(
`
`-2<H
`
`No.
`
`In The
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`Supreme Court, U.S.
`FILED
`
`JUL -1 2019
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondents.
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States District Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANNE BLOCK
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 98272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`RECEIVED
`SEP - 4 2019
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`A. Did the trial court err when the district court judge and the reviewing judge
`refused to disqualify themselves because of their membership in the defendant, the
`Washington State Bar Association?
`
`B. Could the appellant’s first amendment claim survive a motion on the
`pleadings if an unbiased judge had been assigned?
`
`C. Did the defendants actions of retaliating against Block for resigning from
`the WSBA violate her constitutional right to disassociate as recently announced in
`Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council
`31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S.__ (2018)?
`
`> i
`
`

`

`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`
`The parties to the proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Ninth Circuit were:
`Anne Block v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; SARAH
`ANDEEN, individually, and in her capacity as defendant Washington State Bar
`Association; KEVIN BANK, individually and in his capacity as defendant
`Washington State Bar Association; KATHRYN BERGER, individually and in her
`capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association; KEITH MASON
`BLACK, individually and in his capacity as defendant Washington State Bar
`Association; STEPHANIE BLOOMFIELD, individually and in her capacity as
`defendant Washington State Bar Association; MICHELE NINA CARNEY,
`individually and in her capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association! S.
`NIA RENEI COTTRELL, individually and in her capacity as defendant Washington
`State Bar Association! WILLIAM EARL DAVIS, individually and in his capacity as
`defendant Washington State Bar Association!
`STEPHANIA CAMP
`DENTON, individually and in her capacity as defendant Washington State Bar
`Association! LINDA EIDE, individually and in her capacity as an employee of
`defendant Washington State Bar Association! DOUG ENDE, individually and in his
`capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association! MARCIA LYNN
`DAMEROW FISCHER, individually and in her capacity as defendant Washington
`State Bar Association; G. GEOFFREY GIBBS, individually, and in his official
`capacity as an employee of defendant Snohomish County and an employee of
`Washington State Bar Association! WILLIAM MCGILLIN, individually and in his
`capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association!-MICHAEL JON MYERS,
`individually and in his capacity as defendant Washington State Bar
`Association! JOSEPH NAPPI JR, individually and in his capacity as defendant
`Washington State Bar Association! LIN O’DELL, individually and in her capacity
`as defendant Washington State Bar Association and in her marital community with
`her husband and/or domestic partner of defendant Mark Plivilech! MARK
`PLIVILECH, in his individual capacity and in his marital community with wife
`and/or'domestic partner defendant LIN O’Dell! ALLISON SATO, individually and in
`her capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association! RONALD SCHAPS,
`individually
`and in his capacity
`as defendant Washington State Bar
`Association; JULIE SHANKLAND, individually and in her capacity as defendant
`Washington State Bar Association! MARC SILVERMAN, individually and in his
`capacity as defendant Washington State Bar Association! TODD R. STARTZEL,
`individually
`and in his capacity
`as defendant Washington State Bar
`
`

