Soul Snatcher Productions ™ & Law Library ****************- Democracy Wall -***************

After the traditional worshiping of the flag, Pork Chair Jay Hupp stomps on one of the foremost principles America stands for: Free Speech in a political/government forum. At the end of this clip, Jay Hupp can be seen attempting to censor the content of one citizen’s speech extolling the virtues of the right, if somewhat prematurely, complimenting the Pork Commissioners for not interfering with it only to be made a liar in mid-sentence by the man who had only minutes before led the room in a pledge to the flag of the United States of America and the principles for which it stands.

At least one man refused to participate with the hypocrite in chief defiling the very principles to which he’d just sworn allegiance.

Earlier in the clip, the Pork Commissioners can be seen rejecting the argument the public should have an opportunity to comment on a proposed change to how Public Records requests are handled.

Shortly thereafter, Pork Chair Jay Hupp introduced a ‘letter of censure’ targeting Commissioner Miles after admitting to drafting it himself with the complicity of Pork Attorney Skip Hauser.

Executive Pork Director Dobson Mugs for the Camera

Commissioner Miles can be seen responding by shredding the letter of censure when asked to sign it after a testy exchange of words during the comment period following its introduction…whereupon Pork Attorney Skip Hauser is seen eagerly mincing and prancing over to Pork Executive Director Dobson to get another copy to give Miles.

Commissioner Miles thanks Constituents

Commissioner Miles confers with Constituents

Commissioners Miles Smiles with local residents

Commissioner Miles and Residents discuss Port business

An interesting legal side note to this carnival is, like the relationship between the White House Counsel in Washington D.C. and U.S. President, Jay Hupp has no right of privileged communication with the Pork Attorney. That communication is available through discovery in a lawsuit by the public or the aggrieved/injured party. Mr. Hupp (like the President) would have to obtain his own private counsel to enjoy the privilege between attorney and client.

Pork Attorney Skip Hauser is paid with PUBLIC (taxpayer) funds. Hence, he serves (by extension) the public, not Mr. Hupp personally. For Mr. Hupp to engage and use the Pork Attorney for his own ends/purposes or without consent from the Commission as a whole violates the basis for one alleged criticism (i.e. acting as representing the entire body of the commission when no such consensus/majority was reached through open meeting requirements) leveled at Mr. Miles in the very letter of censure he proffered during this heated exchange.

Rachel Hansen Hides behind her young child to spite reporter during meeting

Midway during the public meeting while photos were being taken of attendees, Rachel Hansen objected to the pictures while her young child was present. A reporter muttered she should leave the child at home given the public nature of the meeting.

Upon reflection, the woman who admitted after the meeting to calling Pork employee Teresa Rebo “…a low life piece of sh*t” decides to mug for the camera, but later calls the cameraman the same thing hard on the heels of arguing her child was too precious to be exposed to cameras in a public venue.

On 2nd Thought, Rachel decides to Mug for the Camera

Mr. Hansen enjoys a light moment

The Hansens get into the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

The Hansens get into the Mood

 Pork Chair Stomps 1st Amendment, Conspires w/Pork Attorney (7-5-11)

 

The Sting

On the eve of our celebration of America’s independence and the principles for which it was founded, in an effort to confuse and distract voters, Pork of Shelton Commissioners Jay Hupp and Tom Wallitner are attempting to bayonet the public’s most stalwart defender, Commissioner Jack Miles, with an ill conceived/written letter of censure based on misconstruction(s) of RCW 42.23.050 and 42.23.070(4).

Toothless Letter of Censure attacking Commissioner Jack Miles

The problem for the Pork Commissioners, as this draft makes abundantly clear, is they’re holding the rifle from the wrong end! A careful reading of ALL of RCW 42.23 makes clear the statute is intended to weigh against corruption by municipal officers/elected officials.

The distinction is important because under the stated definitions in the chapter, Pork Executive Director John Dobson is a ‘municipal officer’.

The very law to which Mr. Hupp and Mr. Wallitner draw attention serves as an indictment against the Pork and John Dobson–as well as a shield for Mr. Miles and a courageous victim of recent retaliatory firing, whistle blower Teresa Rebo, who complained of the very types of conflicts of interest at the Pork RCW 42.23 prohibits.

‘Clear Cut’ does an excellent job of offering an analysis of RCW 42.23 and the Public Records Act posted at: RCW 42.23 and 42.56.30 interpretation except he/she misunderstands the latter in presuming it creates new rights of privacy in law, which it does not.

