Note From Jim Craven”
If you have knowledge, not hearsay or rumor, direct knowledge of the commission of a felony crime, that knowledge is not yours to keep and use as you wish. Someone has been harmed and whoever did it needs to be stopped before doing it again. 18 USC 4 Misprision of a Felony. Do not go to local law enforcement here including FBI who are well aware of the corruption and inbredness in the various law enforcement agencies. While there are individual cops and special agents that appear decent, the ones at the Senior Supervisory level and above would not be where they are were they not made of the same stuff and have the same mentality as their patron saint whose name adorns the FBI HQ building which is as vile as flying the confederate flag standing for segregation and slavery. Hoover and his same-gender wife Clyde Tolson, were both vile criminals and psychopaths who destroyed the lives of many innocents, and the fact that FBI HQ still has this creature’s name proudly on their building says it all.
Go outside of this area, do not ever talk to FBI even about the weather without a lawyer or witness with guts present. Do not ever talk to FBI on the phone. Do not ever let them into your house for an interview but meet them outside of your house. Ask for a written acknowledgement of your visit and purpose in writing. Check all identification and record all names fully for possible use with OPR or the OIG. Remember they were not hired for brains they were hired for attitude and mentality; the same kind demonstrated by Mr. and Mrs. J Edgar Hoover when they ran the shop. Do not ever record without permission but ask permission to record.
I will be taking boxes of evidence to Washington D.C and there are people who hate corruption and corrupt cops in particular that are watching this place and these ones have no fear of any government agency.
Further, I have evidence of a professional level break-in at my house which I have documented and will take elsewhere. If I catch anyone at my house I will exercise lawful self-and-home-defensive armed force and document it.
I was unable to identify an email address for VPD Corporal Stephen Pfuel, but it might be important for him to be aware of the forwarded information. Also, you may want to interview him for the internal affairs investigation as he was credited, under oath, during Garrett’s trial and in Aldridge’s police report, for having taken the most damning and grossly falsified photos of alleged “victim” at the residence early AM June 3rd. However, Corporal Pfuel was not a witness, therefore he did not have the opportunity to authenticate these photos to be used as evidence during trial.
In Feb. 2014 sworn depositions, Officer Yong claims to have taken the faux photos, while in his deposition, Hamlin slips up by crediting Aldridge for taking the photos. In addition, (tampered) meta-data shows the “bloody” injury photos of Ms. Cresap taken at the scene occurred AFTER she had already been taken to the hospital by ambulance.
Further, according to AMR and emergency staff upon arrival, Ms. Cresap did not exhibit an excess of blood on her face (as is depicted in the photos)… there was very little blood and it was controlled prior to exam by AMR. It was the extreme swelling of the face that was noted by first responders and hospital medical staff–a symptom that was common to Ms. Cresap’s known allergy to the gluten in alcohol (her face would swell to the point of her eyes swollen shut). This too, was suppressed along with her estimated .24 BAC at time of incident (measured hours later at hospital to be .19).
Please feel free to email me with any questions or requests for clarification regarding the information I am providing. Thank you.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Traci Eccles <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Subject: Re-send of Involvement in State v. JG Smith
Note: Due to video attachment in prior email, many recipients were excluded from delivery. The video clip referred to in the message can be viewed by clicking on the link below:
Outside of the Law
Important message to “involved parties,” whether complicit, coerced or unaware:
John Garrett Smith was wrongfully convicted of Attempted Murder II and Assault II on December 3rd, 2014 in a Clark County, Vancouver, WA courtroom. On November 3rd, three weeks prior to trial, the defendant opted to fire his defense team and proceed Pro Se. Over the next two weeks, Judge Robert Lewis, who would act as the sole trier of fact in the upcoming bench trial, prevented Garrett access to justice by denying him the following in open court:
- ADA accommodations for defendant’s qualified disability of Asperger’s Syndrome
- The ability to quickly and efficiently submit motions to the court by requiring defendant to seal, stamp and send all documents through the USPS rather than allow them to be delivered directly to the recipients in the building adjacent to the county jail
- Refusal to provide proper technology to view the “redacted” discovery provided to the defendant in CD format a full week after the November 7thhearing. (Incidentally, despite the week delay by the prosecutor’s office to deliver this critical evidence in an inaccessible format, no redaction had been done, suggesting that it was never a concern that the defendant would actually view the evidence)
As a direct result of #3 above, Garrett Smith had no option but to rehire defense attorney Josephine Townsend to represent him in trial. [SEE ATTACHED VIDEO CLIP FROM EVIDENTIARY HEARING HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH, THE DAY AFTER TOWNSEND WAS REHIRED] Ms.Townsend would go forward to play a key role in the prosecution’s conviction of her client.
After Garrett Smith’s wrongful conviction in a bench trial with a crooked judge after being coerced out of his right to a jury, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison for Attempted Murder II and Assault II, crimes he did not commit. When Garrett was transferred into custody of the DOC in February 2015, he requested that Guy and I pick up his personal belongings from Clark County Jail.
