Court has also held that the press and public have a similar, independent right under the 1st Amendment to attend all criminal proceedings in both federal and state courts.3 Although the Supreme Court has never specifically held that the public has a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings,4 federal and state courts that have considered the issue have overwhelmingly held that there is a public right to access in civil cases under the 1st Amendment.
Courts must ensure and accommodate public attendance at court hearings. However, although constitutional in nature and origin, the right to public and open hearings is not absolute, and may be outweighed by other _________________ 1 The Texas Office of Court Administration wishes to thank District Judge Roy Ferguson (394th) for primary authorship on this document. 2 State courts should review state precedent which may interpret state law or federal precedent as applicable to specific state court proceedings. 3 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (establishing that the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the public a right of access to judicial proceedings). 4 Although the holding is specific to the criminal case, the constitutional analysis in Richmond Newspapers applies similarly to civil cases. As Chief Justice Burger in the majority opinion opined, “What this means in the context of trials is that the First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time that Amendment was adopted.” Id. at 576. In his concurrence, Justice Stevens wrote, “[T[he First Amendment protects the public and the press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government, including the judicial branch[.]” Justice Brennan added, “Even more significantly for our present purpose, […] open trials are bulwarks of our free and democratic government: public access to court proceedings is one of the numerous ‘checks and balances’ of our system, because ‘contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power[.]’” Id. And Justice Stewart specifically addressed the issue of civil cases, saying, “the First and Fourteenth Amendments clearly give the press and the public a right of access to trials themselves, civil as well as criminal.” Id. at 599. 5 See Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984, cert. denied), Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F. 2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984), Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983, cert. denied), In re Continental Ill. Secs. Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir. 1984), Doe v. Santa Fe Indep. School Dist., 933 F. Supp. 647, 648-50 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (discussing 3rd, 6th and 7th Circuit decisions and concluding that the right of the public to attend civil trials is grounded in the First Amendment as well as the common law). With special thanks to the Texas Office of Court Administration __________ competing rights or interests, such as interests in security, preventing disclosure of non-public information, ensuring a fair trial, or protecting a child from emotional harm.6
Such cases are rare, however, as the presumption of openness adopted by the Supreme Court must be overcome in order to close hearings to the public.7 When a violation occurs, the Supreme Court held that a person whose rights to a public trial are violated do not have to “prove specific prejudice in order to obtain relief” and that the “remedy should be appropriate to the violation.”8
As recognized by the Waller court, there may be times when a court finds that the rights or interest of privacy of the proceedings outweighs the rights or interests of a public trial. But because the constitutional right at issue belongs to the public rather than the parties, all closures or restrictions of public access to such hearings must satisfy the same heightened standards handed down by the Supreme Court in Waller regarding criminal cases – even when agreed to by the parties. Thus, while the court may consider the parties’ agreement while evaluating a request for closure, that agreement alone is not sufficient to warrant closure. The 1st Amendment right belongs to the public – not to the parties; the parties cannot waive it by agreement.
It is the court’s affirmative burden to ensure meaningful and unfettered access to court proceedings. In fulfilling this burden, the court should take all reasonable measures necessary to ensure public access. Lack of access to a single hearing (suppression), or even a portion of a single hearing (voir dire), may be enough to mandate reversal and a new trial. When the movement of the general public is limited by the executive branch through the governor and various county judges or the access to the courtroom is limited by judicial orders, the public’s right of access may be violated. Shelter-in-place orders and prohibitions on nonessential travel prevent members of the general public from viewing hearings in the courthouse.
Even if a judge is physically in a courtroom for a virtual hearing, it is the court’s burden to ensure public access to each hearing and take reasonable measures to remove barriers thereto.
There is no reasonable access to the public for a hearing, whether remote or physically located in a courthouse, when emergency measures are in place that would limit the public’s access to the courtroom. For the duration of this crisis and while emergency orders are in effect, courts must find a practical and effective way to enable public access to virtual or in-person court proceedings. Choosing not to provide reasonable and meaningful public access to remote court proceedings at this time may equate to constitutional error and mandate reversal.
Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court, the protective measures employed must be limited to those necessary to protect an overriding interest and no broader. The trial court must consider all reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding and make findings in open court on the record adequate to support the closure.9
The court must weigh the totality of the circumstances in making these fact specific findings. For this reason, no standing order or global rule for closure of specific categories of hearings may be preemptively issued by a court without running afoul of the requirement to provide the public with access to court proceedings.