`

`Association; JOHN DOE, individually and in his capacity as defendant Washington
`State Bar Association! CITY OF DUVALL, a Washington State City and Municipal
`Corporation; LORI BATIOT, individually, and in her official capacity as an employee
`of defendant City of Duvall; JOE BEAVERS, individually; LINDA LOEN,
`individually, and in her capacity as defendant City of Gold Bar Mayor and Public
`Records Officer; CRYSTAL HILL PENNINGTON (nee BERG), individually, and in
`her marital community with defendant John Pennington, her husband; KENYON
`DISEND, A WASHINGTON PLLC business in Washington! MICHAEL
`KENYON, individually, and in his official capacity as an employee and as a
`shareholder of defendant Kenyon Disend; MARGARET KING, individually, and in
`her official capacity as an employee of defendant Snohomish County and for
`defendant Kenyon Disend; ANN MARIE SOTO, individually, and in her official
`capacity as an employee for defendant Kenyon Disend; SANDRA SULLIVAN ( nee,
`MEADOWCRAFT), individually, and in her official capacity as an employee for
`defendant Kenyon Disend; KING COUNTY, a Washington State County and
`Municipal Corporation! CARY COBLANTZ, individually, and in his official capacity
`as an employee of defendant King County! PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington State
`Port and Municipal Corporation! SEAN GIBLEO, individually, and in her official
`capacity as an employee of defendant Port of Seattle! KALI MATUSKA,
`individually, and in her official capacity as an employee of defendant Port of Seattle.'
`JULIE TANGA, individually, and in her official capacity as an employee of defendant
`Port of Seattle! JAMES TUTTLE, individually, and in her official capacity as an
`employee of defendant Port of Seattle,' SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a Washington
`County and Municipal Corporation! SARA DIVITTORIO, individually, and in her
`official capacity as an employee of defendant Snohomish County; SETH FINE,
`individually, and in his official capacity as an employee of defendant Snohomish
`County and an employee of Washington State Bar Association! BRIAN LEWIS,
`individually, and in his official capacity as an employee and public records officer of
`defendant Snohomish County! JOHN LOVICK, individually, and in his official
`capacity as an employee of defendant Snohomish County! JOHN
`PENNINGTON, individually, and in his marital community with defendant Crystal
`Hill Pennington, his wife, and in his official capacity as Director of Snohomish
`County Department of Emergency Management for defendant Snohomish
`County! SEAN REAY, individually, and in his official capacity as an employee of
`defendant Snohomish County! MARK ROE, individually, and in his official capacity
`as an employee of defendant Snohomish County! SKY VALLEY MEDIA GROUP,
`LLC dba SKY VALLEY CHRONICLE, a Limited Liability Company in
`Washington; RONALD FEJFAR, aka RON FAVOR aka RON FABOUR aka CHET
`
`

`

`1
`
`ROGERS individually, and in his official capacity as an agent for defendant Sky
`Valley Media Group, LLC., Defendants.
`
`/
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Questions Presented......................................
`Parties to the Proceedings.............................
`Table of Contents.....................................
`Table of Authorities......................................
`Petition for Writ of Certiorari............... ........
`I. Opinions Below.................................
`II Jurisdiction........................................
`HI Federal Statute at Issue 42 USC 1983
`IV. Introduction............... ....................
`V. Facts Relevant to the Petition...................
`(A) Procedural Facts..............................
`(B) Substantive Facts............................
`VI. Argument...............................................
`19
`A. All three judges associated in this case have preexisting conflicts of interest which require
`their
`disqualification.....................................................
`B. The plaintiff has properly pled first amendment
`retaliation claims..................................................
`21
`C. The Bar’s actions of retaliating for asserting
`her right to disassociate from the Bar violated
`her constitutional right to disassociate from
`organizations she disagrees with,
`Conclusion..................................... .........
`
`v11112445
`
`19
`
`30
`31
`
`1
`ii
`
`mi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`23
`
`12
`17
`
`Cases
`Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002)).32
`Arizona Students’Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2016)
`.............................................................................. passim
`Arrington v. Dickerson, 915 F. Supp. 1516........
`21
`Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1, 7 (1971)
`30
`Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674 (1996) 30
`Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 2010)
`Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 417-18 (1971)
`30
`24
`Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976).........
`In Re Rufallo, 390 US 544...............................
`33
`Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council
`31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S.;__ (2018)
`i, 2
`Keller v. State Bar of California 496 U.S. 1, 4 (1990),34
`Knox v. Service Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000 (“SEIU”), 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012)
`............................................................................... 33, 34
`Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843 (1961)34, 35, 36
`Marshall v. WSBA, WWDC Case # 11-5319.
`6, 19
`McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 347, 351 (1995)
`24
`Mendocino Envt'l Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999)
`23
`OBrien, 2016 WL 1382240, at *11
`22,31
`Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006)
`Pope v. WSBA, WWDC Case # 11-05970
`6, 19
`Riss v. Angel 934 P.2d 669, 131 Wash.2d 612 (Wash. 04/10/1997) 19
`Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)
`24
`Scannell v. Washington State Bar Association, et al, WWDC Case #2:i2-cv00683
`................................................................................. 6,19
`The Presbyterian Church v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1989)
`30
`Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 979 (9th Cir. 2002)
`Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 444 U.S. 620, 633 (1980)
`Statutes
`28 USC § 2101(c)
`42 USC 1983.........
`RCW 49.60..........
`RCW 5.68.010....
`Rules
`ELC 10.12(b)......
`ELC 11.2.............
`
`2, 3,9
`
`23,31
`
`31
`30
`
`112
`
`

