TO: MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

RE: THE BROKEN SYSTEM OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE IN WASHINGTON

Several matters of vital importance need to be brought to the attention of members of the
Washington State Bar Association:

WSBA vs. MADELI NE GAUTHI ER, Public No. 01#00017 The WSBA brought formal charges
against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter and sought to
suspend her license to practice law. Ms. Gauthier had alleged that the attorney for an estate
creditor had threatened to threatened to coach his client to give false testimony and for
threatening to use that false testimony to sabotage the deceaseds wrongful death claim. The act
of obtaining an Order to Show Cause requiring the attorney for the estate creditor and the estate
creditor to appear in Court was alleged to be a matter subjecting Ms. Gauthier to discipline from
the Bar. The Court entered the Order to Show Cause.

Orders to Show Cause are entered on an ex parte basis, without notice to opposing counsel, all
the time. They are specifically authorized by the Supreme Court. (See WPF DR 04.0150
(MEXRSC)) Orders to Show Cause are used to obtain jurisdiction over a person who is not yet a
party. A creditor in an estate case is not a party. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining
such an Order when a Superior Court Judge has determined that there is enough of a basis to
enter such an Order to Show Cause? Courts enter orders finding violations of CR 11 all the time.
Why did the WSBA choose to pursue Ms. Gauthier for alleged ethical violations in this instance
while failing to pursue hundreds of other attorneys in instances where they were found to have
committed CR 11 violations? Proportionality? The actions of the WSBA in this case caused the
ABA to conduct an audit or review of the WSBAs conduct. How did this ABA involvement
occur? What were the findings of the ABA audit or review? Why have the findings of the ABA
not been disclosed to the WSBA membership? The disciplinary proceedings against attorney
Gauthier were eventually dismissed. What precipitated this dismissal?


WSBA vs. KAREN UNGER, Public No. 06#00071 In the Unger case, the Washington State
Supreme Court authorized the payment of something between $60,000 and $100,000 in WSBA
funds to partially compensate an attorney, Karen Unger, for her attorney fees spent in defending
what the Bars Hearing Officer found to be a frivolous WSBA Disciplinary Proceeding. The
WSBA also used false, untrue and misleading information in its case. The underlying complaint
against Ms. Unger involved her representation of a client in a criminal matter. Before becoming
Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Douglas J. Ende, specialized in criminal appellate work. Why did
Mr. Ende pursue a frivolous disciplinary proceeding? Does anyone have an idea about the
legality of this expenditure of Bar funds? Why did the WSBA use false, untrue and misleading
information to make a case against Ms. Unger? In I n ReGauthier, described above, the Office
of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board clearly demonstrated that they considered
bringing a frivolous action to be a violation of the ethical rules justifying a suspension from the
practice of law. Of course, no disciplinary action or adverse employment action was taken
against the ODC attorneys (or the Disciplinary Board staff attorneys or the members of the
Disciplinary Board) involved in bringing the frivolous Unger disciplinary proceedings and in
using false, untrue and misleading information against Ms. Unger, even though the harm to Ms.
Unger was far greater than any harm to the opposing party and counsel in Gauthier Ms.
Ungers disciplinary proceedings went on for three years and cost her $100,000 in attorney fees.

I contacted former Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders, Talmadge, Bridge and Enyeart by
email about this Unger matter. Only Justice Sanders responded to my emails. Some of the emails
are attached below. Justice Sanders stated that he was outraged about the Unger matter and
that the ODC attorney involved was still employed by the WSBA. The details of this matter were
withheld from Justice Sanders and presumably the other Justices. How can this be? The Supreme
Court is in charge of attorney discipline. The Supreme Court is the boss of the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel. How can the details of this matter be withheld from the WSBA
membership? Isnt this ethical misconduct on the part of the ODC? Does the Disciplinary Board
do its job and evaluate disciplinary cases before it issues a Statement of Charges against an
attorney? Why shouldnt the actions of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary
Board, in pursuing Ms. Unger on frivolous charges, subject them to disciplinary action or
removal from office in the same way they pursued Ms. Gauthier? Why shouldnt the attorneys
in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel be subjected to disciplinary charges for their conduct? Why
are they still employed by the WSBA? Why is this any different from the Duke Lacrosse Team
prosecutor, Mike Nifong, who was disbarred for the same conduct? Why hasnt this been
disclosed the membership of the WSBA? Why has this matter been covered up? Where did the
$60,000 to $100,000 the WSBA used to compensate Ms. Unger come from? What authority was
used to pay this money? Why didnt Ms. Unger receive full compensation? Why did the WSBA
refuse to provide me with the information I requested? Why was I retaliated against for blowing
the whistle on this matter? I was threatened by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (in writing) for
contacting the former Justices listed above about this matter.