The court should not close the entirety of a hearing from public view in order to protect a single witness or topic of testimony. Because the court must apply only the least restrictive measures to protect the overriding interest, only specific portions of a hearing or trial that meet this exacting burden may be conducted outside of the public ______________ 6 See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984). 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984) ________________ view, and that only in rare cases. Appellate courts have reversed judgments when a single less-restrictive solution existed but was not considered on the record.10
Courts should strongly consider employing protective measures short of interrupting or terminating a live stream to a virtual hearing. Federal courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have held that a partial closure of a proceeding – limiting access rather than excluding the public – does not raise the same constitutional concerns as a complete closure from public access.11
To employ a less-restrictive measure (for example, temporarily obscuring video but not audio, or not displaying exhibits through screen share,12 providing a phone number for the public to access the audio of the proceeding only, or providing a link that permits certain members of the public only to view the hearing either through YouTube private link or link to the video conferencing platform meeting), the court need only find a “substantial reason” for the limitation and employ a restriction that does not exceed justifiable limits.13
Terminating or interrupting the livestream – even temporarily – would likely constitute a complete closure, and the higher burden would apply.
It bears mentioning that this is not a new issue created by video hearings or public livestreaming. Sensitive and embarrassing testimony is entered in every contested family law hearing yet rarely merits closure or clearing of courtrooms. Child neglect cases categorically involve evidence that is or may be damaging or embarrassing to the child. Commercial disputes commonly involve protected internal corporate operations.
Rarely – if ever – have such trials been closed to the public. Such testimony should not now be evaluated differently simply because more people may exercise their constitutional right to view court proceedings than ever before. Public exercise of a constitutional right does not change the court’s evaluation of whether that right should be protected. Nor should courts erect barriers or hurdles to public attendance at hearings to discourage public exercise of that right. On the contrary, courts are required to take whatever steps are reasonably calculated to accommodate public attendance. Closure of courtrooms is constitutionally suspect and risky and should be a last resort. _____________________ 10 See Cameron v. State, 535 S.W.3d 574, 578 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) 11 United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94, 98-99 (5th Circ. 1995). 12 The Supreme Court has ruled that the media does not have a First Amendment right to copy exhibits. Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (1978). 13 A.J.S., 442 S.W.3d at 567 (citing Osborne, 68 F.3d at 94, and applying the 6th Amendment Waller and “substantial reason” standards to 14th Amendment public rights)
The following official records are but a fraction of the history of DV involving Selena Smith (dob: 6-11-76) who has assaulted virtually every person she has resided with since her majority. The records listed here reflect some of the DV associated w/Selena in Thurston County, but do not include many, including the stabbing of her husband while in Germany, the assault on a housemate when residing in Olympia w/Drew (father of Maya), the physical altercation in Hawaii while residing w/Jennifer (her roommate), or the assault on her female roommate while attending adult classes in Seattle. Selena also admitted (see 2018 statement from last document excerpt below) to the unprovoked choking of James Wells (now deceased), the father of her two youngest children. Besides being a serious danger to herself and others, she gloated and taunted her victim while he was losing consciousness with the most vile and hateful speech ever heard. Speaking to the 911 dispatcher, she added “It was worth it,” revealing her immediate awareness what she’d done was wrong and criminal. “I’m going to jail,” she was heard saying to herself before calling 911 after a clumsy attempt to tamper with the evidence of the crime. “Note I called you first,” she told the 911 dispatcher, knowing the police were being summoned. Yet the evidence of the damaged telephone cord and petechial hemorrhaging remaineded. The arresting officer noticed it straight away.
Selena Smith @ 4-7-25 trial readiness hearing on assault (strangulation) charges
7/17/21 TCSO DV & Burg Supplemental Rpt (View Document)
Selena Smith on 4-7-25 hearing re: new defense atty Kari Reardon
Thurston Clerk’s Notes & BW in Felony case#:21-1-00676-34 (State v. Selena Smith) (View Document)
6/10/22 Selena Letter to Prosecutor Jon Tunheim Re: Thurston case #:21-1-00676-34 –>(View Document)<– Selena justifies stabbing her husband, Charles Morris, while failing to mention her assault on her mother [Kat], her mother’s husband [Hans], various roommates over the years, failure to protect Hazel Smith (her young autistic child) from assault & hospitalization in Colorado, and even her treatment of Maya (her oldest daughter) when the baby was still in diapers while in Alaska. She also fails to mention leaving Maya alone on the streets [Java Flow] of Olympia to garner Drew’s attention [Maya’s father, since deceased], then (years later) abandoning Onawa in California to manipulate James Wells’ attention [Onawa’s father, since deceased]. All of the father’s of Selena’s children have come to a bad end or died unnatural deaths except for Robert Ayer (Maya’s fugitive father). She has assaulted both of her parents and her step-father (Hans, since deceased)–very nearly murdering her own dad by strangulation on 1-8-25. Her life story is replete with the Perils of Penelope, hog tying by drug cartels, interstate flight to evade her pursuers and prosecution, jumping bail in Thurston case #:21-1-00676-34, stealing a leased van in Portland to flee to Slab City, California, then selling the stolen vehicle after arrival before fleeing to Washington, D.C. whre she lived on the streets for years while working under the table for an alternative newspaper and selling marijuanna contrary to federal law in a federal enclave. Selena is no longer merely a scofflaw, but a violent deranged outlaw. She no longer has any support network or reliable friends after alienating them all. In her eyes, charity is offered by suckers. She has bitten every hand that’s fed her, used her children as a vehicle for charity and her support, exploited her own kin cynically and piteously. Frankly, Selena is the quintessential bawling cow with tears streaming down its face because it is standing on its own teat.