`

`Treatises
`Ralph H. Brock, “An Aliquot Portion of Their Dues:” A Survey of Unified Bar
`Compliance with Hudson and Keller, 1 TEX. TECH J. TEX. ADMIN. L. 23, 24 n.l
`31
`(2000)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`I. OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The unreported memorandum of the Ninth
`Circuit Court of Appeals
`The unreported memorandum decision of the
`United States District Court of the Western District
`of Washington
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed its
`memorandum on February 11, 2019 and entered an
`order
`denying
`Petitioner’s
`motion for
`rehearing/rehearing en banc on April 2, 2019. The
`jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 USC §
`2101(c)
`
`III. FEDERAL STATUTE AT ISSUE: 42 USC 1983
`
`For the reasons stated hereinbelow, the district
`court’s order dismissing Anne Block’s claims on
`defendants’ motion for motions on the pleadings
`should be reversed.
`
`

`

`IV. INTRODUCTION
`
`If Petitioner Anne Block (Block) was Jim
`Acosta from CNN, and the defendants were operating
`under the umbrella of the White House instead of the
`Washington Bar Association, we would not be here
`today. The issues are similar. In this case, Defendant,
`Washington State Bar Association, sent news
`reporter Block, a subpoena for her news reporter files.
`Block responded by objecting, claiming that RCW
`5.68.010 (media shield), RCW 49.60, and the First
`Amendment required the bar association to first go to
`court before the subpoena could be issued. Defendant
`WSBA ignored Block’s objections herein and opened
`an investigation over whether her actions constituted
`“obstruction”. When Block resigned from the bar
`association in protest, the Washington State Bar
`charged her with obstruction and recommended
`disbarment in direct violation of principles recently
`announced in the recent case of Janus v. American
`Federation of State, County, and Municipal
`Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___
`(2018)),
`Unlike Jim Acosta from CNN, Block does not
`have the financial resources of a powerful
`international news corporation like CNN at her
`disposal. Block came to our courts with one simple
`request- Protect her rights as a news reporter and
`uphold the First Amendment to the United States
`
`

`

`Constitution and RCW 5.68.010 Media Shield laws of
`Washington State.
`In this regard, both the district court and a
`three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit have failed
`miserably in their duty to uphold basic First and
`Fourth Amendment principles simply because Block
`was also a licensed WSBA member. The appeals
`panel issued a two page order which cited to only one
`case as the basis for their dismissal. Under
`well-established principles, using previous cases as a
`guide, Block should have easily avoided a motion on
`the pleadings. After all, in Block’s complaint she
`clearly stated dates, and how she received public
`disclosure responses supportive of each of her
`allegations. For reasons we cannot fathom, because
`the panel never explained their reasoning, why the
`panel ignored decades of well-established precedent,
`and instead opted out for a decision that if allowed to
`stand, will essentially do away with our First and
`Fourth Amendment rights to be free from abusive
`unconstitutional subpoenas simply because she is a
`licensed bar member, who happens to be reporting
`news. If Block v WSBA et al is allowed to stand,
`perhaps CNN’s Anderson Cooper or Washington
`Post’s blogger and UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh
`will be disbarred next.
`Adding insult to injury, the district court and
`the panel ignored the retaliation Block experienced
`for disassociating from the Washington State Bar. As
`we will demonstrate in this petition, membership in
`
`