The PRA creates exemptions to the right of the public to demand copies of certain documents, i.e. Those exemptions limit its scope. The exemptions do not create new privacy rights or designate punishment/penalties for failing to abide by said exemptions. Presumably that would require the filing of a tort based lawsuit by one with ‘standing’ claiming an invasion of privacy.

But ‘Cut’ is spot on in acknowledging to just WHOM the privacy right belongs. In this instance, it certainly doesn’t belong to the Pork Commissioners or Director Dobson.

This charge of the Pork Brigade embarrassingly reveals the senility, incompetence, and indolence of Mr. Hupp and Mr. Wallitner by authorizing the drafting of this ill fated attack. They are either getting their legal advice from the backs of cereal boxes, or relying on their own understanding of the law. In either event, residents are egregiously ill served. It’s plain they no longer have the capacity or the inclination to grasp our laws with the perspicacity and vigor required of an elected official. But the mechanism for removing an elected official from office for mental incompetence is muddled and difficult.

Finally, the delusional thinking of the Pork Commissioners is demonstrated in their Napoleon complex: Who do they think they are?–Congress! Hupp and Wallitner have NO legal authority to ‘censure’ Mr. Miles or impose any sanction/penalty on him whatsoever. They might choose to enlist the authority of a sitting Superior Court Judge if they could arrive at a non-specious legal theory to do so…a theory they’ve failed to enunciate.

Other than a PR move to distract and confuse, this bare ‘censure’ has no more legal effect/meaning than any other citizen’s. No law provides the Pork Commissioners with any more authority over Commissioner Miles than exercise of their 1st Amendment Rights…and that’s it!…period. That they appear to believe otherwise is representative of how delusional they’ve become.

Commissioner Miles is free to reveal whatever Pork business of legitimate public interest he cares to. Any valid objection would have to be brought by an injured party with a basis in law for doing so. Nothing offered in the bayonet letter cites such a basis except the possibility of their inadvertently having fallen on their own swords.

(Note to Pork Commissioners: When launching a bayonet charge, don’t hold it from the pointy end!)

Examples: RCW 42.23.030 prohibits conflicts of interest in contracts entered by municipalities such as the Pork. (i.e. What Teresa Rebo complained of.) A number of exceptions are listed under sub-section 6. However, in that instance, sub-sub-section ‘e’ states:

(e) The municipality shall maintain a list of all contracts that are awarded under this subsection (6). The list must be made available for public inspection and copying;

Drawing the noose they’ve fashioned tighter around their own necks, sub-section 7 states: (7) The leasing by a port district as lessor of port district property to a municipal officer or to a contracting party in which a municipal officer may be beneficially interested, if in addition to all other legal requirements, a board of three disinterested appraisers and the superior court in the county where the property is situated finds that all terms and conditions of such lease are fair to the port district and are in the public interest. The appraisers must be appointed from members of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers by the presiding judge of the superior court; Pork Executive Director John Dobson meets the statutory definition of a MUNICIPAL OFFICER!

(RCW 42.23.020 (2): “Municipal officer” and “officer” shall each include all elected and appointed officers of a municipality, together with all deputies and assistants of such an officer, and all persons exercising or undertaking to exercise any of the powers or functions of a municipal officer;)

Pork Executive Director John Dobson is on record at a recent Pork Meeting as stating: “I want to assist/help the Hansens develop a successful business.” [The Hansens have created a for profit corporation for which they seek to lease Pork property.]

Upshot?: Dobson & the Pork Commissioners never satisfied the requirements of sub-section 7 cited above.

Yeah, but that ain’t all. It gets WORSE!:

RCW 42.23.040 (The Pork Commissioners should learn to read ALL of a chapter in law while keeping in mind the legislative intent and Court predilection to HARMONIZE all of it!) attempts to exclude ‘remote interests’ from the statute, logically enough, given that it seeks to avoid wrangling over implied petty interests not meeting a threshold of legitimate concern for public policy.

Fair enough! But all of those ‘remote interest’ exceptions evaporate in this instance with the final sentence in RCW 42.23.040:

None of the provisions of this section are applicable to any officer interested in a contract, even if the officer’s interest is only remote, if the officer influences or attempts to influence any other officer of the municipality of which he or she is an officer to enter into the contract.

Yet that’s EXACTLY what Pork Exectuive Director John Dobson did in favoring the Hansens, influencing the Pork Commissioners, and summarily firing whistle blower Teresa Rebo.