Selena Smith on 4-7-25 re: 60 day continuance of trial for assault (strangulation) of father
(Page 6/49 California psychiatric hospital assessment) Episode 1: (1124) CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT-ALL AGE 10/12/2018 – 10/13/2018 Client: Selena Smith (000078296) Submitted 10/14/2018 at 07:17 PM by AMANDA BURNFIN 1201 Crisis Assessment Assessment Date: 10/13/2018 Assessment Time: 08:03 AM Staff /Practitioner completing form: BURNFIN,AMANDA (011541) Legal Status: 5150, VOL Current Psychiatric Symptoms and Behavior (including onset and course of symptoms in support of DSM diagnosis):
The client is a 42 year old female who self-presented due to anxiety/paranoia and she was placed on a 5150 GD hold. The client presented with paranoia, disorganized thought process, and irritable in affect. The client reported she had driven up and down California and to Idaho from her residence in Olympia, WA with her young 5/6 rronth old daughter Onawa. The client presents disheveled in appearance, has long dark blonde dreads, is 61 3″ in height, and was highly anxious to irritable in affect during interview. The client’s blood pressure slightly elevated, appeared highly anxious “can you call my family to tell them I have high blood pressure? … You will take me to the hospital if I need to go right?” The client stated belief that her partner and friends may have taken off with her baby, since “Sky” had not returned her call this rrorning. The client yelled at her rrother on the phone at one point, demanding she find out rrore details on the baby. The client struggled to describe linear sequence of events leading to her admission and became highly irritable when psychiatrist or staff asked questions for clarification.
Per client’s mother, client has history of schizophrenia, worsening symptoms recently. The client, client’s partner, and client’s 5/6 rronth old had been living in the rrother’s guest house in Olympia, WA.
Per client’s partner, ‘Toke,” [James Wells, since deceased] the partner had left the client on September 20th,2018 after the client [Selena] had become physically assaultive towards the partner [James]. (partner said client “tackled” him while he had the baby; client [Selena] said she “choked” partner while he had the baby so she can get the baby). The partner [James] went to stay with a friend “up in the rrountains. The partner [James] said he got a call from his friend [Skye] in Humboldt County on 10/11/2018 that the client had dropped off the 5/6 rronth old daughter with friend [Skye] and reported she had seemed to not intend to return. The partner [James] drove to Eureka to collect his 5/6 rronth old daughter. The client [Selena] attempted to collect the daughter the next day.
The client [Selena] was admitted to SV for further evaluation and stabilization. Daniel “Sky”, friend, 707-601-4312
25-1-00012-23 | STATE OF WASHINGTON vs SMITH, SELENA URSA
Case Number 25-1-00012-23
Court Mason
File Date 01/09/2025
Case Type PRE Pre Filing – Adult
Case Status Active
Party
Plaintiff (Criminal) STATE OF WASHINGTON
Active Attorneys Lead Attorney Bickerton, Tyler Craig
Defendant (WIP) SMITH, SELENA URSA
Active Attorneys Lead Attorney Reardon, Kari Leigh Court Appointed
DOB 6/11/1976
Verified Name Match Selena Ursa Smith OLYMPIA, WA
48
Olympia, WA
Lacey, WA
Portland, OR
Nunn, CO
Denver, CO
Lafayette, CO
Las Vegas, NV
Riverside, CA
San Diego, CA
Centralia, WA
Apo, AE
Jber, AK
Charles Morris
Kathryn Stoker
Hans Stoker
Maya Stoker
Chad Stoker
Charge
Charges SMITH, SELENA URSA
Description
Statute
Level
Date
1
Non-Charge
NON
Non Charge
01/08/2025
Selena Smith @ 4-7-25 trial readiness hearing on assault (strangulation) charges
Events and Hearings
01/09/2025 Preliminary Appearance Original Type Preliminary Appearance Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 1:15 PM Result Held Comment (ZOOM ID:907 729 4239) (Judge Cobb recused himself from any further hearings in the instant case) 1:15 Parties Present Defendant (WIP): SMITH, SELENA URSA
01/09/2025 Affidavit of Probable Cause
Booking #: 25-0025 Name: SMITH, SELENA U Name Number: 302216
Book Date: 14:30:00 01/08/25
Rel Date: No Rel Date
Statute Offense Court Offense Class
9A.36.021.2.DV Domestic Violence SUPR DOMV FB
9A.40.040 Kidnapping, Abduction SUPR KIDN FC
9A.36.150 Domestic Violence
Selena Arrested
(During Selena’s arrest, Deputies were seen counting a large sum of cash found in her backpack.)