`

`the bar had nothing to do with the bar’s investigation
`of possible discipline. It only served to punish Block
`for asserting her right to associate (or dissociate)
`under the fourth amendment
`For these reasons, and because of their
`importance, this court should grant the injunctive
`relief and declaratory relief Block sought from US
`Federal District Court, regarding the defendant
`WSBA’s disbarment proceedings.-
`
`V. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE PETITION
`
`(A) PROCEDURAL FACTS:
`
`1. On December 28, 2015, Anne Block filed suit
`in the United States District Court, Western District
`against the Washington State Bar Association,
`Snohomish County, the City of Gold Bar, King
`County, Port of Seattle, and several individual
`defendants. (ERV 94-158).
`2. On February 14, 2016, Anne Block filed a
`motion to disqualify Judge Martinez and all other
`western district judges. (ER V:88'93, 170) 4. Between
`February 24, 2016, and March 23rd, 2016 both Judge
`Martinez and Judge Leighton refused to disqualify
`themselves. (ERF 145-149, ERVU72). (ER P140-144,
`ERV173) (ERV173, ER 111:211-223) (ERV: 175; ER
`I: 137-139).
`3. Between February 23, 2016, and April 19,
`the defendants filed motions to dismiss. (ER V: 172,
`
`

`

`ER IV: 56-68) (ER V:172, ERPV22-48) (ER VH72, ER
`IV:i-12l) (ER VH73, ER 111:224-211) (ERV:173;
`4:196-199) (ER V:174; ER III: 168-183) (ER V:174; ER
`111:66-92) (ERV:176; ER 111:56-65) (ER V:181, ER II:
`71-82) (ER V:i8i; ER 11:61-70) (ER V:182; ER II:
`49-57).
`4. Between March 31, 2016 and August 17,
`2016, Judge Martinez granted motions to dismiss to
`the defendants and awarded attorney fees to several
`defendants. (ER 1:105-136, ER V:177) (ER I: 74-100;
`ERV:179) (ERI: 57-691 ERV:181-182) (ERR 51-56;
`ER V: 182) (ER R46-48;ER V:183) (ER 1:33-45; ER
`V:i84) (ER R27-32; ER V: 184-185) (ER V:185; ER
`IR11-17) (ER V:i85) (ERR15-16; ERV:185) (ER
`RIO-14; ERV:186) (ERR7-9; ERV:186) (ERI-6, ER V:
`186-187) (ER V:i87).
`5. On March 31, 2016, Block filed for a TRO
`and Preliminary Injunction (ER V:177)(ER IIR27-55).
`6. Between April 1, 2016 and May 24th 2016,
`Judge Martinez denied the Motion for TRO, motion
`for injunction. (ER I, 101-104)(ER V:177) (ER R17-26,
`ERV:185).
`7. Between June 2, 2016, and September 15,
`Block files Notice(s) of Appeal to Ninth Circuit. (ER
`V:i85, ER IR18-36) (ER V:186; ER IR4) (ER V:186;
`ER IR2-3) (ER V:187; ER II: l).
`
`

`

`(B) SUBSTANTIVE FACTS:
`
`1. Re judicial disqualification>' the appellant
`requests this court to take judicial notice that the
`chief justice of the Ninth Circuit COA has already
`ruled in Marshall v. WSBA, WWDC Case # 11-5319,
`Pope v. WSBA, WWDC Case # 11-05970, and Scannell
`v. Washington State Bar Association, et al, WWDC
`Case #2:l2-cv00683, that their membership in the
`WSBA requires disqualification in a suit against the
`WSBA.
`2. This and other suits originated from
`appellant’s public disclosure requests to respondents
`in December, 2008 as co-owner and investigative
`reporter for the Gold Bar Reporter (GBR) an online
`news service. (ER V:25-27, §3.5)
`3. Anne Block’s articles accused the
`respondents of various crimes and other wrongdoing,
`including theft, misuse of taxpayer funds such as
`financing affairs and trips to brothels, bribery,
`racketeering, rape, extortion and assaults. She claims
`to carefully research each of the articles through
`public disclosure, hiring a private investigator firm
`and utilizing confidential sources. She provides her
`targets an opportunity to respond, and most refuse to
`deny the allegations. She has never been sued for
`defamation. (ER V.24-30, §3.2, §3.9)(ER 11:157-192,
`passimXER W25-27, §3.5; ER 111:166-167).
`4. The various defendants found willing
`accomplices, the WSBA defendants, who had already
`
`