Finally (and unfortunately for the Hansens) the violations by the Pork and Dobson of the provisions of this Washington State statute clumsily invoked by its most egregious scoff-laws, makes any such ‘contract’ entered into by the Hansens at the behest of Dobson NULL & VOID according to RCW 42.23.050…a sword of the Pork Commissioners own choosing!

RCW 42.23.050:  Any contract made in violation of the provisions of this chapter is void and the performance thereof, in full or in part, by a contracting party shall not be the basis of any claim against the municipality. Any officer violating the provisions of this chapter is liable to the municipality of which he or she is an officer for a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars, in addition to such other civil or criminal liability or penalty as may otherwise be imposed upon the officer by law. In addition to all other penalties, civil or criminal, the violation by any officer of the provisions of this chapter may be grounds for forfeiture of his or her office.

This Reporter justly believes that last statutory sentence (ibid) is sufficient as a basis in law for the recall of Pork Commissioners Jay Hupp and Tom Wallitner given the violations of RCW 42.23 by Dobson described above and the deliberate complicity of Hupp and Wallitner.

The Pork Commissioners desperately grasp for RCW 42.23.070. But that Statute more readily describes the actions of John Dobson than Commissioner Miles.

RCW 42.23.070:  (1) No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others.

(2) No municipal officer may, directly or indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity from a source except the employing municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the officer’s services as such an officer unless otherwise provided for by law.

(3) No municipal officer may accept employment or engage in business or professional activity that the officer might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of his or her official position.

(4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.

Mr. Dobson’s personal relationship with the Hansen’s and his admitted personal interest in seeing their company prosper is a prima facia admission of violating that provision.

The ironic downside to all this is how it benefits the already obscenely compensated Pork Attorney.

Editorial Note: Contrary to the allegations in the ill conceived ‘Letter of Censure’ attacking Jack, Commissioner Miles doesn’t ‘publish’ ANYTHING on this Mason County Blog…the administrator (myself) does! Here’s a $0.25–go call a cop!

In addition, the allegation Commissioner Miles has ever represented himself as the Pork ‘Commission’, per se, totally lacks credibility as there’s no factual foundation or evidence for it.

Best Buy engages in incredibly deceptive business practices:

After purchasing a Panasonic Lumix model ZS5 in mid-2010, the Tacoma Store cashier urged the purchase of the extended warranty for more $. The salesman overcame reluctance to do so by persuading on the strength of his representation that unlike the mere manufacturer’s warranty (only 1-year) the longer extended warranty wouldn’t involve having a long wait for a ‘repair’. He represented that if anything went wrong during the extended warranty period, the store would simply replace/swap the defective item.

Now, 2 years later, a call to the Olympia store (‘Nicole’, mgr, would NOT provide her last name, nor would any others contacted in half a dozen phone calls to Best Buy except for ‘Leeland Leone’ @ their Olympia Store) revealed Best Buy couldn’t/wouldn’t guarantee whether they would repair or replace. A protest this was at odds with what had been agreed upon when purchasing the extended warranty, was met with the claim Best Buy altered the terms of these warranties when it chose.  A reminder to the employee(s) such a move was a breech of contract and a deceptive business practice (bait & switch, fraud, and effectively theft) fell on deaf ears.

Not only did every, but one (Leeland), Best Buy employee insist on remaining anonymous (1st name only) but despite the fact Best Buy records phone calls, each hung up when informed the caller would follow suit.

Finally, Leeland offered a ‘compromise’:  A 3rd party battery charger to replace the defective one at a ‘discount’–i.e. $20 instead of the normal $40 @ Best Buy.  A quick check of Amazon.com revealed the same 3rd party charger sold there for $26.  Mr. Leone also argued even though the charger was part of the Lumix ZS5 retail box purchase, it was an ‘accessory’, hence was NOT covered under Best Buy’s deceptive extended warranty.  A response pointing out it was a well settled point of law in such instances (insurance polices, contracts of adhension, etc.) that unless the SIGNED contract/agreement/policy specifically EXCLUDED the item/condition (e.g. in a home owner policy, unless ‘floods’ or ‘earthquakes’ are specifically excluded in the language, not merely omitted, they are construed, in law, to be INCLUDED!) and any ambiguities or omissions were interpreted in favor of the consumer, not the party drafting the contract of adhesion.

Bottom line:

1)  Best Buy employees won’t adequately identify themselves to be held accountable for their representations.

2) Best Buy employees either lie about what a consumer will receive in the way of service with an extended warranty, or claim (when relied upon) such commitments (replace instead of send off for repairs requiring a waiting period that wasn’t agreed to/bargained for) are eclipsed as the company is entitled to alter the terms of the warranty without the consent/knowledge of the purchaser.