Charles Anthony Morris (Selena’s ex) sharing a photo of his wife’s tender embrace w/family.
Maya Smith/(Stoker) Declaration excoriating Selena (her mom) for DV filed in Thurston County Family Court in case #:21-4-00443-34 (Emergency Guardianship Petition) View Document — Maya is Selena’s oldest child & daughter of independent means due to the death of her father (Drew) amd changing her name to Stoker to ingratiate herself w/her multi-millionaire maternal grandmother and Stoker clan…quite successfully it might be added given the wording in the Last Will of Hans Stoker. Ironically, Maya is silent about the heated arguments her grandmother had w/Hans. That would have chilled the financial ardor of her benefactors, cheapening her newly adopted “brand”.
25.1.8 Selena’s call to 911 trivializing and justifying her vicious assault, ripping the phone out of the wall while ordreing me not to call the police before pushing me over backwards in my wheel chair (keenly aware of my fragile health in detail) and struggling with me for about 8 minutes to wrest my cell phone from my hands. I asked her repeatedly tp get pff of me and let me get up, but she refused unless I promised not to call the police. Then she renewed her effort to wrest my cell phone from me, saying she’d let me up if I gave it to her, finally choking me nearly into unconciousness while gloating and taunting me with her imagined grievances. Nobody called her a ‘bitch’ or ‘abused’ her in any way. On the contrary, she was being counseled on the futility of remaining a fugitive if she ever wanted to see her children. She lied about injuring me. The responding deputy observed my eyes were bleeding from being choked and I could not see clearly through the blood in my eyes the resulted from the hemmorhaging. Everytime Selena has assaulted another person, she inevitably tried to justify it and/or trivialize it. I’m lucky to be alive. Selen admits to the 911 operator she got off on trying to squeeze the life out of me when she strangled me. Her actions may not have been premeditated for longer than the time it took her, but her actions were very deliberate and satisfying to her according to Selena. She’s looking at a felony trial (burglary) for the DV incident where she entered her mother’s home in 2021 (July) before kicking her when Deputies tried to separate Selena from her small children. Selena’s mom had acquired legal custody of them after a contentious and unfair Guardianship proceeding w/o representation or a right to a jury trial. What’s apparent here is Selena trying to lie her way out of yet another predicament she caused. Selena is fulll of hate towards virtually everyone, perhaps even herself. My near death experience at her hands combined with her brazen violence and self gratulatory attitude for it demins the maximum penalty the law provides for–10 years minimum would be a good start. Patricidal Orphans have lost their humanity. This 48yo misanthropic patricidal maniac gloated and congratulated herself for letting me live while I struggled for almost three minutes to recover enough strength to get upright off the floor. She trivialized & made light of it to the 911 call center. No, I’m NOT “fine” & will never be after this. I lost a daughter–her children a mother. The responding Deputy could see from my bleeding eyes I was not “fine” as did the medics. Selena lied, denied she’d choked me. The most common cause of death in DV altercations is strangulation. That she couldn’t think of my birth date or name speaks volumes.
CLICK HERE to hear the audio of a remorseless orphan feeling sorry for herself.
