Down the Rabbit Hole: Attempts to Report Felony Crimes per 18 USC 4 28 USC 1361: Threats of Arrest , Exchanges with Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas and the Covert Power Structure of ‘Vantucky’

Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Gerryodonothingproveskevinannttmelvjohndeeganliedaboutdeaththreats11

Recorded Audio Dec-22-2012 12-35-03 PM



Grievance II Knight 429


JAMES CRAVEN Vs. Clark College Grievant’s Closing Argument

Lisa Lewison hereby submits her Closing Arguments on behalf of James Craven:

On Thursday, November 3, 2010 and Friday, November 4, 2010, an arbitration took place on the Clark College Campus in Vancouver, Washington, involving Clark College (hereinafter “the College”) and the Clark College Association of Higher Education (hereinafter “the Association”).

The Association and the College stipulated to the following issue statement:
“Did Clark College have just cause to impose a 108-day (2-term) suspension to Professor Craven? If no, what is the appropriate remedy?”

“WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven.

This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would ever make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven”


EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image


Mr. Craven testified to and shared in an email with Ms. Lewison a poignant vignette from Alice in Wonderland that captured, disturbingly well, the College’s actions and approach to due process and the investigation of the allegations made of Mr. Craven. Chapter 12. Alice’s Evidence:

In the meantime Alice has grown so much that she upsets the jury box when she gets up. She hastily tries to put them back in their places. She tells the King that she knows nothing about the stolen arts, which he considers very important. The White Rabbit has to correct him again.

Then the King reads from his notebook, stating that all persons more than a mile high must leave the court. Alice refuses to leave because she suspects that he made up this rule, and the King tells the jury to consider their verdict.

Then the White Rabbit brings in a letter, which serves as evidence. The letter contains a verse, written in someone else’s handwriting, which clears up nothing at all. However, the King thinks that it is very important but Alice corrects him and explains the verse proves nothing. Eventually the King asks the jury for the third time to consider a verdict, and now the Queen contradicts him and says that there should be a sentence first and a verdict afterwards.”

Alice is a fictitious character, yet the reader can find both empathy and humor in her predicament. Sadly, for Mr. Craven, there is no humor to be found in the lack of due process he was afforded, causing him to suffer significant financial and professional injury due to the College’s flippant and cavalier managerial actions.”

Lisa Lewison WEA Representative


Please note that for background and evolving context, please see the documents referred to in links all of which have been sworn to directly, or in submissions to law enforcement and various courts under penalty of perjury. They have all been submitted as the evidence, reasoning, law and facts basis for my allegations and demands for investigations. Further, all these documents have been presented repeatedly to all the individuals named in them and against whom the allegations in the documents were made, and all were given repeated opportunities for their rebuttals and none came

On December 18th 2012 the following exchange took place at the central office of Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas. Please follow this story and supporting evidence as a narrative down the “Rabbit Hole” into the covert power structure of Vancouver or what some people call “Vantucky” (in reference to stereotypes about people from areas of eastern Kentucky where family trees allegedly do not branch a lot). This is to be followed with supporting evidence and background that flows with the narrative as it happened and is still happening.

Following this evolving narrative will help the readers see not only my supporting and still unrebutted evidence and reasoning for my allegations–and those of others–against the persons named, but also how, when, and why, that evidence came forth.

Please also listen to the tapes of the meetings referred to, and the issues and background discussed, that triggered our exchanges, myself and my friend Dean Lookinghawk, a witness to all of this and more, with Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas, some Deputies of Sheriff Lucas’ Office, Corporal Chris Leblanc of the Vancouver Police and some past and present elements of law enforcement federal as well as State, Vancouver Police and Washington State Patrol.

This is not some story about me or any one person. Indeed the patterns shown clearly here in the evidence presented in the links, documents, recordings of meetings, applies to many others who are terrified of losing their jobs and lifetime investments of themselves in Clark College. We also have faculty who are beneficiaries of all this, scabs, as they have been hired through the backdoor, without being properly vetted by those qualified to do so, into jobs they would ordinarily have no chance of obtaining as their resumes are extremely thin, and thus undermine both the union and the Contract hence are scabs in the normal usage of the term. So they resort to what scabs and union-busters have always done: go along to get along with management and act as snitches, proxies and absorbers of deflected accountability, non-transparency and legal actions should the victims find the means to fight back.

But just as lies beget more lies, and cover-ups beget more cover-ups, so corruption begets more of itself as well as spinoff forms of corruption as each member of corrupt cabals has the inside information that can take down the others if he or she goes down and they all know it. So as Conspirator Tom Paine put it: “We must all hang together or surely, we shall all hang separately.”

That is what is going on right now at many institutions like Clark College. Those who do corruption for higher ups, in the hope they are buying some job security in times of the cutbacks ahead, do buy some security for awhile. All of a sudden courses are scheduled and allowed to run with 10 students in them when for everyone else 15 students is minimum. And if they do not have enough courses and students to be eligible for medical coverage that few adjuncts qualify for, and while others are losing theirs, these scabs get medical coverage, one-year contracts and even overtime for adjuncts which is unheard of. And adjuncts are even allowed to bump tenured professors, deny seniority and tenure rights if a compliant and captured union allows it.

But in the meantime, students, the community and the institution all suffer when they have been hijacked by a crew desperate to cover-up past and present crimes and to make those who can expose them go away, all with public resources, to keep jobs they are manifestly unfit to hold (as evidence of their fear and avoidance of the normal vetting all others must go through in public employment) and to build little empires that can only create and proliferate more corruption.

There are real people involved here and they are causing real damages. Clark College, and indeed Clark County are riddled with forms of corruption that must be rooted out and exposed as there is simply too much at stake. It is also the duty under law of every public employee to report crimes and forms of waste, fraud and conspiracy against rights when they encounter them without fear or favor and it is a matter of law that law enforcement accept, investigate or fail to investigate complaints without fear or favor and with proper authority for any action or position taken on complaints of alleged crimes submitted to law enforcement.


In 1994 I first became a whistle-blower when a faculty member, still at Clark College, bragged to me, and it turned out later and not to my knowledge at the time, to another faculty member, that he was using the State computer system to collect and disseminate pornography, and that some of it likely involved child pornography (from his description of the materials sent and received that included, he said, a polaroid “beaver shot” from a 14 year old girl). My allegations, and those of the other whistle-blower, were sustained even though this person walked on the criminal charges (not those of the Washington Ethics Commission) because of problems with the warrant to go into his computer at Clark College and its execution. (see Watson case in documents referred to in links above and in the narrative to follow).

Why did I become a whistle-blower even as I had no tenure at the time, and this individual who bragged to me was protected by the Clark College administration and still is? Well in addition to the fact that I had a daughter, and in addition to the fact that I am compelled by my own morality and values not to turn a blind-eye to corruption and crime, there is this that is binding not only on all public employees as I am, but indeed on all citizens. It is called “Misprision of a Felony” and “Obstruction of Justice” and this is what I have tried to present to various elements of Vancouver, State and Federal Law Enforcement over and over in writing and on tape:

Misprision of a Felony

Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:

• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.
• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not thems4elves involved in the crime).

Federal Crime Reporting Statute

The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.

Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.

Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Top Government Personnel Repeatedly Violating Crime Reporting Statute

For over 40 years, former federal agent Rodney Stich has attempted to report the continuing corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices related to a series of continuing aviation disasters, and of criminal activities inflicting great harm upon the American people and upon the United States, to:
• Management in government aviation safety offices: FAA and NTSB and political board members.
Members of Congress.
Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal judges
Supreme Court Justices.
Media personnel with a duty to report major corruption of government personnel.

In every instance, the judges and Justices blocked the reporting of the federal crimes. They became enablers to subsequent tragic, sometimes, deadly, and sometimes catastrophic events.

Why am I providing all these links on background and asking the reader to follow them? Because this will explain my own mind-set. I did not become a whistle-blower because of the Clark Administration or various elements of it, since 1994 provably conspiring to “get rid of professor Craven” (more on this quote later) and even opening and maintaining a secret file on me since 1994 (see attached documents and photo of six binders, 4900 pages of email exchanges and whistle-blowing complaints discovered on a previous public records request as a result of the letter of Emma Kim in 2003 alerting to its existence) but the actually reverse is the case: the reprisals came after and were and are a direct response to my whistle-blowing mandated by law. No one ever takes reprisals against whistle-blowers except under pretexts that have been cooked and engineered and/or with petty offenses found and applied with disparate treatment.

But it is also important to understand the reason for Federal Statutes such as 18 USC 4 and the various Obstruction of Justice forms in U.S. Code that actually mandate whistle-blowing as a matter of law. And this is because crime goes on partly because law enforcement cannot be everywhere, but also because people may have real knowledge that could help to stop a crime and prevent future ones by bringing perpetrators to justice. Often people who know about crimes going on and may even be involved at some level, will instead, trade on their knowledge and participation in crimes they know about (“If I go down you all go down with me” or as conspirator and American revolutionary Tom Paine put it: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately”). Or, there are some that are cowards, opportunists, climbers or just apathetic and will trade their own safety and that of others for what they think is a little security and advancement. As Ben Franklin put it: “Those who would trade their liberty for a little [illusion of] security will neither deserve nor attain either liberty or security.”

But in the case of public employment, as in my case as a tenured professor and public employee AT not FOR Clark College an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, I have additional responsibilities under law, as I have certain rights to go with those responsibilities and duties under law that private-sector employees do not have in addition to not to engage in or help to cover-up crimes and Misprision of a Felony or Obstruction of Justice or any wrong practices while on public time and using public resources and receiving pay.

But in any case, crimes that go unreported only beget more crimes and victims until they are stopped.


Following the meeting on December 18, 2012, a Stage II Grievance against being ordered at the last minute to move my office from where I had been for over 14 years with no reason and at the last minute (please listen to the tape of the meeting and that of a previous meeting with HR Director Rourk) I and my friend Dean Lookinghawk, a direct witness to what we both believe, and have a sound, unrebutted and good-faith basis to believe, are serious felonies, went to report past and now more present felonies (we believed just occurred in a meeting with Clark College president Robert Knight, Vice-president of Instruction Tim Cook and Dean Blake Bowers) to Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas. Why did we go to the Clark County Sheriff? Because that is where I had been referred before by a letter signed on behalf of FBI SAC Laura Loughlin, Seattle FBI, in a letter in response to previous reporting to FBI that went on with no response from FBI for a long time. I had also been referred there by Det Sgt Rob Rousseau of the Washington State Patrol when I attempted to report crimes to WSP. I had also been referred there by the office of Clark County Prosecutor by an assistant to Mr. Bailey. I also had made past submissions there to Sgt Dave Trimble, Sgt Kevin Allais, Sgt John Horch of Internal Affairs of the Clark County Sheriff, none of whom referred me elsewhere with the exception finally of Sgt Allais after I had sent him many submissions, initially at his request, that he later denied having made in an email. This was the basis of formal and previous Internal Affairs complaint against him (dereliction of duty, misconduct of a public employee, filing a false report by a public employee) with Sgt Horch of the IA who promised to get back to me and never did. Also I reported crimes to Det.Sgt. Ron Stevens of the Vancouver Police Department and to Sheriff Gary Lucas, none of whom said they had no jurisdiction or to go to Vancouver Police (Why if no indicia of crimes not merely torts?)