3) Best Buy records incoming calls but quails at the prospect of the caller doing so.

An intended launch of an investigation of Best Buy’s deceptive business practices will be pursued and the results, including any audio recordings of the same, published here.  This company is DIRTY!  Readers are invited to go to:

http://www.ripoffreport.com and search for ‘pinbalwyz’, ‘best buy’, ‘deceptive’, ‘bait’, ‘switch’, and ‘business practices’ to read about this big box con job and ripoff of consumers.

THIS COMPLAINT provides a similar story cut from the same warp and weave as do many others about Best Buy on the ripoffreport.com site.

‘Jeremy Guo’ in the Olympia Best Buy store Geek Squad dept. stated on 7-1-11 that no ‘Nicole’ had been working in the store for at least a week and she was NOT a ‘manager’ or ‘assistant manager’. Yet hear ‘Nicole’ on 6-29-11 @ 6:11pm give IMPLIED CONSENT (despite protestations) by continuing the conversation after being notified it was recorded, along with effectively admitting she’d claimed to be a manager, although not the “only” manager there by clicking HERE.

Tumwater, WA police detain and interrogate a young suspect transient regarding a complaint received of a shoplifted beer and physical altercation with the nearby store’s security.  The stop occurred in front of Alana’s hair salon about 2 blocks from the old Tumwater brewery and the Schmidt house. The final clip is a brief interview with the young man, after which he requested and was given spare change.
Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 1/6

Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 2/6

Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 3/6

Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 4/6

Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 5/6

Tumwater Police stop & interrogate suspect transient pt 6/6

This expert tech tip should be of interest to all PC users regardless of what OS/hardware they’re using. In this instance, it landed on an Intel dual-core PC running XP Pro. The problem showed up with increasing severity/frequency as very periodic screen freezes approximately every 35 seconds lasting about 7 seconds. With the help of over 25 years of intense experience with PC’s and computer science/programming, it was determined that the problem was NOT in the networking, router, KVM (single mouse & keyboard for multiple PC’s), OS, drivers, mouse, keyboard, memory, CPU or monitor before a thorough search of the many clueless internet tech forums revealed one that hinted at file/drive indexing. The task manager performance graph had revealed a regular spike  of CPU activity to 100% like clockwork which stopped the system until it passed. Naturally no work can be done when this occurs every half minute. But the regularity gave a clue. While file/disk indexing may mean nothing to most PC users, what this means to you is fairly simple–(for Windows users) Do a CHKDSK/F at the command line prompt (or whatever alternative your OS offers) and then reboot. Others will have to accomplish the same file system error correction through whatever tools their OS offers. This will correct certain file system indexing errors that may have crept into your PC’s hard drive over time. Follow this by upgrading/re-installing your anti-viral software, e.g. KIS 2010 to KIS 2011. At any rate, it cured this weeks old problem and the PC is running smoothly again without the debilitating hiccups. Tired hard drives masquerade as a host of mysterious ailments when it’s actually as fundamental as the beginning of mechanical failure of your drive(s).

Many PC users posted complaints on the internet regarding this issue. They spanned the spectrum from Linux fans, Apple users, and the ubiquitous Windows drudges. There were lots of well intended but useless suggestions to solve the problem. This is being posted here as a community interest topic because the solution is uniquely absent from an internet search. Now it won’t be.

Pork of Shelton Commissioner/Chair Jay Hupp appears gob smacked after inviting public comment only to be met with stony silence following Pork Executive Director John Dobson’s retaliatory firing of the courageous exemplary staffer, Teresa Rebo who had filed a whistle blower complaint about alleged favoritism, cronyism, and misappropriation of public assets for his pals, the Hansens, in their bid to lease Pork Property, i.e. the fairgrounds, to the company owned by the Hansens. Mr. Dobson admitted in one Pork meeting he intended to assist the Hansens in creating a business (presumably profit based). Ms. Rebo complained the terms offered the Hansens were effectively a ‘gift’ of public assets.

Mr. Hansen is seen (in this clip) attempting to defang the allegation his wife verbally abused Ms. Teresa Rebo during a phone call to the Pork, using obscenities when asked who was calling by responding “I think you know who this is you low life piece of s***!”

Pork Commissioners were asked if they were aware of this verbal abuse and telephone harassment prior to Ms. Rebo’s firing. No response from the ‘Untouchables’ was offered. They later demurred it was all under Mr. Dobson’s purview and had nothing to do with them…ignoring the legal fact the Pork is liable for Mr. Dobson’s actions/misconduct–as though it were Czar Dobson’s private enterprise/personal fiefdom.