Prior Paternal good deeds did not go unpunished. What’s the Biblical quote about casting pearls? The Stokers?–Selena was right about them…in spades. But, they were also right about her. Though she bridles at the allegation of being an unfit mother, She claims she couldn’t escape from the clingy violent perennial homeless psychotic (Robby) accompanying her in her van as she drove to Olympia from Portland to retrieve her children, adding them to the mix of Portland rapists, thugs, and Robby she argued she couldn’t escape that watershed Saturday in July, 2021. She did nothing to intervene when her ratso BF (James Wells, father of her 2 youngest) invited one of his heroin addicted friends to dry out for days under the same roof w/her children. The guy puked all over the bedroom and James left the slimy stench for Selen to clean up, Selena’s children to witness. Maya describes mounds of mouse shit on every shelf and surface. Selena’s common sense and judgment was non-existent, leaving her children in the care/company of violent psychotic strange men who she said they and their gangs held her against her will, sexually abused her, passed her around like a whore, and forced her to trade sex for drugs. This mother’s lack of a true moral compass or sense of direction can be measured in presuming she could protect them when she could not protect herself. The truth is much closer to Kathryn’s (Selena’s mother) observation Selena used her children to support herself on the public’s dime. When Selena’s children were illegally seized w/o due process in Oregon, Selena’s world fell apart, she found a Portland job in a desperate bid to recover her kids before felony FTA for trial, jumping bail, heisting the RV van she’d leased, and fleeing to Slab City, California (The most lawless enclave in America) before being set upon by some locals she’d sold her stolen can to without warning them. They hogties her (according to Selena) not out of predatory instincts to sell into Mexican white slavery, but to teach Selena some manners. One must be very honest to live outside the law. Selena failed that litmus test. The lesson was harsh. Life on the streets of Washington D.C. seemed tame by comparison.
Selena’s Portland benefactors were shocked by the barbarity of the Stokers’ violation of my daughter’s (and her children’s) Civil Rights and Due Process–calling them monsters. As the truth crystalized, it turned out Selena had been the most pernicious monster all along. Where the Stokers piteously cut Selena’s children from half of their family, Selena was dead set on cutting them off from all of her family, repeatedly declaring to all who would listen she hated them all. Selena cast herself as the antagonist in her own rendition of The Last Picture Show.
25-1-00012-23 | STATE OF WASHINGTON vs SMITH, SELENA URSA
Case Number 25-1-00012-23 Deputy’s Report #: 25-00391
Court Mason
File Date 01/09/2025
Case Type PRE Pre Filing – Adult
Case Status Active
Party
Plaintiff (Criminal) STATE OF WASHINGTON
Defendant (WIP) SMITH, SELENA URSA
DOB 6/11/1976
Active Attorneys TYLER Craig BICKERTON, 47990 Mason Co. Deputy—Prosecuting Attorney Address: PO Box 639, Shelton, WA 98584-0639 Phone: (360) 427-9670 EXT 417 E-Mail: tbickerton@masoncountywa.gov Admit Date:2014-10-20
Nicole S. Helser Mason County Prosecutor’s Office – Administrative Secretary Civil & District Court Division P.O. Box 639 521 N. 4th Street Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 394 (360) 427-7754 Fax NicoleH@masoncountywa.gov
Lead Attorney Hack, Karl Alan (withdrew)/DALE BRAUNGER(relieved) Active Attorneys Lead Attorney Reardon, Kari Leigh Court Appointed
Public Defender
Charge
Charges SMITH, SELENA URSA
Description
Statute
Level
Date
1
Non-Charge
NON
Non Charge
01/08/2025
Events and Hearings
01/09/2025 Preliminary Appearance Original Type Preliminary AppearanceJudicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 1:15 PM Result Held Comment 1:15P Parties PresentDefendant (WIP): SMITH, SELENA URSA
1 01/09/2025 Affidavit of Probable Cause View Document Affidavit of Probable Cause (In the above PC affidavit, the arresting officer notes blood in the victim’s right eye, the kind of orbital hemorraging consistent w/strangulation. Selena’s denying and lying about her strangling the victim to a law enforcement official is a separate crime.
She could have lawfully remained silent, but attempted to evade accountability by lying–a consistent pattern in her life reminiscent of the same pattern in her mother’s life–ultimately giving rise to the instant case and reflecting her obvious lack of remorse or accepting responsibility for her actions.
Selena’s denial flies in the face of the officer’s observation along with the paramedics’ documentation, called to the scene of the crime. The victim experienced and relayed information to the paramedics his vision was blurred in both eyes from the blood in them. The victim knows this fact from personal experience.
Selena’s sentence should be enhanced due to her deliberate lying when, in fact, she was verbally gloating and taunting her victim while strangling him. The fact she has but one good hand does not consider her strength, and the victim’s weakened elderly condition–the extent of his medical condition and infirmities well known to her.
Additionally, there was an active struggle over the victim’s cell phone giving rise to her strangling him while claiming she would release him if he turned over his cell phone to her and promised not to call the police. The victim refused.
Selena’s taunts were abusive and vile beyond imagination. She gloated at how he deserved to die. When she finally did release him, she pronounced she was more virtuous and better than him as reason for letting him live. In his shocked weakened state, it took him about 3 minutes to recover sufficiently to get off the floor and flee from his home. Selena followed him up the driveway.
Selena commented at her Hearing the jail was comfortable, the food good along with the company she had. The bail amount was paltry–$5,000–considering the severity of the crime–deliberate attempted murder, if not premeditated.