Further, my friend Dean Lookinghawk, knows well what felonies look like, has been at ALL of my meetings with Clark College administration, even other meetings that were at the meeting on December 18, 2012 had not attended. All meetings were taped and the tape of this meeting will be put out on this blog soon.

Again, for the narrative, these are the statutes, along with my own conscience and morality, that have guided me as a past whistle-blower and public employee all along.

Misprision of a Felony

Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:

• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.

• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not themselves involved in the crime).

Now at this point, it is important to note this following note from Internal Affairs Officer (IA) John Horch to whom I sent the very same numerous documents that I had sent to Sgt. Allais (at his initial request until he denied having made such a request–a denial that took since March of 2012 to when I started sending documents to him for him to recently claim in writing on an email that is unsigned that he never asked me to send him and that he wanted no more contact or submissions from me) never here says “Go to Vancouver Police with this stuff”, or, “I do not see any crimes only torts in the materials you sent; get a lawyer” or “What you think are crimes are not actually crimes and this is why…” He said he was still reviewing the documents I sent.

From previous submissions to IA Officer Sgt John Horch in response:

Subject: RE: Request for Interview
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:44:38 -0700


Mr. Craven,

Just an update, we are still reviewing all of the documentation you have sent to us.


Sgt. John Horch

I never got a card or ever met Sgt Horch who promised to get back to me but these are the cards given to me by Sgt. Paul Dougher also of Clark County Sheriff’s IA who also said he had read many of my submissions to Sgt. Horch (who, he said characterized them as “wordy”) knew of the allegations I was making and against whom, and even said he had gone to my website at JimCraven10 to check on me and what kind of person I am and presumably what motivates me really.

Horch and Dougher Zoom 422

Now please notice again at this point in the narrative that there is no mention that “we do not have jurisdiction here go to the Vancouver Police”. And the submissions were numerous. These were documents that I one of the victims had no hand in originating, influencing in any way or even in some cases finding. And Sgt Paul Dougher, a fellow IA Officer to whom Dean and I spoke on December 18, 2012, said he had read some of my submissions to Sgt. Horch who, he said, characterized them as “wordy”, but who also gave no indication that he thought jurisdiction was elsewhere.

None of my submissions to that point had been sent to Sheriff Lucas himself only to Sheriff Deputies who, unlike Gary Lucas are public employees and not elected officials–but also a public employee in terms of duties under law. Yet Sheriff Lucas intervened and sent an unsigned email basically telling me there was nothing there and to go away somewhere else (see below), But I still had an official complaint with the other IA Officer John Horch who never got back to me as promised and who is a public employee and not just an employee of Sheriff Lucas who is an elected official and also a public employee. And now Dean and I were there to report even more that had taken place at the meeting with Clark College administrators that day that both Dean and I believed to involve more crimes of Obstruction of Justice, Misconduct of a Public Employee, Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, Conspiracy Against Rights and Conspiracy Against Rights under Color of Law, Trading in Public Employment and Influence and other felonies and gross misdemeanors that had been presented and cited over and over with repeated due-diligence-and-mitigation-of-damages calls for rebuttals that never came.

Sgt Paul Dougher went back and forth to speak with an unnamed supervisor several times and came back and said that his supervisor had said that I should go to Vancouver Police because the crimes we are alleging took place, occurred at Clark College which is within the city limits of Vancouver. I noted to him that I had been to the Vancouver Police, FBI, previously to his office, none of whom said there are only torts here, but did send me somewhere else as he was doing and I was sent to Clark County Sheriff and I cited by whom.

So I asked for it in writing, from the supervisor in the backroom that was unnamed and never came to speak to me directly, the one that he kept going back and forth to speak with (I heard the name Captain Evans or something like it and I will check for sure) so that I could take it to Vancouver Police with a referral and not be directed back to the Sheriff’s Department. My friend and colleague, Dean Lookinghawk,  has been at and a witness to ALL of my meetings with Clark College administrators and a direct witnesses to felonies, sat waiting for a response from Sgt.Dougher who never came back to talk with me nor with Dean who was also there per law on Misprision of a Felony and Obstruction of Justice as a witness.

Instead, a Deputy who reluctantly identified himself as Deputy Robertson came up and asked for me by name. Without identifying himself and his position, said to us, because we were BOTH there to report what we believed to be felonies that we had just witnessed in addition to those already reported: “I have been directed to tell you that your business is finished here and for you to leave”. I was shocked as we had been given no indication by Sgt. Dougher he was upset with us for any reason; we were there to report and stop crimes, or what we sincerely believe to be crimes with evidence-based support, unrebutted, for our beliefs, and I simply asked what have I done? I am waiting for an answer and to finish talking with the detective.” This Deputy said coldly “your business is finished here and if you remain you will lose your freedom.” He used the word “trespassing” as what would be my supposed offense for arrest if I remained.

I could not believe what I was hearing that I would be threatened with arrest for trying to stop serious crimes doing real harm to real people. Crimes such as Fraud against the students, Trading in Public Employment. Conspiracy Against Rights and under Color of Law, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Theft of Employee Benefits…

I asked this Deputy for his card and his name and that of the supervisor who “directed” him to threaten me with arrest if I did not agree that “my business was finished” and leave this public place and Government Agency not his personal property, indeed at which I might have additional business on other matters. He gave me this card but also said if I, or actually we, because we were both there to report what we believed to be felonies, objected any more and did not leave immediately.

Deputy Robertson and Sgt Schanaker 423

This Deputy Robertson, and his supervisor a Sgt. Schanaker who I never met, along with Sgts. Allais, Horch, Dougher, the backroom supervisor named by Sgt. Dougher, and Sheriff Lucas were all obstructing Dean and I doing our duty under the federal statutes we cited and tried over and over to get them to read along with the other materials of supporting evidence for our positions and allegations. The language is clear that anyone in authority failing to take or blocking attempts to report crimes is committing a federal crime; but all these individuals refused to even consider facts and law right in front of them in their faces. Even with the rather low levels of intellect and comprehension some of these individuals manifested in all of this, this is very clear as it is clear on whom it is binding:

Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:

Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.

Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not themselves involved in the crime).Federal Crime Reporting Statute

The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense. And Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.


Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

But it is not only law that drove and drives me not to tolerate or turn a blind eye to corruption; not to “lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those who do” and I have never been to West Point as has Clark College president Robert Knight who trades on being a West Point grad. And yet Mr. Knight was accused of perjury and other felonies in the sworn and un-rebutted testimonies, sworn under penalty of perjury, and un-rebutted of Dr. Marcia Roi, then union president at Clark College and Lynn Davidson, Uniserv Director for WEA or Washington Education Association (more later).

This also drives me as I have received so many emails like it and for the same reasons:

From: michael.
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: Macro Economics

Hi, my name is Michael . I took your micro economics class last spring quarter. I was registered for your macro economics class this fall, but I recently checked my schedule and I’ve been switched to a guy named Kraley. This isn’t okay with me, I was wondering if there was a reason, that you knew about, why I was transferred. It also could have been a glitch in the system, and I could still be registered for your class. It’s unlikely though, and I would really like to take your class, not Kraley’s class. I left you a message on your answering machine, but you may not get it until Monday. I will try to catch you on Monday, and hopefully we can figure this out.


This was the response that I gave to Michael:

From: “James Craven”
To: “michael
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:42:24 PM
Subject: FW: Macro Economics

Hi Michael,

Please reply to me at this address not at Clark College as I am under suspension with pay until next quarter and then off for one year without pay. I am charged with hostile, threatening and disrespectful speech. The problem is no complaint has been filed. Further, this time they kept my name on the schedule to draw in students like you when they had already told me I will not be teaching, and, and this is the good part, BEFORE my hearing this Monday, September 26th, 2011 that is supposed to be about the very question of if or if not I am guilty and, if so, what discipline do I deserve (already set).

The last time I got two quarters off for the same thing (felony truth telling and refusal to turn a blind eye to or participate in any corruption) that time they took my name off the schedule and replaced it with replacement names, again BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I got to determine, again, if or if not I was guilty.

What was I protesting? Well we have a bunch of adjuncts hired around me as department head of economics and the only one qualified to vet teachers for competence in economics and the teaching of it (John Fite, the only other full-time tenured economist got his masters from Georgetown in the early 1970s, never once worked as an economist, took no additional courses, never taught prior to coming to Clark) and I do not know what most of them look like and have never spoken to the others—and I am department head.

I am sending you something that tells the whole story or a lot of it. Please tell as many students as possible that they need to investigate if they are being ripped off and in this case, as they did with you, they kept my name on the schedule (after screwing up last time and taking it off before the hearing) to draw in students not caring one bit who was teaching and how and by whom had the teachers been vetted.

I have my hearing on Monday at 1 pm and it will be taped plus all of this has been turned over to the attorney general. Please keep these messages secure but I owe you and the other students an explanation and I will be writing an open letter to the students. See next messages coming for what is going on.

take care,

Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:14:13 +0000
From: michael
Subject: Re: Macro Economics

Oh my Gosh! This is some crazy stuff! Although, I can’t say I’m surprised. You never hold back when it comes to speak the TRUTH! That’s what I loved about your class. I will mention this to as many of the students I know about from your previous classes as I can. Anything I can do to help. As far as Clark lying to me about who my professor for Economics would be, I feel very ripped off, and wish there was something I could do. I wish you the best of luck on your hearing, and I hope that no injustice is found so that you can continue to teach in the incredible way that you do! I thoroughly enjoyed your micro econ class. You truly are a fantastic teacher!

(P.S. if anything I’ve said in my emails thus far can help you in any way, feel free to use them!)

And this was my response to Michael’s response:


Thanks for the note and I must and will confess my own guilt in some of this: I trusted and did not vet (in most cases not allowed to but in two or more cases they were “colleagues” whom were already established and subject to other forms of assessment) but I have not even met and not vetted Baily, Newman, Bayer, Foreman; I never seen John Fite teach one class but he sat through a whole course of mine; Adnan Hamideh has an MBA and is not qualified to teach upper-level economics; I have met Atkinson but have not vetted her except in a job interview for full-time which she did not get; Shon Kraley has been vetted by me. Mr. McCay was hired against my protest, without being vetted by me (I will post my exchanges with him) and not vetted or qualified, in my professional opinion, to be teaching Economic Geography 101. And I am head of economics (see attached on how they once promoted me). What is wrong with that picture? And you can see from some of the documents that I sent that I have been protesting this and other forms of corruption for a long time.