The emails exchanged with former Justice Sanders:

From: Rbsanders [mailto:rbsanders@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Paul E. Simmerly
Subject: Re: In Re Unger and In Re Gauthier

Yes Paul, I have heard this. If I were still on the court I would try to get you all the details, but I
think that might be difficult. But I'll try if you can't get satisfaction. I suggest you call Justice
Owens. Karen Unger is her friend and she (Owens) recused from her case for that reason. She
knows the details or could get them. Let me know what you find out. While I was on the court I
tried mightly to change the rule which says if the lawyer loses he pays the bar's reasonable
attorney fees, but if he wins the bar doesn't pay anything. You also might call Karen's lawyer.
Like I said if you strike out I'll try to help myself. Great to hear from you.
Richard


In a message dated 7/27/2011 4:39:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
psimmerly@hermanrecor.com writes:
Justice Sanders: Well, I have struck out. I have been trying for three years to obtain this
information. The ODC is free to take Membership money at any time? Why is this a secret? Is
there misconduct going on that the Bar wants to remain secret? Why else wouldnt this
information be readily available? The ODC is retaliating against me and my clients. Please do
not contact Justice Owens or any other sitting Justice. The ODC is claiming that this would be ex
parte contact. Their reasoning escapes me.

PAUL E. SIMMERLY
Attorney at Law
(425) 451-1400


From: Rbsanders [mailto:rbsanders@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Paul E. Simmerly
Subject: Re: In Re Unger and In Re Gauthier

When I first heard about this, a long time before you contacted me, I was outraged. Still am. I
was also told the same attorney at fault is still employed by the bar. See my last message for
further action.

Richard

WSBA vs. ROBERT GRUNDSTEI N, Public No.07-02058 and 10-00097

Background The Cleveland, Ohio judicial, court and law enforcement systems have an
incredible, and possibly unprecedented, history of corruption. Robert Grundstein, a resident of
Vermont, was a member of the WSBA on inactive status and had never had a client in
Washington State. In 2007, Robert Grundstein wrote an editorial critical of ex-judge Peter Junkin
of Cleveland, Ohio (later removed from office during the FBI raids on Cleveland for
racketeering with connections to LA Mob and prostitution activities). Six months later, the
County Sheriff (since arrested and convicted) had his detectives present evidence to the Grand
Jury that on April 28, 2003, Mr. Grundstein altered an original document in the exclusive
possession and control of a suburban Cleveland municipal court. The Grand Jury refused to give
an indictment and returned a "No Bill". Only four percent of presentments to the Cuyahoga
County (Cleveland) Grand Juries get a "No Bill". It is illegal to re-present. See the Ohio Supreme
Court case of Froehlich v Ohio Board of Mental Health, August 20, 2007). Most importantly,
Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio during 2003 and had the ATM receipts to prove it.

Mr. Grundsteins case was illegally re-presented to the Grand Jury and this time a True Bill was
returned based upon false information. He had to fight this matter.

The judge would not bring the case to trial. Mr. Grundstein moved to dismiss. The judge,
Michael Russo, refused to rule on Mr. Grundsteins motions. The prosecutor would not drop the
case. Trial was scheduled three times. Mr. Grundstein refused to take a plea. Every time Mr.
Grundstein came in to Cleveland from his home in Vermont for trial, he found out only upon his
arrival in Ohio that the trial had been cancelled. The prosecutor scheduled eight (8) pre-trials for
which Mr. Grundstein had to drive in to Ohio from Vermont. Nothing was ever discussed at
them. The Criminal Clerk of Courts falsified the docket to say Mr. Grundstein kept asking for
continuances. The Criminal Clerk of Courts, Mark Lime, is now in jail on 76 counts of altering
records and theft.

