Federal 9th circuit says activist Scheidler prevails, sort of, in suit against Kitsap County.
Bill Scheidler, chief activist here at http://www.CorruptWA.com has been a warrior for WA State Citizens for the past 16 years. While the fight to protect citizens from the overreaching powers of government has been long, painful and expensive, the occasional success rekindles the hope that all is not lost.
In an unpublished “Memorandum” the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “affirmed, reversed and remanded” the dismissal of Scheidler’s case against the Kitsap County Assessor, who is defrauding the Retired/Disabled/Poor/Widowed from their Article 7, Section 10 property tax exemption.
SECTION 10 RETIRED PERSONS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 7, section 1 (Amendment 14) and Article 7, section 2 (Amendment 17), the following tax exemption shall be allowed as to real property:
The legislature shall have the power, by appropriate legislation, to grant to retired property owners relief from the property tax on the real property occupied as a residence by those owners. The legislature may place such restrictions and conditions upon the granting of such relief as it shall deem proper. Such restrictions and conditions may include, but are not limited to, the limiting of the relief to those property owners below a specific level of income and those fulfilling certain minimum residential requirements. [AMENDMENT 47, 1965 ex.s. House Joint Resolution No. 7, p 2821. Approved November 8, 1966.]
While the “memorandum” filed by the 9th Circuit Court isn’t written in such detail to provide a clear understanding of what must now take place, the fact that the 9th Circuit has stated that Federal District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton “abused his discretion” and failed to “address the merits of Scheidler’s administrative case” and didn’t “allow Scheidler his right to file an amended complaint before dismissing the action” says enough to claim success.
For more information about this matter please look to these stories published on this site and to the “memorandum” issued today by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
VPD Internal Affairs Complaint Policy 902 – multiple violations
Per VPD Internal Affairs Investigation Policy 902.19 Disposition Classifications, the term “UNFOUNDED” refers to an allegation of an act that did not occur.
Let’s just ignore for a moment, the violation of department policy that occurred when Internal Affairs neglected to interview me, the complainant, or the 3 witnesses that documented my unlawful arrest.
Let’s also ignore for a moment, the Officer in question continued to harass me by placing me on a BOLO alert on or about July 2, 2014. (Per Officer’s own report) During which time she is allegedly under investigation by your department for same misconduct that I am complaining about.
Let’s also ignore for the moment, the Officer in question did not follow procedure to properly document and log evidence that was unlawfully seized by Officer #2, who just happens to be her immediate supervisor and was also the approving officer regarding incident report V14-6772.
Let’s just continue to ignore for the moment, the Officer in question admitted in report V14-6772, that her probable cause to arrest me did not exist but still continued with her attempts to criminalize me by filing fictitious reports without following proper procedure or having proper authority.
Per VPD Policy 902.8 Complaint Process, a major complaint must be investigated. If this is normal procedure by a department set up for the sole purpose of investigating complaints of police misconduct, then why would anyone put themselves at risk of retaliation from the police when the department fails to recognize the misconduct? Don’t bother answering my question, Lt. It is obvious the department is condoning the continued reckless behavior of one of their own, Vancouver Police Officer Sandra Aldridge. Maybe you should investigate her current false reporting in a civil matter she is involving herself and the VPD in. Does she have proper approval and authority from command staff? Highly unlikely.
The 14th Amendment guarantees all of us equal protection under the law, unless you live in the police state known as the city of Vancouver, WA.
Good day, Lt. Creager.
Guido A. Bini
From: Creager, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:41 PM
To: ‘Guy Bini’
Subject: RE: IAC # 2014-0218
Hello Mr Bini,
The disposition of IAC 2014-0218 was UNFOUNDED closed on Sept 3, 2014.
I hope this is the information you are looking for
Scott Creager| Lieutenant
Valor, Professionalism, Duty
CITY OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
Vancouver Police Department/Headquarters
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account may be a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external source.
Dear Lt. Scott Creager,
I would like to request the disposition update of a complaint I filed on June 10, 2014.
The subject complaint is referenced by IAC tracking number 2014-0218. I am interested in the final disposition date, if any, to verify the complaint is closed and what the investigation’s final determination of disposition had revealed. I look forward to your
Guido A. Bini