One thing all of you can do is go to the media and the students have a right to know all of this as I am scheduled for discipline to commence for one year off without pay, next quarter so there was no reason to take me out of the classroom other than they were providing work, with my classes, for these adjuncts hired through the back door with no verification of credentials or vetting for competence by me and I was available. You can let people know who are in my classes now, particularly Economic Geography, what has gone on, that there are teachers unvetted, and find out how many signed up specifically for my classes. I am in a position of conscience, like a cook ordered to serve and cover-up the serving of un-inspected meat and I have evidence some of the clients have been poisoned and harmed already. Students, even the ones who hate me, are not commodities, or numbers or “FTEs (full time enrollments) or revenue generators, but are, for me, real feeling, complex human beings trusting me and the college to not only be on our game but to care for them as real people with real needs.

thanks for everything and your kind thoughts and words. That is why I became a teacher.

When people are drawn in for a specific product or service by advertising or posted schedules and have arranged their lives and schedules accordingly, that the vendor had no intention of delivering and was even taking active steps to ensure that that product or service would not be delivered, that is pure bait and switch fraud. If it involves a simple product like a car for which another replacement may be found at another place, that is not like an educational opportunity. When students are handed un-vetted teachers, or perhaps some hired through the backdoor as a result of cronyism and nepotism, not only do students lose in terms of inadequate teaching and not getting what they paid for and need for their own lives and success, but they lose all the good that they could have gained if the vetted and credentialed teacher, for which many signed up specifically had been available.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are “switched” to a costlier product.

RCW 19.230.340
Prohibited practices.

It is a violation of this chapter for any licensee, executive officer, responsible individual, or other person subject to this chapter in connection with the provision of money services to:

(1) Directly or indirectly employ any scheme, device, or artifice to defraud or mislead any person, including but not limited to engaging in bait and switch advertising or sales practices;
(2) Directly or indirectly engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice toward any person, including but not limited to any false or deceptive statement about fees or other terms of a money transmission or currency exchange;
(3) Directly or indirectly obtain property by fraud or misrepresentation;
(4) Knowingly make, publish, or disseminate any false, deceptive, or misleading information in the provision of money services;
(5) Knowingly receive or take possession for personal use of any property of any money services business, other than in payment for services rendered, and with intent to defraud, omit to make, or cause or direct to omit to make, a full and true entry thereof in the books and accounts of the business;
(6) Make or concur in making any false entry, or omit or concur in omitting any material entry, in the books or accounts of the business;
(7) Knowingly make or publish to the director or director’s designee, or concur in making or publishing to the director or director’s designee any written report, exhibit, or statement of its affairs or pecuniary condition containing any material statement which is false, or omit or concur in omitting any statement required by law to be contained therein; or
(8) Fail to make any report or statement lawfully required by the director or other public official.
[2003 c 287 § 36.]

Now I really wanted to take on this Deputy Robertson and this Sgt Schanaker (?) who Deputy Robertson said sent him to threaten me with arrest if I did not accept that “my business was finished” right then and there. I have no fear of jail or his kind. He was actively obstructing me and Dean both doing our duty under law when we had and still have a good-faith basis to believe that we had witnessed and/or were the victims of felonies. Again, I reiterate for the record and narrative that I asked for his card and he gave me a generic card with his name and that of the Sgt who he said gave him the order to threaten me with arrest handwritten on the back of the card. He also snapped that he would not give me the card and his name and that of his supervisor if I protested any more his obstruction of my and Dean’s civil rights and duty under law to report felonies we have witnessed.

Sgt Dougher, an Internal Affairs Officer, the supervisor he alluded to he was talking with but that I never met, this Deputy Robertson and this Sgt Schanaker I never met, and others I have dealt with before, have all obstructed my reporting, along with alleged crimes that were witnessed by Dean Lookinghawk, very serious and ongoing potential felonies and thus they have enabled as well as helped to cover-up the felonies we were trying to report and stop.

But I knew that if I stayed to press the point I or we would only wind up in jail, portrayed as reactive and the like, and this whole story and narrative might not be told. But still it nagged at me. Why did Sgt. Horch accept my complaint against Sgt. Allais and not just summarily dismiss it and then why did he promise to get Back to me? And where is he now? Why did the supervisors of Sgt. Horch or this Deputy Robertson not come out to speak to us directly and give their positions on the law and jurisdiction in writing as requested? Why were they so hostile to two people trying to report what they believed to be serious crimes for which these two people knew they were and would be fully accountable under law in terms of potential lawsuits for defamation or abuse of judicial process or filing false charges etc?

But most of all, why were they referring us to Vancouver Police when my website that Sgt. Dougher said he had visited to see who I was and what I was about showed that I had been previously to all sorts of agencies and at least some had referred me back to the Clark County Sheriff? Here is what is clear on my website as to whom I have reported past and is where the Sheriff’s Department knows I have already been:

Vancouver Police (Det Sgt Ron Stevens); Clark County Prosecutor (Scott Bailey); Washington State Attorney General (Rob McKenna); Clark County Sheriff’s Office; other agencies directed to my website documents and also and also and to Judge Pomeroy of the Washington State Thurston County Superior Court

So we went to the Vancouver Police as instructed. We went first to the VPD main office on Evergreen where we left our name and business and then decided to go to the precinct on Stapleton off Fourth Plain rather than wait for officers to come to take our complaint. We met first with an VPD Officer Binki and followed by a Corporal Leblanc. This Corporal Leblanc asked a few rush questions and while refusing to take and read the papers of allegations and supporting evidence for them, he quickly summarily decided and ordered that this was just an employment case, asked me if I had a lawyer and suggested that I get one. This was despite my and Dean’s repeated requests just to read the law (Misprision of a Felony and Obstruction of Justice) governing why Dean and I were there. This is also despite being apprised that Dean was  a witness  This take-charge Corporal Leblanc was clearly not used to being asked questions or being accountable to the public and told me to get a lawyer and refused to even look at the materials I had brought to show the basis of my sincere belief that serious crimes were committed, are being committed and planned for future commission). And He sent us off even after knowing that I had been referred to them by Clark County Sheriff’s office.

I believe that Corporal Leblanc not only knew from Dean and me then, but also from previous conversations with the Clark County Sheriff’s office, including I believe just before we came, not only that I had been sent from the Sheriff’s office, who mentioned nothing about torts, lawyers and the like, and who had referred me themselves to Vancouver Police, but who I was, my position and my political views as well as research on corruption and ultra-rightists in Clark County. Why do I say that? Because I did not tell him at the time, just as he did not mention that he clearly knew who I was and the disputes I have had at Clark College, that his name rang a bell with me. I had heard his name before. Where? Here is some more of the back-story and it gets even deeper.

Corporal Leblanc gave me his card when requested but was very short, curt and intense as he “directed” me to go elsewhere in way that told me he did not want anything on paper or any formal complaint filed there either. This is the exact CCS and VPD Submissions Refused427 package of documents that I presented to these officers including the Vancouver Police Officer Corporal Leblanc who refused to even read this legal citation mandating him to receive and consider my submissions and attempts to stop real crimes. Not only was this officer summary and dictatorial in his responses in my opinion, but Dean Lookinghawk, a former law enforcement officer, noted Corporal Leblanc noting the license plate of my car when he went to get something. This was in my opinion an individual used to pushing people around that were not either intellectually nor weapons-wise armed and one of those who define “respect” as not asking questions when summarily ordered to do something even with no authority in law or the Constitution. That was my initial impression. But in any case at no time did he address the issue that we did not just walk in on a whim, we were directed there by another law enforcement agency claiming not there were no indicia of crimes only torts, but that they did not have “jurisdiction”.

VPD Le Blanc and Brinki 1439 VPDB 425

But for some reason this name of Corporal Chris Leblanc rang a bell. Then it came to me. Some time ago I was approached to do some research, and asked to check with some sources I have with some special capabilities, on former Clark County Superior Court Judge John Wulle who, it was alleged, was and is one of the ringleaders of a covert cult or network referred to internally as “Antherians” allegedly composed of some very proudly and smugly white, ultra-rightist, mostly Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalists (Calvinist), Republican Xenophobic, racist, homophobic, patriarchal types who allegedly fix jobs in private and public-sector entities (a crime in public sector entities of Trading in Public Employment and Conspiracy to Trade in Public Employment), awards, contracts, positions on school boards and boards of regents and trustees.

They are also not only local but can be found in other places like Vancouver. I am told they fancy themselves of “settler stock” and have a fondness for the 1950s and 1950s themes when everyone on TV was white, Christian, protestant, non-Jewish, non-immigrant and for sure non-Gay. They are portrayed as the typical Tea Party base of smug, entitled, yet frightened, reactive, relatively well-off, connected, highly ideological and partisan whites who fear the future and fear losing the types of positions and affirmative action their type has had since the founding of the Republic: rich, white, patriarchal, non-transparent, non-disclosed, non-accountable power and privilege. Many of these types, some with Ayn Randist tendencies, others with just naked proto-fascist tendencies, actually care little about morality or the law, only what they think they want, need, can get away with, can do with relatively little risk, pain, cost or uncertainty to themselves–classic psychopaths of the kind that the business world is full of.

The term “Antheria” is kryptic I’m told and refers to MALE (hence symbolizing patriarchy) reproductive organs of some plants that produce ANTIBODIES to various forms of INVASIVE SPECIES and that keep the GARDEN and IT SPECIES “pure”. What are the alleged “invasive species” that threaten the “purity” of this little mostly white-and-proud-of-it little “garden” called “Vantucky or “Couve Holler”? Well basically it is anyone non-white, non-English-speaking, non-“Christian” (or their kind–Calvinist), non-heterosexual, and non-fascist or proto-fascist. They can be found, I was told by someone with contacts on the inside, in the Police, Superior Courts, key local business owners, the Columbian, the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, Hudson Bay and Vancouver High school alumni associations, politicians, certain churches mostly Methodist or of Calvinistic tendencies (Gospel of Predestined Wealth, Grace and Racism) and they meet and remain covertly. This is some of the background I was given and asked to lend some of my skills and connections to investigate them and how they operate.

I was basically asked if I would do some of the kind of work I did when I was a Planning Analyst VI in the Planning Board of the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico and tasked with designing and carrying out (working with access to many three-letter agencies one can think of) the first ground-truth-up, or “inductive analysis”img243PR of the “Inter-Sectoral Activities, Structures, Dynamics, Impacts, Linkages and Leakages of the Underground Economy of Puerto Rico: The Sociometrics and Econometrics of Drugs, Prostitution, Bolitos and Tax Evasion”

Who is Judge John Wulle and how did the name of Corporal Chris Leblanc connect with him in my mind? Well Judge Wulle ran in and lost the last election for Clark County Superior Court Judge. After being uncritically and sycophantically endorsed by the Columbian and a number of other local entities he was summarily dropped and no longer endorsed. Why? Well please look at what they Columbian that supported Wulle for so long said as to why they dumped him:

In February 2012 the Commission on Judicial Conduct charged Judge Wulle with the following misconduct.