After eleven trips to Ohio over the course of a year, Mr. Grundstein realized that Ohio was not
going to give him a trial, rule on his motions or drop the case. Finally, he was forced to settle for
a $50.00 fine.

The prosecutor, Bill Mason, was forced to resign as a result of the FBI raids, shortly after Mr.
Grundsteins case was resolved. Another prosecutor involved in the case, Joe O'Malley, was sent
to federal prison for case fixing, bribery and perjury.

WSBA Action Senior Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende called Mr. Grundstein in February
of 2008 to discuss the matter. Mr. Grundstein told them everything and he advised them that he
wanted the WSBA to know all about the case. Someone from Ohio had sent the WSBA an
anonymous letter about Mr. Grundstein in October of 2007. Mr. Grundstein didn't hear from the
WSBA for another three years when the WSBA sent him a Formal Complaint. In I n re Ressa, 94
Wn 2d 882, 621 P.2d 153 (1980), the Supreme Court found a delay of three years in a
disciplinary case to be unreasonable.

During Mr. Grundsteins disciplinary proceeding, the WSBA amended the Statement of Charges
against him a total of eight times, including an amendment that requested his disbarment when
the original Statement of Charges only requested probation. All of these amendments were
allowed by Hearing Office Lisa Hammel. The WSBA sought to enforce what it thought were
problems with motions Mr. Grundstein had filed in an unrelated legal matter in Vermont.
Vermont had found no problem with those motions and had taken no disciplinary action against
Mr. Grundstein. What authority does the WSBA have to enforce what an attorney does in
another state?

Mr. Grundstein was disbarred. One of the reasons was that he committed a felony in Ohio. The
only problem was that he had never been convicted of a felony. This was of no concern to the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who continuously misrepresented the facts or to the Hearing
Officer, Lisa Hammel, who disregarded Mr. Grundsteins affirmative defenses in this regard and
the WSBAs failure to prove the commission of a felony.

Mr. Grundstein was also charged by the WSBA with a violation of RPC 8.4, alteration of a court
document. Mr. Grundstein had taken a faxed copy of the court document, which had been typed
in black ink, and wrote on it in blue ink, in his own handwriting, the (c) after Lakewood, Ohio
Municipal Code 549.04. All of 549.04, including subsection (c), deals with misdemeanors.
Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Court only deals with misdemeanors. It has no jurisdiction over
felonies. Mr. Grundstein had needed to explain the matter to the FBI in order to be able to buy a
gun. He had to explain that he had never been convicted of a felony so he wrote the FBI a letter
explaining that he had not been convicted of a felony, including in it the court document which
had his added subsection (c). There was no alteration and no intent to deceive anyone. He
wrote on a faxed copy of a court document and never tried to pass his writing off as part of the
court document.

In her Findings of Fact and Law, Hearing Officer Lisa Hammel incorrectly found that Mr.
Grundstein had changed the record on a 2002 conviction for Improper Storage of Firearm, from a
Felony to a Misdemeanor. But Mr. Grundstein in fact had never been convicted of such a felony
or any other felony. She was referring to a charge under Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Code
549.04(c). Lakewood Municipal Court is a suburban Cleveland court. It only has misdemeanor
jurisdiction. It can't hear or charge felonies. The charge under 549.04 was a misdemeanor of the
4th degree, the lowest in Ohio. It didn't get sent to Cuyahoga Common Pleas where felonies are
heard. It was completely resolved as a minor matter in Lakewood. Mr. Grundstein had to come
to Cleveland to defend his mother from people who embezzled from her. He neglected to leave
his .22 pistol in Vermont. His car was towed during a rush hour violation. The police impounded
his vehicle, unlocked it, went through everything and found his pistol.