`

`formed their own criminal enterprise that had similar
`goals. This included other attorneys who opposed
`corruption by filing lawsuits.
`5. For example, in a case involving the lawyer
`discipline of Bradley Marshall before the Washington
`State Supreme Court, in August of 2009, Scott Busby
`wrote on behalf of the WSBA before the Washington
`State Supreme Court.
`The Association further requests that
`the Court address the issues presented
`here when [the court] issues it published
`opinion in this case to give guidance to
`other respondent lawyers who believe
`they can thwart a disciplinary
`proceeding merely by filing a lawsuit
`against the Association, the Supreme
`Court, or its members.
`Mr. Marshall was not charged with filing a
`frivolous lawsuit as part of the disbarment
`proceedings and his lawsuit was not the subject of
`discipline. (ER IV-215, §238).
`6. In a series of exposes, Block published
`articles documenting how respondent Aaron Reardon
`(Reardon) used taxpayer funds to carry on an affair
`with two employees in Europe. (ER V'37-38, §3.30)
`7. Another target of Block’s exposes was
`respondent John Pennington (Pennington) who was
`head of emergency services. She published over fifty
`articles about respondent Pennington's incompetence,
`lack of credentials to head the Department of
`
`

`

`Emergency Management (DEM) for Snohomish
`County, and criminal history of assaulting women.
`(ER V:31, §313) (ER 111:158-189)
`8. Appellant Block named Pennington as the
`one primarily responsible for the Oso mudslide
`disaster which killed 43 people in 2014 primarily
`because he was the one who authorized the permits
`that allowed the houses to be built on the mudslide
`site, knowing the site was unsafe. (ER V-43, §3.41, 59,
`ER 111:71-72)
`9. In January 2012, Appellant learned from
`public records that were withheld over three years,
`that Margaret Kang, Michael Kenyon, Ann Marie
`Soto, Hill-Pennington, Pennington, and Joe Beavers
`met and conspired to retaliate against Block by filing
`a second WSBA complaint In February 2012, Gold
`Bar's law firm, Kenyon Disend, billed the taxpayers of
`Gold Bar for the WSBA complaint against appellant.
`(ERV:36, §3.26)
`10. In late March 2012, under the guise of a CR
`26 conference, respondent Reay threatened appellant
`and her paralegal that if appellant continued to insist
`on deposing Pennington he would have appellant and
`her paralegal arrested. (ER V:36, §3.27)
`11. On June 1, 2013 John Lovick was appointed
`Snohomish County Executive. Subsequently,
`Pennington was never disciplined for his misconduct
`as alleged in the complaint, even Lovick was aware of
`evidence to support discipline. Instead he was placed
`on paid “administrative leave” from April 2014 until
`
`