1. Failed to maintain order and decorum during court proceedings
2. Engaged in a pattern of discourteous, impatient and undignified behavior
3. Failed to comply with the law
4. Failed to perform his judicial duties competently (Dufus), impartially (biased) and diligently (slacker)

The Commission’s findings included specific instances of Wulle’s misconduct, which is as follows:

1. While attending a judicial conference he repeatedly interrupted group discussions by using profanity and expletives to express his disproval of pursuing federal funding for the Clark County Juvenile Recovery Court.
2. When a facilitator at the conference noted that he was from San Francisco, a liberal and litigious city, Johnny replied, “Yeah, and very gay.”
3. In response to a facilitator that was an African American Johnny questioned whether he would be welcome in Vancouver because the community was “awfully white and alluded to the term “BIV” which is an acronym for “Black in Vancouver.”
4. When asked who the Clerk County facilitator was, Johnny said, “the black gay guy.”
5. When the facilitator wrote a star on an assignment the team completed and jokingly said “Clark County gets a star,” Wulle replied “I don’t need a star, I’m not a Jew.”
6. When a team member asked Wulle to lower his voice, he responded by “flipping him off.”
7. On the fourth day of the conference Johnny became frustrated at the pace of the event. This led to a team member to say “No judge this is important.” Johnny responded by saying “Fuck you” and threw his pen down on the table and left the room.

Others have described him as Judge John Wulle of Vancouver, WA; potty mouth racist, anti-Semite on the basis of these types of statements attributed to him above and others.

And I was asked to check on a lot more about Judge Wulle and in the course of checking on his associations (I did studies in Puerto Rico and worked undercover on a project fimg243PR while in the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico Planning Board at which I was a Planning Analyst VI, on the “Sociometrics” and “Econometrics” of the underground economy of P.R. (drugs, prostitution, bolitos or the numbers racket and tax evasion) See some of my grass-roots and ground-truth-up or inductive work that was the first of its type done in Puerto Rico and even elsewhere (“perp and perp activities counting”)

In the course of looking over the campaign materials of Judge Wulle, I noticed that he was endorsed by both the Vancouver Police Officer’s and Deputy Sheriff’s Guilds. But he was also endorsed by Corporal LeBlanc personally which is a conflict of interest for any public employee, especially a police officer, to make public endorsements in partisan political races and for ESPECIALLY Clark County Superior Court where Corporal Leblanc might well have to testify and be subject to and favored by rulings and discretion by Judge Wulle. Notice in his endorsement he does not use his title corporal, but leaves enough to infer he is an active police officer endorsing a particular Judge in a particular election. That alone says something about him because authoritarian types, the kind who should not be wearing judge’s robes nor a badge and carrying a gun, do not care about appearances of conflicts of interest or even actual ones; they only care about what they think they can do, with their power, and with what they think they can get away with.

Corporal Leblanc gave the following endorsement of Judge Wulle:

“Judge Wulle put a man in his place in the Courtroom that was the one who caused a hostage situation that repeatedly fired at police including at close range, hitting me! It is a miracle that no one else was hit. That defendant was then utterly unrepentant and belligerent, mocking the very process we have to protect our society.

The Judge put the man in his place–verbally–and people seem to have a problem with that? They should be applauding!

I have a front row seat to the decline of respect for authority and community in our society, and it seems to me that we need MORE people in high positions who call it like it is and are willing to tell people not what they want to hear but what needs to be said. and I have personally seen Judge Wulle do that.

Chris Leblanc

See the other endorsements, lost endorsements and campaign contributions for Judge Wulle from the Police Officer’s Guild and Deputy Sheriff’s Guild and other sources. From the Columbian:

Superior Court Judge, Dept. 2: By his conduct in and out of the courtroom, Judge John Wulle’s self-inflicted wounds have rendered him unworthy of being returned by voters to the bench he has occupied for 12 years. Challenger David Gregerson offers a composed demeanor and enough experience as a judge pro tempore to earn The Columbian’s endorsement.

This newspaper has endorsed Wulle previously, but we also have reprimanded him for improper behavior at a 2006 conference in Los Angeles. His profane outburst at that conference, accompanied by an obscene gesture and multifanged slur, resulted in a censure (the strongest discipline short of suspension) by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

This year, Wulle is under review by the same commission for what it describes as “a pattern of discourteous, impatient and undignified behavior.” A public hearing has been rescheduled until Aug. 27, about three weeks after the decisive Aug. 7 primary.

All of this has led to a dramatic plunge in Wulle’s ratings by the Clark County Bar Association. This year’s bar poll shows a compilation of several areas, with Gregerson the favorite among 58 percent of respondents. Wulle drew only 41 percent support. By contrast, four years ago Wulle had 91 percent support. Such a stunning reversal in bar-poll opinion of a sitting judge is unprecedented in at least the past 12 years.

Wulle’s supporters essentially will argue, “Boys will be boys. Let’s overlook these indiscretions. He knows the law.” Sorry. Judges, more so than most other elected officials, should be stellar examples in and out of the courtroom. Wulle fails this test.

Gregerson, meanwhile, is campaigning impressively, building a broad base of support and showing himself to be highly capable of replacing the ill-tempered Wulle. The incumbent has said of his courtroom outbursts: “Sorry, the street kid from New York came out.” That’s no excuse, and as Gregerson adroitly explains, “A judge’s role in the courtroom is to mitigate tension, not inflame it.”

Then there were some serious allegations of very direct and material conflicts of interest that reached also into the Vancouver Prosecutor’s Office and a former Prosecutor favored by his rulings on a case against the City of Vancouver later hired as his attorney:

Vancouver, Washington – Washington State Superior Court Judge John Wulle is under investigation by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct for cussing out defendants in his Courtroom (announced on February 21, 2012 in the attached press release – Click Here). Some have cheered on the judge for putting “punks” in their place. In fact there is a Facebook page launched supporting Wulle, calling him the “People’s Judge.” In spite of all of the support Wulle has garnered, the US~Observer decided to dig a little deeper and discovered that Judge Wulle has a skeleton(s) in his closet.

Wulle is represented in this investigation by former Vancouver City Prosecutor Josephine Townsend, who herself was also the subject of disciplinary action by the Washington State BAR for unethical conduct. Townsend was allegedly fired from her position by Vancouver City Attorney Ted Gathe, although he allowed her to resign rather than be formally fired (see the attached letter from Gathe to Townsend regarding her unprofessional conduct – Click Here).

But here’s the clincher. Wulle has been presiding over a lawsuit against the City of Vancouver and ruling on several issues involving the unprofessional conduct of Josephine Townsend. After presiding over the case for four years and ruling on the discoverability of Townsend’s communications, Judge Wulle decided to hire Townsend to represent him in the investigation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Clearly this is an outrageous conflict of interest and a huge cover-up.

Dr. Kathy Marshack has been the subject of a series of stories in the US~Observer regarding the harassment she has experienced at the hands of Vancouver City officials. In order to protect herself, Marshack filed a lawsuit against the City of Vancouver in 2008. During the course of the case she discovered malicious defamation by Josephine Townsend and Citizen Advocate Jim Jacks. Based upon this shocking new evidence, she filed an Amended Petition in 2011, and filed a Summary Judgment motion in early 2012. Judge John Wulle was assigned to her case in 2008.

Dr. Marshack was puzzled that Judge Wulle was so one-sided in his opinions early on in the case. For example, he demanded that Dr. Marshack develop an exhaustive time line of evidence to provide to Assistant City Attorney Alison Chinn, even though most of this evidence is public record in the City’s own files. This project cost Dr. Marshack thousands of dollars and several months of attorney and employee time in order to catalog all of the City’s documents for them. Judge Wulle also ruled for the City, allowing them to withhold evidence, even though it is clearly relevant. For example, Judge Wulle ordered that the City could redact (or delete) significant portions of Josephine Townsend’s correspondence and emails. Yet Townsend’s malicious conduct was part of the reason that Marshack sued in the first place.

The story behind the lawsuit is as follows. In 2004, Dr. Marshack requested help of Vancouver’s Citizen Advocate (i.e. ombudsman) Jim Jacks to help her resolve problems she was having with Prosecutor Josephine Townsend and Code Enforcement Officer Richard Landis, who were relentlessly harassing her. Instead of helping, Jacks colluded with Townsend and Landis and wrote and/or spread a report dismissing Marshack’s complaints and accusing her of being a “diagnosed Functional Sociopath” and unfit to practice her profession of psychology.

Townsend told Jacks that Marshack’s psychologist Dr. Frank Colistro diagnosed her a sociopath in written reports and oral testimony before the court; a total fabrication according to a sworn affidavit by Dr. Colistro and evidence at the Courthouse. Jacks did not discuss his “findings” with Marshack so she had no way to defend herself. Instead, he ran with these outrageous lies and issued a memorandum to Vancouver City Hall, labeling Dr. Marshack a sociopath who is an unfit psychologist, who has an anger problem, and who believes that she does not have to follow the law.

According to a recent sworn affidavit, Jacks explained that he interviewed Townsend who verified Dr. Marshack’s supposed diagnosis. Without interviewing Dr. Marshack or Dr. Colistro to verify the veracity of what Townsend told him, Jacks wrote to the Vancouver City Manager that he had “factual information” on Dr. Marshack. The report was allegedly circulated to the Mayor, City Manager, City Council members, City Attorney’s office, the police, the Planning office and Code Enforcement. Jacks stated in his affidavit that he was an over-worked City employee, and that is why he never contacted Marshack or her therapist. As a result of this report, Marshack was harassed unmercifully, assaulted, falsely arrested, and threatened with the loss of her property rights, her business license, and her professional license.

Jacks left his position as Vancouver Citizen Advocate when he was elected to the Washington State Legislature. He quit his elected position last year by turning in a handwritten note and mysteriously disappeared for several weeks. Eventually the Columbian Newspaper published a front page story that Jacks is an alcoholic and resigned to attend alcohol treatment.

Townsend signed a sworn affidavit on February 13, 2012, in which she states that she had a phone conversation with Dr. Colistro in which he diagnosed Dr. Marshack a “Functional Sociopath.” Townsend claims to have made notes of the phone call but cannot produce them. The court records show that Dr. Colistro never testified or wrote any such report to the court. Plus, Dr. Colistro has signed an affidavit indicating that he had conversations with Townsend, but denied ever diagnosing or telling Townsend that Marshack is a sociopath or unfit to practice psychology. In fact he says in his affidavit that Townsend’s story is a “total fabrication.”

Oddly, Asst. City Attorney Alison Chinn admits that the defaming report was written by Jacks with the help of Townsend and Landis. . . but that City officials all believed it to be true . . . and therefore based on this belief Chinn states there is no harm to Dr. Marshack. How can there be no harm when a psychologist is deemed unfit to practice her profession?