Selena is a woman who stabbed her husband with a butcher knife while in Germany, but suffered no consequences for it. The deja vu simply increases in severity and magnitude with time. This woman will end up dead or killing someone. She is a menace to herself and others, including her own family and children. She is hopelessly out of control.)
01/09/2025 JIS Check Confidential Document Cover Sheet
01/09/2025 Findings of Indigency
2 01/09/2025 Order Appointing Attorney View Document Order Appointing Attorney Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Comment KARL HACK (recused)
3 01/09/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY
4 01/09/2025 Order for Pretrial Release View Document Order for Pretrial ReleaseJ udicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
5 01/09/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment ORDER FOR PRETRIAL RELEASE
6 01/09/2025 No Contact Order View Document No Contact Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
7 01/09/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment NO CONTACT ORDER
9 01/13/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment INFORMATION
10 01/14/2025 Order Appointing Attorney View Document Order Appointing Attorney Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Comment WITHDRAW: KARL HACK APPOINT: DALE BRAUNGER
11 01/14/2025 Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery View Document Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery Comment AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / DALE BRAUNGER
12 01/21/2025 Order Setting Trial Date View Document Order Setting Trial Date Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
13 01/21/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE
02/10/2025 Omnibus Original Type Omnibus Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 9A Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): SMITH, SELENA URSAAttorney: Braunger, Dale Francis
14 02/10/2025 Omnibus Application of Prosecuting Attorney View Document Omnibus Application of Prosecuting Attorney
15 02/10/2025 Omnibus Order View Document Omnibus OrderJudicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
02/24/2025 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Original Type Pre-Trial Management HearingJudicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 9A
03/11/2025 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A
03/11/2025 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A
16 03/27/2025 Return on Subpoena View Document Return on Subpoena Comment $109.60
03/31/2025 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Original Type Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment With Judge Stevens at 11:30 a.m Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): SMITH, SELENA URSA
17 03/31/2025 Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf View Document Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf Judicial Officer Stevens, David
03/31/2025 Order Appointing Attorney Judicial Officer Stevens, David Comment OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE
19 04/03/2025 Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel View Document Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel
04/07/2025 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Original Type Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 9A / ATTY STATUSParties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTONDeputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): SMITH, SELENA URSA
20 04/07/2025 Order Setting Trial Date View Document Order Setting Trial Date Judicial Officer Stevens, David
21 04/08/2025 Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery View Document Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery Comment KARI REARDON
22 04/09/2025 Order Setting Review Hearing View Document Order Setting Review Hearing Judicial Officer Stevens, David
23 04/09/2025 Order for Competency Evaluation View Document Order for Competency Evaluation Judicial Officer Stevens, David
24 04/09/2025 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order Comment CONFIRMATION OF EMAIL SENT
04/15/2025 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance Comment 9A
04/15/2025 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance Comment 9A
25 04/23/2025 Request View Document Request Comment DSHS – FOR GOOD CAUSE EXTENSION FOR DELAY OF IN-JAIL EVALUATION
26 04/23/2025 Order View Document Order Judicial Officer Stevens, David Comment FOR GOOD CAUSE EXTENSION
04/28/2025 Omnibus Original Type Omnibus Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Stricken Comment 9A Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig
04/28/2025 Order Setting Review Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
04/29/2025 Review Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A / WSH
05/06/2025 Review Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty DHearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A / 10.77
05/12/2025 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A
05/27/2025 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A
05/27/2025 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 9A
VIEW Body Camera video of Sonya’s brutal execution by cop.
Sonya Massey ducked and apologized to an Illinois sheriff’s deputy only seconds before he shot her three times in her home, with one fatal bullet to the head, as seen in body camera video released Monday.
Family Court Judges’ Attempt to Influence Legislation Defeated (for Now)
A couple months ago, I gave the following testimony to the Washington State legislature:
My name is Bandy Lee, and I would like to express my strong opposition to H.B. 2237 and S.B. 5205, which will make the crisis situation in our family courts deadlier…. Giving family courts further legal ammunition could prove catastrophic.
In Washington State, the Superior Court Judges Association (“SCJA”) is proposing significant changes to … the most important statute governing parenting plan decisions in cases involving physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. House Bill 2237 adopts this proposal, and the companion bill, Senate Bill 5205, retains the original version proposed by SCJA that eviscerates the existing statute and case law protections for survivors of domestic violence seeking relief in family court. It does so by creating even more room for judges to remove children from their protective, non-abuser parent, and for the first time in decades, by allowing perpetrators of domestic violence to share decision-making with their victims. It makes it lawful for family court judges to remove children from non-abuser parents with mental health diagnoses such as anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which are common consequences of being a victim of violence.