Three weeks after his Disciplinary Hearing, Mr. Grundstein received a copy of the Hearing
record that he had requested. All of his 42 Exhibits which had been admitted by Hearing Officer
Hammel at the Hearing were gone. All of his documentary proof had been removed from the
record. The 80 pages of transcripts of the disciplinary proceeding bear this out. The WSBA had
stolen every one of Mr. Grundsteins exhibits that irrefutably proved his innocence and the state
of the law in Ohio. These exhibits proved that Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio at the times
alleged, he never altered a court document, he was never convicted of a felony, he never changed
the record of a felony into a misdemeanor and that he never issued a subpoena illegally. The
WSBA hid all Mr. Grundsteins evidence of innocence. Why doesnt this conduct constitute
violations of RPC 3.2, 3.3 and 3.8 (duty to acknowledge exculpatory evidence at all times), the
requirements of Brady v Maryland, obstruction of justice and spoliation of evidence?

The WSBA Disciplinary Board was fully informed, on multiple occasions, of what had
occurred, but completely ignored the situation and refused to do anything. The WSBA, the ODC,
the Disciplinary Board, Hearing Officer Hammel and the Washington State Supreme Court are
unconcerned about this. Why arent WSBA Hearing Officers concerned about the integrity of the
record in disciplinary proceedings that they control? Why arent WSBA Hearing Officers and the
Disciplinary Board concerned about misrepresentations that are made to them? Compare this to
the situation with the disbarred Duke Lacrosse team Prosecutor Mike Nifong.

The Washington Supreme Court refused to allow Mr. Grundstein to appeal his disbarment. He
tried to file his appeal eighteen days after the Disciplinary Boards decision, thinking his filing
was timely. The Supreme Court found that it was not even though there is authority for a longer
deadline. Efforts to file motions to vacate his disbarment based upon CR 60 fraud and
irregularities in obtaining a judgment were rejected by Clerks. He was not even allowed by the
Clerks to file these documents to get them in front of the Disciplinary Board or the Supreme
Court.

Mr. Grundstein has federal lawsuits pending in the 9
th
Circuit and the federal District Court in
Vermont. The Judge in the suit in Vermont has refused to grant the WSBAs motion to dismiss.
John Scannell has a federal RICO case against the WSBA pending.

Mr. Grundstein filed Bar Grievances against all members of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
involved, but these were ignored and dismissed without any investigation or consideration. How
can the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigate Grievances against itself?

Mr. Grundsteins odyssey through the disciplinary process is further described in the book he has
just written, Vendetta: Cleveland Ohio Vermont to Washington State Americas Archipelago
of Legal Failure. The link to this book is:

http://www.amazon.com/Vendetta-Cleveland-Americas-Archipelago-
Failure/dp/149598737X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399658385&sr=1-
1&keywords=grundstein

Why shouldnt Mr. Grundstein be entitled to an immediate hearing before the Washington
State Supreme Court to determine if his disbarment, due to the intentional use of false,
untrue and misleading information, should be vacated?


WSBA vs. ANNE BLOCK, Public No. 14#00016 Anne Block is a reporter, blogger, citizen
activist and whistleblower who runs the Gold Bar, Washington Reporter. She has investigated
alleged on-going corruption in the highest levels of government in Snohomish County and the
City of Gold Bar. Ms. Block was also a member of the Washington State Bar Association.

As part of her investigations, Ms. Block has made numerous requests as far back as 2008 for
public records of Snohomish County and Gold Bar government under Washington States Public
Records Act. Ms. Block pursued a recall vote against then-Snohomish County Executive Aaron
Reardon. Mr. Reardons staff then responded by authoring a 2700 word attack page about Ms.
Block in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to collaboratively create content.
The Wikipedia managers removed it. Some of Ms. Blocks activity contributed to Mr. Reardons
resignation as Snohomish County Executive.

Government officials have reacted to Ms. Blocks requests with great hostility and retaliation, to
put it mildly. Ms. Block has filed a federal civil rights suit against these officials. See Block v.
Snohomish County, et al., U.S. District Court Cause No. 2:14-cv-00235.