The Townsend/Jacks report is riddled with untruths. The evidence is abundantly clear that it is an outrageous lie concocted by Townsend to interfere with Dr. Marshack’s property rights and civil liberties, not to mention her professional reputation. However, Asst. City Attorney Alison Chinn insists on defending these two unscrupulous former City employees. She has submitted Townsend’s affidavit to Judge Wulle as a truthful document. Secondly, she defends Jacks’ failure to check the facts as the result of being an over-worked City employee. Even more outrageous is her assertion that the Citizen Advocate works for the City of Vancouver and therefore has no obligation to speak with the citizen who made the request for help in the first place. Is Jacks the Citizen Advocate or the “City’s Advocate”?

It seems to us here at the US~Observer that the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct needs to look deeper than Judge Wulle’s occasional epithet, foul gestures, and bigoted comments, and dig into this obvious conflict of interest and cover-up.

Even more alarming for the good citizens of Vancouver, Washington is that Josephine Townsend has applied to Governor Gregoire for an appointment to the position of Superior Court Judge, vacated by retiring Judge Poyfair. Governor Gregoire and the Washington State BAR need to take a look at Townsend’s record. Townsend knew she was accused of misconduct in Dr. Marshack’s lawsuit. She even issued an affidavit about her conduct only days before the news of charges by the Commission against her client Judge Wulle. And Townsend’s affidavit was served up to Judge Wulle by Asst. City Attorney Alison Chinn before Townsend agreed to represent Wulle. It is clearly unethical for Townsend to represent Wulle when she is a material witness accused of the conduct giving rise to the City’s liability. And she is a material witness in a case for which Wulle is the judge and has ruled on issues of her conduct for four years.

Dr. Marshack deserves justice and she deserves to get her life back. How can the City of Vancouver get away with admitting their malicious conduct and yet state that it caused no harm? Dr. Marshack was hounded unmercifully for years. She paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to protect her rights and livelihood. She was falsely arrested. She and her children were traumatized by the constant threats of City officials. Then she has been forced to struggle with her case against a judge who has no concept of his ethical responsibilities to Dr. Marshack and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Most egregious of all is that powerful people in Vancouver like Judge John Wulle and former City Prosecutor Josephine Townsend are protected from prosecution by the very officials and institutions that should protect the public. How can the good people of Vancouver expect a fair shake in court when unethical judges are allowed to cover-up their own misconduct? Mayor Leavitt and the Vancouver City Council should take a leadership role and demand accountability.

Enough is enough. The corruption in Vancouver’s city government has to stop. Lying and abuse have become the norm for Vancouver, long known as one of the most corrupt cities in the USA. Not only is it an obvious fact that Judge John Wulle and Attorney Josephine Townsend have conducted the “conflict of conflicts,” but the arrogance of their actions is proof that these two think they are bullet-proof. And the rest of Vancouver’s city leaders are no better. How dare Asst. City Attorney Alison Chinn submit Townsend’s affidavit to Judge Wulle as the truth when there is abundant evidence that it is filled with lies. How dare former Citizen Advocate Jim Jacks swear that it doesn’t matter that he never verified the facts of Dr. Marshack’s supposed diagnosis. How dare Judge Wulle preside over this case for years, covering for Townsend and Jacks and others, when he knows full well he is up to his eyeballs in a disgusting violation of Dr. Marshack’s rights. How dare Mayor Leavitt deny Dr. Marshack access to City Council meetings to present her concerns. And by the way, is it any coincidence that Dr. Marshack’s angry ex-husband, Vancouver attorney Howard Marshack was reportedly on Wulle’s campaign committee when he first ran for Judge? Or is it another coincidence that Howard Marshack allegedly offered help to Townsend when she was under investigation by the Washington BAR? Mr. Marshack wields considerable influence as a past president of the Family Law Section of the Washington BAR. Could it be that Mr. Marshack is behind these hostile attacks on Dr. Marshack?

It is a fact that all of this is pure corruption and were it not for the tenaciousness and ethics exhibited by Dr. Kathy Marshack, this corruption would have remained hidden – Accountability in this case would be non-existent. Speaking of accountability, we expect to see Daniel Lorenz, Dr. Marshack’s attorney, move swiftly to end this case and purge Vancouver of these disreputable individuals and their abusive ways.

The US Observer is watching and will report the latest to unfold in this case. Please contact our office at 541-474-7885 or email us at if you have information that can help Dr. Marshack and the US~Observer clean up this blatant corruption.

Read more articles involving Dr. Marshack
Wrong Side of the Tracks
A Mother Never Gives Up
Vancouver City’s Severe Abuse

Patterns are the shells of conspiracies. When we find some of the same players involved allegedly in some of the same crimes, in the same ways, over time and space and as alleged by persons who have never met each other, nor coordinated or known about each other’s allegations in any ways, then this points to areas in need of criminal investigations.

Here are some samples of former Judge Wulle at work and as admired and endorsed by Corporal Leblanc and the Vancouver Police and Sheriff’s Deputies Guilds along with this alleged and in need of investigation sub-rosa network of ultra-rightist, racist and Xenophobic “settler stock” known by some as “Antherians” or “Atheria” was the name given to me and who are allegedly all about hidden, non-accountable, non-transparent, non-approachable cabal-like power, networking, connections and building demi-empires including with public resources and jobs.

Now if they wish to have their own private little cult sessions and bemoan how little Vantucky is becoming less white, less “Christian”, less “Native Stock” etc that is no crime. And if they wish to give each other awards to embellish meager resumes that also is no crime. And if they want to fix jobs, promotions, and the like for each other and their relations and cronies in private and non-public companies that also is no crime.

But when we get to public employment this is an entirely different matter. When it comes to infiltrating these proto-fascist types with definite anti-democratic and unlawful agenda, into Superior Court Judge positions, or County Clerk positions, or County Commissioner positions, or on Vancouver City Council, or on Boards of Regents of Universities or Boards of Trustees at Community Colleges, or on School Boards, or in alumi associations that influence appointments at public institutions, or in the Vancouver Police, or County Sheriff’s Office and even the County Sheriff, and according to my sources and research these and other public-sector entities and others are among the targets of this network or covert cabal as it was described to me.

These folks are also typically but not exclusively “Methodist”, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, typically Calvinists, as the Calvinist notion of “Predestination” fits in nicely with these types who view their wealth, white skin, “genes” and “civilized refinement” as proof of “God’s grace and favor” and that they are the ones who have been “predestined” to keep the Vantucky “garden” free from “invasive species.” Calvinism is the perfect dogma for these types who see themselves as part of a predestined “Elect” and those in God’s predestined Grace that does not depend upon “good works” but on “Predestination” and “Preordination”.

The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials

What about the connections between Clark College, some of the Board of Trustees like former mayor Royce Pollard and Clark College president Bob Knight? Well I do not know if they are members, but I do know they share some of the same ideological and other backgrounds and associations of Judge Wulle and these alleged or so-called “Antherians”. They are almost all Republicans; white and smugly proud it.

As former Mayor Royce Pollard, heavily supported by this crowd who openly bemoaned his loss of the Mayor’s position put it once: “I want to make Esther Short Park safe for white people.” Imagine someone in a position to be quoted by several people present to have made that statement. And he is now on the Clark Board of Trustees with no credentials in education and having been turfed out of the mayor position in which, with his connections and ultra-rightist ideology, he should have been a shoe-in, and he is also supervising and evaluating Robert Knight who he was most responsible for putting into first Vice-president of Administrative Services, then interim president and then full-time president at Clark College none of which he had to compete against others for; and none of these positions did he meet even the minimum established qualifications for his application (with only an “Executive” MBA) to even be accepted and remain in the pool or potential applicants. A direct conflict of interest.

They are heavily pro-military and police although not all of them ever served in the military. Both Robert Knight and Royce Pollard finished out their careers as “Commanders” of Fort Vancouver, as posting with a long history as an exile post not any kind of grand send-off. These types are known for political patronage (one of the main reasons cited for Pollard losing the last Mayoral election when he should have easily won with his connections was that he ran Vancouver like a Vantucky, patronage machine and favor factory, and with public resources and jobs).

Bob Knight was sponsored for both the interim president position and Clark College and the present full-time position by Royce Pollard without open competition, despite the fact that interim-presidents like former president Beyer, were barred from applying for the full-time president position and that Mr Knight did not meet even the rock bottom established criteria for being in a pool of potential candidates for the position as he has only an Executive MBA, no doctorate in something as was required previously, and no experience in education with unrelated military service and jobs post-military. Fixing jobs in public employment, circumventing standardized, transparent and accountable hiring processes in public employment is not just the usual as common as it is; it is a crime, actually several, as no public entity is supposed to be or be run like some kind of country club, favor factory, patronage machine, feudal estate, pre-civil-war plantation or two-bit Army barracks. These resources and jobs all belong to the People of the State of Washington and misuse and misappropriation of those resources and jobs involve several related felonies.

I will be filing formal charges against that Sheriff’s Deputy and whomever gave him his orders as he actively obstruct me in the course of my professional duties as a public employee like him (Deputies are public employees not elected officials like the Sheriff and they do not work for Sheriff Gary Lucas they work for the Government and People of the State of Washington.)from trying to report and stop what I believe to be serious felonies. He actively aided and abetted the obstruction of reporting what I believe to be serious felonies, and no one, not from FBI or anywhere has shown me why my beliefs are unfounded, nor where to go to the proper authorities. The same applies with a formal IA Complaint against Corporal Leblanc who even laughed when I said that I would be taking this to FBI under 18 USC 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and 242 (Conspiracy Under color of Law), 18 USC 4 (Misprision of a Felony) and Obstruction of Justice statutes.

This also applies with respect to Judge Pomeroy and the materials sent to her on alleged felonies some of which went on in her Court and also to Attorney General Rob McKenna:

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

Please note the following package of materials that I believe show clear physical evidence of several serious felonies which was submitted to and refused by the Clark County Sheriff’s Office (to which I had been repeated referred by Vancouver Police, Washington State Patrol, FBI and the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office), and by Vancouver Police Department Officers Cpl LeBlanc and Officer M, Binki to whom I was referred by Clark County Sheriff’s Office, all on December 18, 2012.