Skip Hauser (Pork attorney) must realize by now he hit the jackpot when he signed on with the Pork–a virtual goldmine given its support for the Skip Hauser Full Employment Act.

6-21-11 Pork of Shelton Charade ‘Untouchables’ whitewash retaliatory firing.

WA State Senator Kiline promotes pending Whistle Blower bill

Qui Tam (Whistle Blower) overview/synopsis

Not many citizens but a number of public officials attended this Hoodsport fire station begathon for about $4.3 Million new funding/taxes to remedy/monitor the damage done to Washington State’s water resources (State owned, btw) through permits issued by Mason County and the State over the years. No coherent response was offered when the presenter was asked why citizens should give more money to a County (Mason) that couldn’t maintain the infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.) it has now?  When asked how it accounts for the money citizens previously have given it for such purposes and whether they got much ‘bang’ for their buck, little explanation was offered. Finally, when asked how citizens would be assured/guaranteed the money would go for no other purpose than efficaciously cleaning our water resources (for $4.3 Million just for openers in a thinly populated, poor, extremely rural county, no less) the presenter opined this was a good suggestion but gave no specifics. At one point, a citizen suggested since the State of Washington owned all the riparian rights in law, it should enact its own protection scheme and fund the same.

Dawn Pannell (retired teacher) wants to be Shelton’s Mayor, but refuses (when queried) to admit she favors yet another dirty incinerator in the city’s heart.

City Administration's plans for your neighborhood

Dawn Pannell was born in Vallejo, California, but raised in Puyallup.  She is a member of the first graduating class of Gov. John Rogers High School in Puyallup.  After high school, she attended Oregon State University and graduated with a degree in Elementary Education.

Mrs. Pannell was formerly a paste-up artist for Fornier newspapers in Kent and a front-end manager and then assistant store manager for Mega Foods in Tumwater/Hawk’s Prairie.  In Shelton, she has worked as a first grade teacher for the Pioneer School District and was a bookkeeper/POS Coordinator for Prairie Market, a store that eventually became SuperValu and then found new life as the Civic Center.  She currently works as a barista and delivery driver at Lynch Creek Floral in Shelton.

In 2001, Mrs. Pannell was elected as Commissioner of Shelton. As Commissioner, she presides over City Commission Meetings, along with Mayor Tarrant and Commissioner Mike Byrne.  Together, they preside over the policy-making functions of the City of Shelton while representing the interests of Simpson (aka: the axe gang).

Shelton May Day

More Urban Decay under current Shelton Commissioners’ watch:

Jack Miles has been stalwart in his support and dedication to the community. This community blog endorses him and urges you as well as your friends/neighbors to vote for him.

Integrity & dedication under fire

TO: Constituents of Mason County Port District 216

On June 7th, I filed my Declaration of Candidacy for Re-election to the Port of Shelton. It has been my honor to serve the citizens of Mason County. The road has been rough, but at the end of the day, I know as your representative WHO I WORK FOR!

Prior to becoming a Port Commissioner, I was appointed by the County Commission to the Mason County Housing Authority as a Commissioner. It was my honor to serve and advocate issues relating to low income housing. While on the board, I became a member of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials to help bring ideas of developing low income housing for families and seniors. I still see this as a critical need for Mason County.

As your representative at the Port of Shelton, I have always represented the interests of the public. I have proven that Big Business such as ADAGE, and those who lobby for ADAGE could not influence my abilities to represent YOU! I question how your tax dollars are spent and why. I expect the government to give the best quality of service you deserve.

I am running for re-election, not because I always yield results. I am running because YOU THE CITIZENS need a voice and someone who will ask tough questions and keep the elected officials accountable. I will never rubber stamp any decision without investigation. I haven’t won many of the battles at the Port of Shelton, rather, I have planted the seeds and have seen them grow through you, THE PUBLIC. I am forever grateful that Mason County has concerned citizens. and for your tireless efforts in being involved in the political system.

I have worked hard to protect the health and quality of life for you and your family. Even when it has affected my own health, and I would do it again. I look forward in continuing my efforts to represent you. Another company like ADAGE could try to locate on Port property at anytime, and OUR COMMUNITY needs a leader who is not afraid to take a stand.

I AM READY FOR ROUND 2.

Thank you for your support!

Jack Miles
www.WeBackJackMiles.com

To each but a handful of Springs…and precious!