`

`terminated by the new Snohomish County Executive
`in 2016. Since Block I was decided, appellant has
`learned through public records that defendant,
`Pennington, was not trained, supervised, disciplined,
`or adequately screened for employment with
`Snohomish County. (ER V:39, §3.32)
`12. On November 15, 2013, pertaining to a bar
`complaint filed by Pennington, respondent Linda Eide
`(Eide) issued a subpoena to Block for three years of
`documents relating to articles published in the Gold
`Bar. The subpoena had nothing to do with Block’s
`clients or practice of law, but to reveal confidential
`sources behind the articles she wrote on Pennington.
`(ERV:31, §3.12).
`13. On December 3, 2013, Block sent Eide a
`letter objecting to the deposition on First Amendment
`grounds, Media Shield laws (RCW 5.68.010), and
`privacy rights under Washington’s state constitution.
`She also raised the defense that the Washington State
`Bar Association had no jurisdiction to regulate the
`press. (ER V-41, §3.36, ER III-43).
`14. On December 6, 2013, without attempting
`to have any of the objections adjudicated by the Chief
`Hearing Officer, Eide attempted to hold the
`deposition without Block (ER V-41, §3.365 ER
`111:69-70),
`15. On February 19, 2014 a Court appointed
`investigator and special master in Stevens County
`concluded that Lynn O'Dell (O’Dell) had committed
`ethical violations and refused to account for funds
`
`

`

`that she had controlled in her role as a limited
`guardian of a vulnerable adult, Paula Fowler. Details
`of the alleged wrongdoing by O’Dell are outlined in
`ERV: 42, §3.39.
`16. Block alleged that the hearing examiner
`was not chosen at random, but was chosen by the
`Chief Hearing Examiner Nappi, who was paid
`$30,000 a year to pre-select the hearing officers to
`gain conviction. In her complaint Block alleges
`several conflicts of interest that O’Dell had with
`Nappi at the time she was chosen to be hearing
`examiner. Block claims that the exchange of the
`conviction of Anne Block in exchange for her
`immunity from her illicit actions as a guardian
`constitutes bribery. (ER V- 42-43, §3.38, §3.40).
`17. On March 22, 2014, the OSO mudslide
`occurred killing 43 people. At the time, Pennington
`(DEM) was on the east coast paid under contract for
`FEMA Emergency Institute yet still collecting wages
`from Snohomish County. He did not return to
`Snohomish County until March 24, 2014, according to
`public records obtained by Block. (ER V-43, §341).
`18. In late March 2014, O’Dell and Plivilech set
`up USPS Box # 70 in Duvall Washington located
`within three blocks from the Penningtons’ home in
`Duvall. O’Dell and Plivilech live in Spokane, four
`hours away, and had no previously known ties to City
`of Duvall. The Duvall postmaster (retired) having
`seen Hill-Pennington accessing a post office box in
`Duvall. Appellant’s investigation, revealed neither
`
`

`

`Hill-Pennington, nor Pennington had a USPS box in
`Duvall. (ER V:43,44, §3.42).
`19. At the end of April 2014, Plaintiff notified
`the WSBA and the Washington State Supreme Court
`that she would not be renewing her license and would
`be disassociating with the WSBA.(ER V, 44, §3.43)
`20. In May 2014, appellant notified O'Dell and
`Eide that she would be out of state on business for two
`months. O'Dell purposely set discovery for a three
`week period appellant would be out of state. O'Dell
`and Eide refused to answer a single discovery request
`issued by appellant. (ER V, 44, §3.44).
`21 In early May, Edie tried to extort Plaintiffs
`democratic rights, alleging that Plaintiff does not
`have the legal right to disassociate with the WSBA
`under the First Amendment. (ER V, 44, §3.45)
`.22. Early June 2014 appellant issued a
`subpoena for WSBA witness, John Pennington.
`Respondent Reay, apparently on behalf of
`Pennington, then contacted Eide for the purpose of
`quashing a subpoena. Appellant requested public
`records from Snohomish County, who responded that
`no responsive records exist. (ER V-45, 46, §3.47).
`23. In June 2014, Eide, shortly after being
`contacted by Reay made ex-parte contact with O’Dell
`who then issued a quash order. (ER W46, §3.48).
`24. When appellant learned a quash order was
`issued for the subpoena, appellant requested Eide’s
`telephone records. Eide unlawfully redacted the
`
`