These are some of the issues I brought to the Clark County Sheriff’s Department that include primary documentation on perjury by Clark College President Robert Knight as alleged in the sworn and unrebutted testimonies of Dr. Marcia Roi from Clark College and Ms Lynn Davidson of the WEA. Other alleged felonies repeatedly brought to the attention of law enforcement include: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty; Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony; 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; 18 USC 242 Conspiracy Against rights Under Color of Law; RCW 9A.28.040 Criminal conspiracy; RCW 69.50.407 Conspiracy; RCW 9A.72.110 Intimidating a witness; RCW 9A.76.180 Intimidating a public servant; Chapter 9A.72 RCW Perjury and interference with official proceedings; RCW 9A.68.040 Trading in public office; RCW 9A.68.050Trading in special influence; RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct; Chapter 9A.68 RCW Bribery and corrupt influence; Chapter 9A.76 RCW Obstructing governmental operation; Chapter 9A.80 RCW Abuse of office; Public Officers And Agencies – Chapter 42.40 State Employee Whistleblower Protection; RCW 49.44.010 Blacklisting — Penalty; RCW 42.20.070 Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer; RCW 9A.36.070 Coercion; RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty; RCW 9A.36.160 Failing to summon assistance; RCW 9A.56.020 Theft — Definition, defense; RCW 9A.60.070 False academic credentials— Unlawful issuance or use — Definitions — Penalties; RCW 9A.68.010 Bribery; RCW 9A.68.020 Requesting unlawful compensation; RCW 9A.68.030 Receiving or granting unlawful compensation; RCW 9A.08.020 Liability for conduct of another — Complicity; RCW 9A.36.021 Assault in the second degree; RCW 9A.36.031Assault in the third degree; RCW 9A.36.078 Malicious harassment — Finding; RCW 42.20.040 False report; RCW 9A.72. 020, 030 and 040 Perjury in the first and second degrees and False Swearing respectively; RCW 9A.76.020 Obstructing a law enforcement officer; RCW 9A.76.050 Rendering criminal assistance — Definition of term; RCW 9A.76.175 Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant; 18 USC § 241 – CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS; 18 USC § 372 – CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE OR INJURE OFFICER; 18 USC § 1343 – FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION; USC § 1349 – ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY; 18 USC § 1623 PERJURY;

Why would the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, or the FBI, or the Vancouver Police, or the Washington State Patrol all direct me to other law enforcement agencies if they thought no crimes under anyone’s jurisdiction were involved?

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott. See what is happening here? What kind of law enforcement officers are these?

Imagine a woman, say a rape victim, runs into an FBI office nearby to report that she had just been raped and that her rapist was a public official say even a law enforcement officer acting under Color of Law. Say also connected with the law enforcement agencies to which the rape victim first went. Imagine that the FBI tells her “we do not deal with rape here, that is a state crime so go to the local law enforcement or even get yourself a lawyer”. When the rape victim asks “where do I go and whom do I see as I have already been to the agencies you mentioned”, she gets an answer “My unnamed supervisor tells me to tell you to go to Vancouver Police, we think, and you find out for yourself which officer deals with rape”. Then she says “but I was told in writing by the Vancouver Police, Washington State Patrol and Clark County Sheriff’s Office that because the rapist was also a law enforcement officer acting under Color of Law this is also a federal crime and to come and see you; could you please have your supervisor put it in writing so that I am not sent back to see you by those other agencies who just again sent me here but would not put it in writing? And she is told “your business is finished here, if you do not leave you will lose your freedom for trespassing…”

When I told Cpl Le Blanc I would be taking this to FBI under the Federal Statutes cited (18 USC 4), along with 18 USC 241 and 242 Conspiracy Against Rights and Under color of Law he said “Go Ahead!”. Cpl Le Blanc stated to me that VPD does not investigate perjury (go to the judge in the trial where alleged perjury was committed) and refused to even consider that I was bringing alleged crimes not torts to the police. Told me to “write the Attorney General”, “get a lawyer. He refused to look at what I had brought to show it was crimes I reporting as a public employee not torts.


CCS and VPD Submissions Refused427

August 2,, 2012

Dear Sheriff Lucas:

First of all, please regard this as an official, signed and dated response to your unsigned email and summary dismissal of my complaint and dealings with Detectives Allais and Horch. This response will go to both of them as they, unlike you, are not elected politicians but rather first and foremost, like me, public employees and hopefully also servants, and thus have obligations and responsibilities under law as law enforcement officers as well as public employees when complaints are brought to their attention for investigation no matter what any elected official may rule if such ruling or influence is in conflict with their duties as public employees. They, like me, do not work for their place of work, they are not employees of the Sheriff; they work for the People and government of the State Washington as I do; we just work AT different places in different jobs. This is even more critical when there is an Internal Affairs complaint for dereliction of duty and when a complaint has brought tangible evidence, not just opinion, of primary felonies (perjury and subornation of perjury in an ESD Appeals Hearing by Robert Knight, president of Clark College according to the sworn and stipulated (via non cross-examination) testimonies of Marcia Roi a professor at Clark College and at the time president of AHE and Lynn Davidson, Uniserv Director for WEA) and derivative felonies when by a public employee on the job in official capacities while on public time and pay (see attached file of relevant USCs, RCWs, WACs etc).

The cited USCs and RCWs are all criminal not Civil. But even torts in the context of public employment can be and often are also crimes.Trading in Public Employment, Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Blacklisting, Malicious Harassment, Conspiracy Against Rights and Under Color of Law, Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, Misconduct of a Public Employee, Reprisals Under Pretext against a whistle blower and with State Resources involves multiple felonies not torts.

First of all Sir, please notice that I do you the simple courtesy and respect of addressing you by your title and name in my official response, to your own apparent non-response in any kind of responsible or accountable detail, to my own what you refer to “voluminous” submissions to your office. You are dealing with a fellow public employee, of another Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, acting under relevant RCWs and Federal Law that have been cited to you and the detectives with whom I have dealt with accompanying texts (see attached RCWs), making an official complaint, not about torts or personnel conflicts, but about crimes both federal and state that I believe, and others whose names I have been asked to give, are going on at Clark College, an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington as well as in the office of the Attorney General and perhaps other places as well.

I have asked for an interview with your officers to bring with me direct physical evidence, as well as witnesses including a former police officer, Dean Lookinghawk, who has been with me in all of my meetings with Robert Knight the president of Clark College, Tim Cook the VPI, Darcy Rourk the Associate V.P. of HR, Katrina Golder, the former Associate V.P. of Clark College and others named in my complaint.

You give me no response in this non-response even to that request and summarily cut off responses from Detective Horch with whom I was dealing in an official capacity and who promised to get back to me.

As a professor and public employee, I am responsible and legally accountable (in both civil and criminal law) to document in writing, the full basis (grades, calculations, standards, syllabus etc.) every grade in every course for every student I report and who files a grievance because a grade that I report, if unfounded, if not without fear or favor, if part of a Conspiracy Against Rights or Conspiracy Under Color of Law, or of Civil Conspiracy, if intended to do harm to someone, if a product of malice and animus, if intended to do actual physical or mental harm, if intended to intimidate a whistle blower or as retaliation against a just and legally mandated complaint, these acts not only do real damage to real people and the institution at which–not for which–I work, but these crimes and not just torts undermine public confidence in the law, law enforcement and public institutions. That is precisely why as a public employee I have Constitutional rights in the workplace that private-sector employees do not have–I have responsibilities under law that they do not have as in public service what are torts in the private-sector and not necessarily crimes, but may become also crimes in the context of public employment.

Further, as a professor, teacher and public employee, I am bound to disclose all potential conflicts-of-interest and recuse myself as a matter of honor and law, if the exercise of my public duties and responsibilities may be compromised by a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest that may compromise the rights of others to competent handling of a complaint without fear or favor.

So I am asking you directly, officially and this will be made public and investigated: do you have any associations or friendships or community-based-organizations associations with Robert Knight or any of the other administrators, faculty or staff of Clark College or in the AG’s office that have been named prior to my complaint being sent (finally) to you? Do you sir, for example have any associations with a group referred to as “Antherians”, an association of individuals who are rather proudly and smugly assertive of their whiteness and supposed “settler roots” in the area and who form an integrated network of mostly ultra-conservatives who meet in various venues allegedly to fix jobs, network and maintain an insulated, non-transparent and non-accountable power structure in Vancouver? Or what many like the “Willamette Week” call “Vantucky” because of such alleged sub-rosa networks and power structures in Vancouver.

If you have any conflicts of interest that might interfere with any competent and dispassionate review and action on a complaint you are bound by law to declare any potential conflicts of interest or that might even create the appearance of conflict of interest that might undermine confidence in the law and your own institution as well as in law enforcement in general. This will be explored in public records requests which, from what I understand, you have been having some problems complying with in the case of other individuals also with past complaints against Clark College and Robert Knight, Tim Cook and others.

Sir, it is a basic foundation of law that ignorance of the law, not being an attorney or law enforcement officer, are no excuses for failure to understand and comply with the law in its spirit as well as intent. That is why the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, to which you and I and Sgt. Allais and Detective Horch, Detective Ron Stevens of the Vancouver Police, Det. Sgt. Rousseau of the WSP, Mr. McKenna the AG, Mr. Sonntag, the Clark County Prosecutor and others have all taken oaths to serve, protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, demands that all law not be vague or subject to multiple possible interpretations. I have given you the specific laws, federal and state, not torts, with accompanying texts, that I and others believe have been, are being and will continue to be violated. I have given the names of real victims and witnesses in support of my allegations and/or also victims of the same fact patterns.

I have given sources and physical evidence to support all my allegations, I have offered to put myself in the most legally compromising positions of being interviewed by federal and local law enforcement, from any divisions, answering any questions about my own integrity and motives and intentions, being Mirandized and sworn under penalty of perjury; this is especially so given the nature of my own sincerely-held political and other beliefs which are my right to hold and defend, and I can and will in any venue any time, but a that are certainly not popular or “mainstream” especially in this rather insulated and some argue “inbred” little town and county.

And what about the Watson file sent to you?

WatsonFile – Copy This is evidence independent of me of outright Conspiracy to Obstruct, Divert, Taint and Cause False Findings and Determinations of WSP and Washington Ethics Commission Investigation of someone charged with collecting an disseminating child pornography on a Clark College computer system and I was one of two whistle-blowers on the case and this is in addition to Conspiracy Against Rights and Under Color of Law (18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Parts 241 242)

What about the sworn and cross-examined testimony of Emma Kim on being recruited to maintain an illegal secret file on me since 1994 ordered by the AG’s office, about which they have been repeatedly asked and refuse to answer (see my website at Clark College secret-file11

What about the arbitration brief of Lisa Lewison, the letter of April 20, 2008 of Marcia Roi, the sworn testimonies of Lynn Davidson from WEA and Marcia Roi all alleging perjury by Robert Knight and not on some issue like say alleged marital infidelity, but on whether he declared to them in a statement of intent (my unlawful removal from employment), and then undertook to complete using public resources and jobs, what he later denied under oath in an administrative law court–ESD appeal–what amounts to the essential elements of Conspiracy Against Rights and under Color of Law per se along with many other crimes as well as torts?

WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven.

This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would ever make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven”


EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image
EPSON scanner image

And what about the students victimized by unqualified teachers being hired as part of a documented pattern of Trading in Public Employment, Nepotism, Cronyism and other offenses in public employment? Who am I to say who is or is not qualified to teach Economics or Geography at Clark College? You have my own bona fides from Clark College itself on my standing as an economist and educator at Clark College and internationally.

Crimes are offenses against society, that is why victims of crimes, unlike torts, cannot waive away their rights not to pursue redress for torts suffered with settlements in the same way when dealing with crimes.

For the reasons cited in the accompanying file of relevant statutes governing my own conduct, allegations against me, and my allegations and responses in this letter, this will also be sent again to FBI, the I.G. of DOJ, the media, Washington State Ethics Commission, Washington State Human Rights Commission, the EEOC, PERC, and other venues, including public media, and will form part of the basis for other complaints, as well as for evidentiary support for those complaints in other venues in the future.