One government official, John E. Pennington, has filed approximately 32 Grievances against Ms.
Block with the Bar Association as part of an effort to derail her investigations and requests for
public records. There has been an organized campaign within Snohomish County and Gold Bar
government to file Bar Grievances against Ms. Block, alleging harassment. No attempt,
however, has been made by any of these Grievants to obtain an anti-harassment order mind
you. Why not? Perhaps it is because they know that they have no case against Ms. Block and that
they would be subjecting themselves to an Anti-SLAPP suit motion. See Washingtons Anti-
SLAPP Suit law, RCW 4.24.525, which allows the filing of a special motion to strike any claim
filed that is based upon public statements made about an issue of public concern. Or perhaps it is
because they would have to produce the records requested by Ms. Block in discovery to their
anti-harassment action. Or perhaps they do not want to produce evidence of their wrongdoing or
draw further attention to it. Since when do requests for documents made under our Public
Records Act constitute harassment?

Ms. Block has never represented Mr. Pennington and Mr. Pennington has never been Ms.
Blocks client. Despite all of this, the WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Senior
Disciplinary Counsel Linda Eide have seen fit to file a formal Statement of Charges against Ms.
Block in response to these complaints. The WSBA wants her reporter records in violation of the
Media Shield laws and has attempted to issue a subpoena to obtain them. Ms. Eide is a friend of
Mr.Pennington. Why is the Bar Association getting involved in this effort by government
officials to cover-up alleged government corruption and Ms. Blocks attempts to exercise her
rights under the First Amendment and Washingtons Public Records Act? Arent the actions of
the WSBA also violations of Washingtons Anti-SLAPP suit law, R.C.W. 4.24.525, as well as
federal civil rights laws?



OTHER QUESTIONS The WSBA routinely resolves disciplinary cases by offering to accept
a sum of money from the attorney in exchange for not proceeding with a formal disciplinary
proceeding. Where is this procedure authorized? How often is it used? How much money is
collected? Where does the money that is collected go?


Please forward this email to all attorneys and Judges.

Contact me if you wish to receive any of the pleadings verifying the facts which have been
stated.

Please also contact the Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court and the members of the
Board of Governors to request explanations of these matters and to voice your concerns:

Washington State Supreme Court Email: supreme@courts.wa.gov

Barbara A. Madsen, Chief Justice

360-357-2037
Charles W. Johnson, Justice

360-357-2020
Susan Owens, Justice

360-357-2041
Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice

360-357-2053
James M. Johnson, Justice

360-357-2033
Debra L. Stephens, Justice

360-357-2050
Charles K. Wiggins, Justice

360-357-2025
Steven C. Gonzlez, Justice

360-357-2030
Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Justice

360-357-2045

WSBA Board of Governors

Patrick A. Palace President patrick@palacelaw.com
Anthony Gipe President-elect adgipe@shatzlaw.com
Michele G. Radosevich Immediate Past-President micheleradosevich@dwt.com
Kenneth W. Masters District 1 ken@appeal-law.com
Bradford E. furlong District 2 bef@furlongbutler.com
Brian J. Kelly District 3 bkelly@localaccess.com
Jerry Moberg District 4 jmoberg@jmlawps.com
Paul A. Bastine District 5 paulbastine@msn.com
Vernon W. Harkins District 6 vharkins@rhhk.com
Daniel G. Ford District 7 North dan.ford@columbialegal.org
Barbara Rhoads-Weaver District 7 South barb@sustainablelawpllc.com
Wilton S. Viall III District 8 billviall3@gmail.com
Elijah Ford District 9 office@atlaslawps.com
Philip Brady District 10 pbradyiv@gmail.com
James W. Armstrong At-Large armstronglaw@comcast.net
Karen Denise Wilson At-Large Not disclosed
Robin Lynn Haynes At-Large rlh@witherspoonkelley.com

To email all WSBA Governors in a single email:

patrick@palacelaw.com; adgipe@shatzlaw.com; micheleradosevich@dwt.com; ken@appeal-
law.com; bef@furlongbutler.com; bkelly@localaccess.com; jmoberg@jmlawps.com;
paulbastine@msn.com; vharkins@rhhk.com; dan.ford@columbialegal.org;
barb@sustainablelawpllc.com; billviall3@gmail.com; office@atlaslawps.com;
pbradyiv@gmail.com; armstronglaw@comcast.net; rlh@witherspoonkelley.com;
supreme@courts.wa.gov