`

`r. %
`
`phone records for the ex-parte contacts with O’Dell
`claiming attorney-client privilege. (ER V- 46, §3.49).
`25. June 30, 2014, WSBA records confirm
`O’Dell and Eide held another ex-parte telephone
`communication. O’Dell then sets a hearing date for
`three weeks later on July 21, 2014. (ER V'46, §3.50).
`ELC 10.12(b) requires that the hearing date only can
`be set at a hearing where the parties are present.
`26. In July 2014, Reay authored knowingly
`false, statements, which included among other
`allegations- (l) That appellant is “delusional”. (2)
`That appellant “accosted” Reay. (ER V, 46 §3.51).
`27. First week of July 2014. The Sky Valley
`Chronicle posted a story about a hearing for Ms.
`Block’s “misconduct as an attorney” which is how
`appellant learned of the scheduled hearing. The story
`was false as plaintiff was not accused of misconduct
`as an attorney, only for what she wrote as a journalist
`for the Gold Bar Reporter. Since February 13, 2012,
`the Sky Valley Chronicle has published more than
`100 defamatory articles about appellant which
`remain published to this day. (ER V: 46-47, §3.52).
`28. On July 21, 2014 WSBA denied the
`appellant’s a reasonable accommodation request, and
`prevented appellant from participating in a
`disciplinary hearing by deliberately disconnecting the
`phone through which she was appearing. (ER V:
`47-48, §3.53).
`29. In August 2014, Gibbs, a Snohomish
`County court commissioner member contacted WSBA
`
`

`

`ODC member, Jean McElroy, via email, complaining
`about appellant's First Amendment protected activity
`in order to influence the proceedings. To wit, news
`reports on the Gold Bar Reporter about Gibbs’
`corruption as it relates to Snohomish County. Gibbs
`had significant motive to influence the proceedings
`because the appellant has published numerous
`articles of Gibb’s corrupt activities including illegal
`lobbying of the legislature, lying to the court about
`being sanctioned for it, stealing land in another civil
`case while he was a judge, mishandling over $200,000
`in client funds for his own use and illegally hiding
`money in offshore accounts. (ER V' 48, §3.54).
`30. When appellant filed a bar complaint
`against Gibbs, the WSBA ignored it. (ER V' 50, 51;
`§3.54).
`
`31. On September 6, 2014, Hearing Officer
`O’Dell, issued her decision recommending
`disbarment. O’Dell made several findings of
`misconduct, for which she was never charged,
`including harming the Penningtons, and misconduct
`in the way she conducted her case, which included
`misconduct for diassociating from the bar(ER V: 50}
`32. Even though O’Dell could not account for
`several million dollars in a trust account set up for a
`client (Paula Fowler), for whom she was guardian, the
`bar refused to investigate these bar complaints. Later
`on, long before the Disciplinary Board had come to a
`conclusion on the case, O’Dell predicted that Anne
`Block would be disbarred. The WSBA, through
`
`

`

`respondent McGillen, refused to investigate the bar
`complaints filed in connection with this multimillion
`dollar disparity. (ER V'42, §339; ER V:55_56, §3.56)
`33. In late 2014, appellant filed WSBA
`complaints against Lin O'Dell, Linda Eide, and Sean
`Reay for ex-parte communication in violation of
`Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. WSBA
`assigned Ronald Schaps to investigate the bar
`complaints, who admits he never investigated. (ER
`V‘58-59, §3.64).
`34. From the time between the time hearing by
`O’Dell, and the time the issue was eventually heard
`by the Disciplinary Board in October 2015, the
`appellant alleges a number of harassing actions taken
`by some of the respondents.
`These include'
`35. In March 2015, the Penningtons filed
`criminal complaints with the City of Duvall because
`appellant attempted to depose Hill-Pennington in a
`public records case. Batiot helps them file a no contact
`order for protected speech. (ER V-60, §367).
`Pennington files identical evidence to try to obtain no
`contact order before Judge Meyers on March 19, 2015.
`(ER V- 60, 3.69) The Pennington’s knowingly used
`altered documents and false accusations in both.
`Pennington’s admit in court they shut down
`appellant’s twitter account for what appellant claims
`was protected first amendment activity. These
`attempts by Hill Pennington were rejected by
`prosecutors and by Judge Meyers. (ER V- 62§37l)
`
`