James M. Craven
Professor and Department Head of Economics
Clark College
Qualified expert witness King County Superior Court

Subject: RE: original Letter of June 12, 2012 plus addenda
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:23:08 -0700

Thank you for your correspondence. My response remains the same.
Garry Lucas

From: James Craven []
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Horch, John; Lucas, Garry; Laura Loughlin; office of inspector general DOJ (fraud, waste etc); office of inspector general DOJ (civil rights etc); Dean Lookinghawk
Subject: original Letter of June 12, 2012 plus addenda

Subject: Letter of June 12, 2012
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:34:22 -0700

Dear Sheriff Lucas,

This is to acknowledge and respond to your letter of June 12, 2012.

First of all there are several issues. One issue is that Detective Sgt Allais wrote in response to me and my inquiries a letter as summary and without specifics as to first of all your specific understanding as to what specific charges I was making, against whom, on the basis of what asserted or purported evidence, on the basis of what evidence actually considered, and on the basis of what submitted evidence was rejected as probative or evidence of any crime and why. Why is this level of response necessary and requisite for any competent response to complaints by the public? Because if my allegations are correct and you summarily dismiss them without cause or basis, and your dismissal involves dereliction of duty or worse, not only do you give lawbreakers your ill-founded and wrong opinion in writing to be used to escape prosecution, but you also help to cover-up past crimes, embolden them to commit new ones with more victims, but you allow them to construct a paper trail to be used to set precedents to be used against others for criminal purposes, and also you deter the public from providing support to or ever trusting local police. But in the case of Sgt Allais, his response to me included flat-out lies as to on what basis I interacted with him and on what basis he told me to send him materials that he later claimed he did not ask for. That (see attached RCWs also sent to Detective Horch) involves Misconduct of a Public Officer and Filing a False Report by a Public Officer, and if there was any collusion not to pursue my complaint and SOME of the evidence submitted (I asked both FBI and your office and Vancouver Police for a personal interview to include Mr Dean Lookinghawk who is a former police officer and has been with me to witness tapes and physical evidence that support my charges against Bob Knight and others of Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, Misconduct of a Public Employee, Blacklisting, Reprisal Against a Whistle blower, Conspiracy Against Rights, Conspiracy Under Color of Law, Illegal Diversions and Witholdings of Mail, Trading in Public Employment, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Conspiracy to Trade in Public Employment, and much more.

Right now the wife of that shooter in Florida has been charged with perjury. That is but one crime, not a tort, not a personnel matter, a crime, that I have provided your office hard core evidence for (have you interviewed even one of my proposed witnesses who alleged perjury in their own sworn and cross-examined testimonies versus the sworn testimony of Bob Knight in an ESD hearing?) I also provided some material on my own background working with not for law enforcement in Puerto Rico as I was charged, as a Senior Planning Analyst VI, with investigating, in the field undercover, the underground economy of Puerto Rico, the first such study of “ground truth” done of its kind, that shows that I do indeed know the difference between torts and crimes, I do know what conspiracy looks like and how a conspiracy case is made.

I know and understand that you have a full plate. I understand well that the treat matrix you deal with is extended and complex and you have limited resources. But as with any lie that requires more lies to cover it, so it is with crime and corruption as each form of corruption not only begets more corruption to cover-up, but each person doing corruption acquires a hold over and some job security from the others who are part of it all; that is precisely what is going on at Clark College and I have a long record of this going on, being reported to law enforcement not just by me, and these issues being ignored mostly not even with the kind not specific and non-evidence based dismissal of my complaint–without even acknowledging what specific complaints I have made, against whom, on the basis of what purported evidence submitted, what was considered, what was accepted, what was rejected and why.

I do not want to bother you if I have no valid complaints as that is not only abuse of judicial process and use of law enforcement for private agenda, but it also takes you away from your work you need to concentrate on. But you have given me nothing from your letter. Thus this letter will go not only to FBI, but it will also go to the IG of the Attorney General’s office and this will also go public accompanied with a list and file of all the materials sent to you and FBI and Vancouver Police and Washington State Patrol, and the Auditor’s Office, the Governor, the AGs (both Gregoire and McKenna) and we will pursue this matter further because real crimes are being committed, I have always acted in good faith, I have offered to be Mirandized and all statements sworn under penalty of perjury to make and hold myself accountable and make it much easier to prosecute me if you believe you have evidence of intent to misuse and abuse judicial and law enforcement resources for my own agenda. You have clear evidence in the letters and sworn testimonies of Marcia Roi, Lynn Davidson, Lisa Lewison and Emma Kim, none of which I had anything to do with or prior knowledge of in any way, that detail secret and illegal file kept on me since 1994, reprisals against my Whistle blowing against Dennis Watson and defamatory letters put in his personnel file and actions that obstructed the investigations of Detectives Haw and Hobbes of the WSP, you have evidence of serial denials of basic due process and arranging discipline (all phases–complaint, charges, investigation, fact finding, assessment of discipline and hearing of appeals, heard by the same individuals charging me with evidence of extreme malice, animus and intent at my removal on their part), you have evidence of perjury by Bob Knight the president of Clark College, you have evidence that I am a public employee and tenured professor with Constitutional rights which include First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights that trump all other laws and statutes, etc.

So please do understand that I am as serious as the heart attacks that I have suffered and that I will take this to any and all venues until I get a comprehensive and competent response to the serious issues that I have raised over many years and any dismissals of them as potential crimes as each time getting these responses with no specifics in writing as to what exactly was being rejected or accepted and why. This is also going to the IG of DOJ to both addresses (one for waste fraud and abuse, perjury, etc) and another for Civil Rights and Public Corruption because what is going on at Clark College involves all of this and worse and real people with real needs (e.g. veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq desperately in need of real education) being cheated and defrauded and handed unqualified teachers/”team players” in serial corruption in public service.

I am still requesting an eyeball-to-eyeball and taped interview with the specificity that I and the law demand as to what of my complaint (still by the way not signed in writing with the specifics you need to hold me accountable or for those against whom I have made allegations to hold me accountable if they feel wronged or falsely charged or defamed) and to avoid obstruction of justice and setting a foundation of precedent for more of the same against me and others. Please also note attached letter from my physician written yesterday and long before your letter.


James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor and Department Head, Economics
Biographical subject in Marquis Who’s Who in: the World; America; The West; Finance and Industry; Science and Engineering; American Education
Subject: RE: Request for Interview
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:07:32 -0700

Dear Detective Horch,

Thank you for your response and update. Have you also gone to my website at to copy the letters sent to the AG’s office and my open letter to the students of Clark College? What I asked FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office for, and indeed of Sgt Allais and others in law enforcement is that if you put on paper (which can be used in both civil and criminal defenses in the future) that if and when law enforcement does not yet see enough to justify investigation, or worse, as in the case of response from FBI there is no evidence of violations of civil rights, no public corruption, no criminal code violations (but yet they tell me to go to local law enforcement or initiate civil litigation so they see something), then I need to know in writing, as I provide to you and for which I am and should be accountable under law, what exactly is your understanding of the allegations I have made, which specific crimes am I alleging having been committed or are being committed and by whom, what specific submissions that I have made that you have reviewed and received (some sent to you came back), who from my list of supporting witnesses with supporting evidence have you interviewed, and most of all, if you disagree with my arguments and assertions, as a trained law enforcement officer with training I do not have and thus a potential witness in future court actions, why specifically (argument, evidence, law as I have provided) do you reject my allegations even to the point of shutting down future investigation). Anything short of that is dereliction of duty and worse as failure to address and fight crimes perpetuates it and breeds mass cynicism and disrespect for the law and law enforcement.

I have to leave for China to deliver a paper at a conference at Tsinghua University where I teach while in China, my way is paid but I may be leaving early as I teach and consult in China and have no income other than my social security right now so I will let you know if I have to leave early.

thank you for your efforts and I am sorry to take you away from some very serious work and threats you deal with but this is also serious as well.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Subject: RE: Request for Interview
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:44:38 -0700

Mr. Craven,

Just an update, we are still reviewing all of the documentation you have sent to us.


Sgt. John Horch

From: James Craven []
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:42 AM
To: Horch, John; Dean Lookinghawk; Laura Loughlin
Subject: Request for Interview
Dear Detective Horch,

I mean Detective Sgt Allais no malice or harm and I am saddened to have to go to IA. I now that all of you have a serious threat matrix to deal with. I only spoke with him twice. But from the material that I have sent you, by now you may have concluded that my background is such that I have more than average level of awareness of: what are and are not crimes; the difference between crimes and torts; and most of all, how a proper investigation is either done, and a proper basis is established to authorize it, or, if not undertaken, a sound and accountable basis is established as to why grounds for investigation do not exist, or for the more final and potentially problematic declarative that no crimes have been committed as this can be used, has been used and is being used to shut off future investigations, embolden offenders to do more of the same to others, as well as to insulate the guilty from accountability under civil and criminal law if appropriate.

I have no idea why Sgt Allais would tell me to send him what I considered to be evidence since March of 2012, after telling me in his first conversation to go to the AG, and then try to deny it in writing and try to send me somewhere else. Just the letter by Marcia Roi April 20, 2008, the letter and testimony of Emma Kim, the existence of a secret file kept on me since 1994, the fact that I am a whistle blower on very serious crimes and the perp I blew the whistle on is still at Clark College and part of a harassment and removal from employment campaign against me, the arbitration brief by Lisa Lewison, and the sworn testimonies of Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson that I had nothing to do with in any way, speak to and provide solid and direct evidence (along with tapes and documents I offered as direct physical evidence of) serious crimes going on at Clark College and not just against me and my family.

I have tried to being direct evidence, that I had no hand in any way in originating, soliciting, affecting, shaping nor any prior knowledge of prior to this evidence being available. I know that law enforcement faces serious threats with meager and dwindling resources every day and I have sought other venues and means to address these issues, and I believe crimes at various levels have been and are being committed, sent in all directions, to various agencies local and federal, with no responses, accountability and outright attempts at leaving no paper trail (FBI has a saying “If it ain’t on paper it don’t exist). My allegations, along with those who have provided sworn and cross-examined testimonies (un-rebutted) of serious crimes, are serious and I have only asked that they be taken seriously and that I get a chance to be fully examined by law enforcement not only to present my allegations, but to respond to any questions that law enforcement may have, with no attorney, at any level. I have offered to be Mirandized and swear all my statements under penalty of perjury to add another layer of accountability on myself.

I would appreciate coming in, with my friend Dean Lookinghawk, a former police officer, who has been present with me in all of my interactions with those against whom I have made allegations and can give personal and direct evidence as to what crimes and manifestations of cover-ups he feels that he witnessed speaking as a former police officer as well as someone who is intimately involved in an a direct witness to all of these matters.