Family Violence Appellate Project,[1] a leader in creating protections in case law for domestic violence survivors in family law, recently published a memo and line-by-line interpretation of the inherent dangers of this abuser-friendly proposal. For the protection of endangered children and their loving parents, and to prevent further family court-related deaths, H.B. 2237 and S.B. 5205 should not pass.
As legislatures are catching onto judicial abuses in the Family Courts, judges are now aggressively lobbying to pass laws that would make their power even more untouchable. Thanks to the heroic efforts of activists, “the Predator Bill” did not pass, against the attorney general, the WA State majority leader, and the Superior Court Judges Association. Unfortunately, like anyone who goes against this 50-billion-dollars-a-year industry that is always looking to expand its racketeering operation, the senators and representatives who opposed the legislation are facing a vicious smear campaign. The sheer aggression with which anyone trying to place limits are targeted, discredited, and attacked gives away the magnitude and degree of criminality that lies behind this “abuse industry.”
Criminal Courts vs. Family Courts
Hidden within the judicial system, few would believe that something presented as a “Court” is not a court of law but one of anti-law, and one that does not counter but commits crimes. Most people imagine something like the criminal courts, which reflect, more or less, our constitutional and democratic protections. However, there are extreme differences:
With all the problems that criminal courts have, usually racism, criminal courts have structured procedure you can hold them to. Violence is a serious offense and treated as such. The defendant is given a defense attorney who does his job of defending the accused, but the prosecutor also plays her role of presenting potentially incriminating evidence, and there is a jury of peers to hear the facts of the case and to serve as an additional check and balance.
Family Courts have an informal process that almost diametrically opposes criminal courts. What largely flourishes in Family Courts is not racism but sexism, which runs so unchecked as to become a massacre of women — and by extension their children — as I have written about. Far from having a structured process, just about “anything goes” in Family Court. Violence, rather than being taken seriously, is treated as nonexistent in a seeming fantasy notion of “ideal family.” Attorneys from both sides hardly have a role outside of facilitating predetermined judgments, and if they veer outside this task — such as truly defend their client — they risk being sanctioned or disbarred. This is because no one goes against the judge, who reigns supreme in her private fiefdom, in which no jury or public is allowed, where everything is kept under tight “seal”, while whistleblowers are persecuted and reporters punished for doing normal reporting.
In criminal courts, expert witnesses such as myself may be hired to do an evaluation of more nuanced areas that can be presented as evidence, which is examined and cross-examined. The better qualified I am, the more likely the court is to admit me for this task. Fact witnesses are also allowed. Defendant are given a trial within a reasonable timeframe if they refuse to settle — not years or decades — and judgments are made on evidence that rise to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In Family Courts, sound evidence is seldom allowed and in many cases blocked, while specious “evidence” that bolsters the judge’s preferred narrative is elevated, including “experts” with questionable qualifications. In Family Court, the better qualified and more independent I am, the less likely the court will admit me as an expert witness, and inconvenient fact witnesses are blocked, also. Instead, hearsay and perjury prevail, as long as the judge likes what he hears, and even the lower burden of proof, “preponderance of the evidence,” is almost never met.
In criminal courts, the judge is more or less a person beholden to impartiality in charge of the trial, who ensures that the process is conducted fairly and who prevents spurious “evidence” from entering into the case. Counter-claims such as “parental alienation” seldom succeed, as prosecutors and judges are well-versed in criminal psychology and in the typical attempts by perpetrators to deflect charges or to “frame” others. And if the process still fails, there are the courtroom observers from the public or the media, and decisions can be appealed.
In Family Courts, the judge is beholden to no impartiality and has often decided in advance which side to favor, typically based on biases for the male gender or the larger purse — and female judges do not deviate from this rule, either, as they had to be “more male than the men” to have gotten to their positions. And pseudo-theories such as “parental alienation,” rejected across scientific communities and in criminal courts, flourish in Family Courts. Also, whereas criminal court cases end when a trial has concluded, Family Court cases persist almost indefinitely, needlessly muddying previously clear-cut cases and complicating already delicate issues, so that an outsider would not be able to decipher the truth — and this seems to be the purpose. Finally, because of the near-unlimited “judicial discretion,” appeals are seldom possible, let alone successful.
Family Courts are not only a travesty of justice, they are places where criminals are made innocent and innocent people are criminalized. They order children to their abuse at over twice the rate of childhood cancers, and child murders by parent might fall by 20 percent, if Family Courts did not get involved — and that is without counting the death rates of mothers, which are newly, astonishingly coming to light.