`

`36. On March 19, 2015, March 25, 2015, and
`April 1, 2015 Hill-Pennington knowingly filed false
`statements with the King County District Court, City
`of Duvall, and Snohomish County, respectively. The
`falsities that Hill-Pennington stated and published,
`are outlined in ER V:63-64, §373, §374
`37. Threat on appellant’s Life. April 2015, after
`the Penningtons failed three times to obtain a
`restraining order on appellant’s First Amendment
`protected speech or have criminal charges filed
`against appellant for the same, Block learned that
`John Pennington had “taken out a hit” on appellant.
`The confidential source was to be revealed in
`depositions or trial. (ER V:64-65, §375)
`38. On April 12, 2015, Respondent Duvall
`Police Officer Lori Batiot, made thinly veiled threats
`that if appellant did not call her back and explain her
`news articles she would have her arrested. (ER V'65,
`§376)
`
`39. On May 4, 2015 Lori Batiot did knowingly
`publish false documents and false accusations for the
`purpose of wrongfully instituting legal proceedings
`and abuse of process against the appellant by seeking
`to have her committed to a mental institution. (ER V-
`65-66, §3.77, §3.78, §3.80)
`40. Defendants Duvall, Batiot, Penningtons
`and Michael Kenyon continued to withhold public
`records involving appellant, even after Appellant filed
`a suit for the records (ER V:67, §3.79).
`
`

`

`41. In May, 2015, John Pennington’s and
`Officer Batiot contacted Cary Coblantz with at least
`two phone calls. As a result, Coblantz falsely asserted
`the appellant was wanted for "possible felony warrant
`with extradition back to the U.S." Port of Seattle
`Officers Matuska, Tanga, and Gibleo used this to
`elicit the assistance of US Customs Officer Curtis
`Chen to place a tracker on appellant's passport which
`had the effect of putting her on a terrorist watch list.
`On May 24, 2015, after arriving at London Heathrow
`Airport, appellant, while fully clothed, was searched
`in a very personal and penetrating manor. She was
`also illegally detained at Seattle Tacoma
`International Airport, by two Port Officers and one
`US Customs Officer, Curtis Chen. The judge
`eventually threw out this wrongfully instituted legal
`proceeding. (ER V:67-69, §3.81, §3.82, §383).
`42. Public records from the City of Shoreline
`confirmed that Coblantz not only conspired with
`Pennington and Batiot to have appellant charged
`with felony criminal stalking and harassment
`charges, but he also conspired with Sandra, Sullivan
`(Meadowcroft) who was not acting as a prosecutor at
`the time. The conspiracy ultimately failed, the details
`of this effort are outlined in (ER V-68, §3.83).
`43. On June 19, 2015, Batiot, Pennington and
`Hill Pennington, also sought to have appellant
`committed for a PSY evaluation. This effort failed as
`well. (ER V-69, 70, §3.84, §3.85).
`
`

`

`44. From public records retrieved in August
`2015, Reay assisted Hill- Pennington by giving her
`personal giving legal advice on how to get a
`restraining order. Furthermore, Hill-Pennington
`notified the court she considered Reay her personal
`lawyer (ER V-70§3.86).
`45. In September 2015, a former Snohomish
`County Department of Information Services employee
`Pam Miller gave appellant public records previously
`requested from Snohomish County but withheld,
`documenting that defendants DiVittorio and Lewis
`tampered with public records appellant requested.
`Miller had earlier been fired after she complained
`about Snohomish County staff treating Block
`differently than other requesters, by not disclosing
`many documents and altering others. DiVittorio and
`Lewis’ actions violated the public records act and the
`public trust causing injury to appellant and the
`public. (ERV-71, §3.88)