Also some of my submissions to you came back returned maybe due to mb load, so I’ll resend them. I would respectfully ask you to read or re-read my letter to SAC Laughlin of the Seattle FBI on their letter to me that explains also why I had a problem with Sgt Allais response (I also got no responses back from Sgt Trimble, Detective Ron Stevens and others sent over the years).

Thank you for your consideration. As I pointed out to FBI, given the serious nature of my allegations and how far they reach, it is extremely problematic for my allegations and documents supporting them, and indeed it is dereliction of duty, to dismiss my complaint without even an interview, without being able to answer any and all questions you may have about my motives and interests and credibility, without any specificity as to exactly what documents were read and considered, and why law enforcement officers (with whom I only asked for an interview or asked for more than one hour with FBI) does not yet see enough to justify probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that crimes are being committed and under the jurisdiction of the agency to which the report and complaint is made. Just look at the Watson file and the letter planted in his personnel file that not only defames me and another whistleblower, Dr. Gerry Smith whose allegations were sustained, but shows active attempts to mislead and obstruct a Washington State Ethics complaint and finding as well as a Washington State Patrol investigation by detectives Haw and Hobbes who should also be contacted on my credibility, intentions and motives all along. I will also be sending this and other correspondence to the IG for the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office because failure to act and provide a solid and accountable basis for refusal to act or even address the direct and physical evidence of crime brought to law enforcement, not only discourages people from cooperating with law enforcement, but also emboldens the perps who think they have open season to do more of the same and to anyone who opposes them or exposes them.

This is precisely what is going on now. Do you think Clark College, an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington should have a perjurer and conspirator to obstruct justice and commit cover-ups and other crimes with public resources and staff at the helm? There is credible and direct evidence that I have offered and asked to be looked at over and over with no results. But you may have also gathered that I am a very serious person and will not go away or stop until others do their jobs as I have always tried to do mine and to obey the law while doing it.

I can be reached at 360 823-9235 or 576-3503.

Thank you again for your patience and consideration.

please send this also to the Clark County Prosecutor who referred me to your office.

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:16:02 -0700
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

This e-mail and related attachments and any response may be subject to public disclosure under state law.

–Forwarded Message Attachment–
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:15:00 -0700

Dear Sgt Allais,

I do know the difference between torts and crimes, you told me to send you, and the Clark County Prosecutor’s office also, told me to send you materials in support of my allegations of crimes having been committed with specificity as to which crimes I believe are being committed, and this is the first and only response from you with no specificity on your part whatsoever as to what materials you have considered and WHY, on what basis you summarily conclude that this is merely some employment matter. I have detailed specifically: perjury on the part of Bob Knight, president of Clark College during an ESD employment security hearing according to the sworn testimony of Dr Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson in the arbitration hearing with Ms. Whalen. There is also the nature of the comment “Morale will improve here when we get rid of professor Craven” that Knight denied under oath having made and that manifests intentions that constitute conspiracy against rights and under color of law. There is the letters and sworn testimonies, subject to cross-examination, that I had no prior knowledge of or influence on in any way, of Emma Kim, Lisa Lewison and Marcia Roi that all document conspiracy against rights and under color of law (18 USC Chapter I Article 13, parts 241 and 242) Blacklisting, Trading in Public Employment, RCW Conspiracy Against Rights, Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, etc. I sent you my resume that also shows that I do know very well what conspiracy looks like, how it is investigated and how a case is made as I worked in the field, undercover, at great risk to my life, in Puerto Rico for the Government of Puerto Rico, in an intelligence capacity, documenting leakages, linkages, dynamics and impacts of the underground economy prostitution, drugs, illegal gambling and tax evasion) of Puerto Rico. Further, I sent you a letter found in my previous public records request placed in the personnel file of Dennis Watson, against whom I and another faculty member were whistleblowers for his alleged collecting and disseminating child pornography on state computers, a letter not only libeling me and without my knowledge of its existence, with the collusion of my own union representative Leslie Homer, but that also showed active obstructions of the investigations of Watson and others supporting him by Sgt Haw and Hobbes as well as the Washington State Ethics Commission. I sent you previous submissions to Det Sgt Dave Trimble of the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, Det Sgt Rob Rousseau of the WSP, Det Stevens of the Vancouver Police none of which did I get even this kind of patently disingenuous response and I sent my letters and dealings with Supervisory Special Agent Kevin Saito of the Seattle FBI.

So I will not send you any more “materials” (evidence) except this also goes to FBI because your response is patently disingenuous and an attempt to plant a false record of the cause and basis of my submissions to you along with your conclusions that have no support or investigation behind them, especially in the context of the known and well documented inbreeding and patronage in this little hick town and who of local prominence are involved in my allegations. How, sir, do you answer the sworn letters and testimonies of Emma Kim, Marcia Roi and Lisa Davidson, that detail perjury, obstruction of justice, the involvement of the AG’s office, secret files, and a whole list of crimes not torts? Never mind one word from me; how do you deal with the sworn testimonies of these others, or the serial diversions of mail which is both a federal crime but also involves other federal as well as state crimes that I had no influence on in any way and that actually were not in their interest to write and give sworn testimonies on? Have you interviewed even one of them? This will be the same questions I have for FBI and WSP. What is the actual basis and process behind your summary conclusions of no crimes being committed–in writing on paper because of the real costs if my allegations and supporting evidence, sworn under penalty of perjury, are correct?

I now need the name of your supervisor and how I can file a complaint against you for dismissal of a formal complaint and supporting evidence without cause along with a patent misrepresentation, by a public employee, of the basis and reasons for sending emails at your own request and for this patently disingenuous and summary response that may be used for nefarious purposes to give the impression that you have actually conducted some kind of investigation prior to passing off a summary, unfounded and unsubstantiated conclusion that his is only an employment matter. When anyone, especially law enforcement turns a blind eye to corruption, this only feeds more of it. What is going on at Clark College and other parts of government, is that those who have done Faustian deals and broken laws with others, laws that I have listed in detail and presented the text of the laws that inform my belief of laws having been broken and being broken, are now in a position to take down others if they go down and so they provide job security for each other and trade in public employment as each has a hold on the others. And real people are suffering.

Please pass this on to your supervisor and please give me the name of someone at WSP as I was told previously by them that they would not deal with this without a release from Clark County Sheriff for jurisdiction–that is what I was told by Detective Rousseau.

Here are my last attachments as I am evidence, law and reason-based and I do know how to read the law, and I do know what is or is not probative vis a vis my allegations.


James Craven

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:54:42 -0700

Mr. Craven,

You have been sending me multiple e-mails weekly. Like I explained to you on the phone, there is nothing I can or will be able to do for you. I work for the county. Your complaint is not criminal in nature and appears to be a civil, employment related issue with Clark College. Clark College is within the city limits of Vancouver. If you did have a criminal complaint, which as far as I can see, you don’t, this would be handled by the City of Vancouver.

Please remove me from your e-mail list. I will no longer be saving your voluminous e-mails.

Respectfully submitted,

Sgt. Kevin Allais
Major Crimes Unit
Clark County Sheriff’s Office

From: James Craven []
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:36 PM
To: Kevin J. Redden; Allais, Kevin
Dear Inspector Redden:

Thank you for your time and attention to my complaint. I know that you have many serious threats to deal with and so I have documented to add to my complaint, the materials that I found in my office that had also been withheld from me over the period of 9-2011 to 3-2012 after I spoke with you but part of the total package of materials about which I filed a complaint against the illegal and serial diversions and withholdings. I have noted the dates they were sent as best as I could, all my statements are sworn under penalty of perjury as they should be to make it easier to myself accountable as I should be, and these indicate separate diversions and withholdings of critical mail, sent not only by Fed Ex and UPS but many by USPS by people counting on being able to reach me. I also attached further evidence of the serial and disturbing levels of malice, animus and contempt for the law by those behind this, and I have provided independent evidence, my resume and background including “in-the-field” work on the underground economy of Puerto Rico, for you and the U.S. Attorney to determine if I am a) delusional and paranoid; b) a cunning psychopath or sociopath with the arrogance to try to play even law enforcement to escape discipline I have deserved; c) what I say I am: a teacher, a public employee and yes public servant, who does not tolerate, turn a blind eye to or participate in corruption and am a whistleblower, at considerable risk, on some very serious issues suffering extreme forms of repression against me, under pretexts (who goes after whistle-blowers openly and with open intent and agenda?) and under serial denials of due process, against also my family and even through collective punishment against innocents trying to reach me and in need of my help.

thank you for your consideration of my complaint and evidence submitted to support it.


Jim Craven
Professor and Department Head, Economics,

This e-mail and related attachments and any response may be subject to public disclosure under state law.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

About jimcraven10

About jimcraven10 1. Citizenship: Blackfoot, U.S. and Canadian; 2. Position: tenured Professor of Economics and Geography; Dept. Head, Economics; 3. Teaching, Consulting and Research experience: approx 40 + years all levels high school to post-doctoral U.S. Canada, Europe, China, India, Puerto Rico and parts of E. Asia; 4. Work past and present: U.S. Army 1963-66; Member: Veterans for Peace; former VVAW; Veterans for 9-11 Truth; Scholars for 9-11 Truth; Pilots for 9-11 Truth; World Association for Political Economy; Editorial Board International Critical Thought; 4.. U.S. Commercial-Instrument Pilot ; FAA Licensed Ground Instructor (Basic, Advanced, Instrument and Simulators); 5. Research Areas and Publications: International law (on genocide, rights of nations, war and war crimes); Imperialism (nature, history, logic, trajectories, mechanisms and effects); Economic Geography (time and space modeling in political economy; globalization--logic and effects; Political Economy and Geography of Imperialism); Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Law; Political Economy of Socialism and Socialist Construction; 6. Member, Editorial Board, "International Critical Thought" published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; International Advisory Board and Columnist 4th Media Group, (Beijing); 7. Other Websites publications at;;; 8.Biography available in: Marquis Who’s Who: in the World (16th-18th; 20th; 22nd -31st (2014) Editions); Who’s Who in America (51st-61st;63rd-68th(2014) Editions); Who’s Who in the West (24th- 27th Editions);Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (3rd to 6th, 8th, 11th (2011-2012) Editions); Who’s Who in Finance and Industry (29th to 37th Editions); Who’s Who in American Education (6th Edition). ------------------- There are times when you have to obey a call which is the highest of all, i.e. the voice of conscience even though such obedience may cost many a bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from the state, to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life itself. For this obedience is the law of our being. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
This entry was posted in Academia and Academics, Capitalism and Psycho-Sociopathy, Clark College, CLARK COLLEGE: PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON SERIOUS ISSUES, Conspiracy against Rights and under Color of Law, CORRUPTION IN "HIGHER" EDUCATION, Fascism in America, Government Corruption, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psychopaths in Management, Vantucky Corruption and Inbredness and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Down the Rabbit Hole: Attempts to Report Felony Crimes per 18 USC 4 28 USC 1361: Threats of Arrest , Exchanges with Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas and the Covert Power Structure of ‘Vantucky’


  2. Pingback: THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND/VERSUS THE SNITCH | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s