The following links are password protected due to the sensitive nature of the evidence involving an ARY child in various states of undress, vaping, smoking illegal drugs, tattooing children, and aping all of this for the camera on her ssocial media accounts. It is furnished here pursuant to Washington State’s ER 904 intended for submission at trial and provided to the parties and/or their attorneys to the case along w/Nancy Tarbell, esq., an assigned investigative GAL in this cause. Because it involves minors, only authorized persons may view it, but may in no event distribute, share, or copy it to their personal devices. It is for Court/Litigation purposes only and to protect the child(ren)’s privacy. Any violation of these guidelines is at your peril. You have been warned. These files are offered here at Nancy Tarbell’s request as the investigatory GAL assigned to this case and only this case as well as to satisfy the ER 904 requirements and to alleviate bottlenecks at trial:
(This Data Base/evidence not intended for cell phones)
VIDEOS per ER 904 Supporting Heather Wood in this Cause:
Inasmuch as Heather Wood, mother, was granted the right to serve other parties Notic by e-mail, and inasmuch as this format most easily accomodates all the parties and is a standard online password protected format due to the sensitive nature of SOME of the evidence, the following matrix satisfies as follows:
ER 904 (Washington State) ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Certain Documents Admissible. In a civil case, any of the following documents proposed as exhibits in accordance with section (b) of this rule shall be deemed admissible unless objection is made under section (c) of this rule: (1) A bill, report made for the purpose of treatment, chart, record of a hospital, doctor, dentist, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, physical therapist, psychologist or other healthcare provider, on a letterhead or billhead; (2) A bill for drugs, medical appliances or other related expenses on a letterhead or billhead; (3) A bill for, or an estimate of, property damage on a letterhead or billhead. In the case of an estimate, the party intending to offer the estimate shall forward a copy to the adverse party with a statement indicating whether or not the property was repaired, and if it was, whether the estimated repairs were made in full or in part and attach a copy of the receipted bill showing the items of repair and amounts paid; (4) A weather or traffic signal report, or standard United States government table; (5) A photograph, x-ray, drawing, map, blueprint or similar documentary evidence; (6) A document not specifically covered by any of the foregoing provisions but relating to a material fact and having equivalent circumstantial guaranties of trustworthiness, the admission of which would serve the interests of justice. (b) Notice. Any party intending to offer a document under this rule must serve on all parties a notice, no less than 30 days before trial, stating that the documents are being offered under Evidence Rule 904 and shall be deemed authentic and admissible without testimony or further identification, unless objection is served within 14 days of the date of notice, pursuant to ER 904(c). The notice shall be accompanied by (1) numbered copies of the documents and (2) an index, which shall be organized by document number and which shall contain a brief description of the document along with the name, address and telephone number of the document’s author or maker. The notice shall be filed with the Court. Copies of documents that accompany the notice shall not be filed with the court. (c) Objection to Authenticity or Admissibility. Within 14 days of notice, any other party may serve on all parties a written objection to any document offered under section (b), identifying each document to which objection is made by number and brief description. (1) If an objection is made to a document on the basis of authentication, and if the court finds that the objection was made without reasonable basis, the offering party shall be entitled to an award of expenses and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the required proof of authentication as to each such document determined to be authentic and offered as an exhibit at the time of trial. (2) If an objection is made to a document on the basis of admissibility, the grounds for the objection shall be specifically set forth, except objection on the grounds of relevancy need not be made until trial. If the court finds that the objection was made without reasonable basis and the document is admitted as an exhibit at trial, the court may award the offering party any expenses incurred and reasonable attorney fees. (d) Effect of Rule. This rule does not restrict argument or proof relating to the weight to be accorded the evidence submitted, nor does it restrict the trier of fact’s authority to determine the weight of the evidence after hearing all of the evidence and the arguments of opposing parties.
Src: 14yo Keira’s mother, Mrs. Robb–demonstrating Adeline’s mendacity to GAL claiming she was partially clothed–kying to a Court official. The Court sought to suppress this evidence of Adeline’s willingness to lie in order to hide her delinquency in drug use, drinking, tattooing minors. caping, and perjury. The Court vacuously argued this pattern of perjury in Court proceedings and its coverup of the fact were not of “legitiment public interest’ and was ‘child pornography”–a thinly veiled threat and attempt to intimidate the press. This video clip came after reaching the hands of Adeline’s mother AFTER being posted on social media by Adeline/Adeline’s underage friend.
Src: Heather Wood, Deposing; John Smith, Notary Public, custodian of the record, recorder & recording equipment owner. i.e. It has been secured from the outset and is a true document
Src: Heather Wood, Deposing; John Smith, Notary Public, custodian of the record, recorder & recording equipment owner. i.e. It has been secured from the outset and is a true document
Src: Heather Wood, Deposing; John Smith, Notary Public, custodian of the record, recorder & recording equipment owner. i.e. It has been secured from the outset and is a true document