While reorganizing Garrett Smith’s personal effects for storage, we discovered two manila envelopes containing 20 discovery CDs and an 8 gig thumb drive (**see image below). Clearly someone from the prosecutor’s office botched the job by failing to retrieve the “dirty discovery”. The hidden medical records, unknown and highly exculpatory audio-taped depositions of State’s witnesses, blatant proof of misconduct, and implication of widespread collusion spilled out of those envelopes. The originals were handed over to Garrett Smith’s appeal attorneys, the John Henry Browne Law Group in Seattle, WA.
The CDs were downloaded to expose the “rats” that currently infest the Clark County Criminal Justice System, and to direct the attention of the governing bodies of Vancouver and Clark County, both locally and in Olympia, to the liability in front of them. There bares an overwhelming similarity between the methods used to wrongfully convict John Garrett Smith to those applied in the wrongful conviction of now exonerated former Vancouver Police Officer Clyde Ray Spencer 30 years ago.
**For more information click the following link: GARRETT’S VOICE
The purpose of this correspondence is to alert all those individuals potentially implicated through the suppression of exculpatory evidence by Deputy Prosecutor, Jennifer Nugent, in direct violation of Brady v. Maryland.
A summary list of previously hidden information follows:
- Suppressed State’s witness depositions
- Medical evidence directly refuting claims of Deputy Prosecutor, Jennifer Nugent
- Scandalous discrepancies in police reports allegedly written by Vancouver Police Officers Ly Ratha Yong, Sandra Aldridge and Sgt. Andy Hamlin
- Altered video surveillance tapes from Clark County jail during early AM June 3rd, 2013 booking of defendant
- Verification of crime scene spoliation
- Identities of key witnesses (VPD, Clark County Sheriff’s Office and medical professionals) suppressed by prosecution
- Tampered digital forensic evidence, including destruction of portions favorable to defendant
- Appearance of medical insurance fraud
All citizens have a moral obligation and a civic duty to report criminal activity. Along the same lines, it is the constitutional right of every citizen who adheres to that duty to have the benefit of protection from retaliation as Federal and State law mandates. Whether or not you had direct knowledge of the circumstances under which you were included in the harassment and retaliation of myself and/or Guy Bini, or connected to the the previously suppressed discovery in the case of State v. John Garrett Smith, it is your right to be made aware that, as a result of the bad acts of those who abused their power and discretion within the criminal justice system of Clark County, WA, you may be an unwitting accomplice to criminal acts.
**DISCLAIMER: The material provided in this letter is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Additionally, said information has been shared through exercise of 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, as a direct response to obligations of Title 18 U.S. Code § 4: Misprision of felony, and under the protection of Title 18 U.S. Code § 241 and 242: Conspiracy against rights as well as under color of law plus the Federal and State whistleblowers Protection acts
Everything is moving forward and we are optimistic about the potential for favorable results in both full exposure of Garrett’s wrongful conviction and an eventual end to the harassment and retaliation that we have been victims to.
The arrogance of these people never fails to astound me! Below is a screenshot of the wifi connections that come up on my laptop.
Our neighbors moved in November 2014–one month prior to Garrett’s trial and within days of initiation of our BOLO warnings as OFFICER SAFETY RISK. They occupy their townhome in shifts rotating on a regular schedule. Only two of their six vehicles have parking permits (that is the limit the complex provides per residence) 3 of the vehicles are Mustangs in various stages of restoration (VPD has a high number of officers that are Mustang enthusiasts and are members of local Mustang Car Clubs. Various visitors also drive Car Club style Mustangs.
Note what our “neighbors” have named their wifi connection…whatever!!! We have been tempted to go next door and say, “You have to be one or the other…cops or drug dealers, which are you?”
**Note: We would actually prefer drug dealers at this point! 😱
Copied and pasted below (in brick red and blue font) is a request for information from a party currently following up on the wrongful conviction of Garrett Smith, as well as the responses I shared. This is important to the Professional Standards Unit investigation for a number of reasons:
1. The harassment, retaliation and witness intimidation Guy Bini and I have suffered is a direct result of our connection to case #13-1-01035-6 State of Washington v. John Garrett Smith.
2. Detective Sandra Aldridge openly admitted multiple times under oath that she did not do any background investigation regarding Ms. Cresap (alleged victim to Garrett and Guy), or any of her claims. Having done NO background verification, Aldridge proceeded to shamelessly “witness vouch” for Ms. Cresap far beyond her involvement as “lead investigator” in the State’s case against Garrett. She has been the self-assigned body-guard of Ms. Cresap , accuser of Guy Bini on the witness stand in a civil anti-harassment hearing, and self-appointed participant in Sheryl Cresap’s divorce by submitting non-redacted, defamatory and inaccurate claims attacking Guy and I in court record.
3. What follows is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the lack of credibility (as well as indication of mental/ emotional instability) of an individual upon whose testimony an innocent man was wrongfully convicted. Ms. Cresap’s bizarre and inconsistent accusations and behavior has wreaked havoc on the lives of Guy Bini, Garrett Smith, me and all of our families.
Background information related to questions/response below:
April 17th, 2014 During a bail reduction hearing, well into the malicious prosecution of John Garrett Smith on false charges of Attempted Murder in the 1st degree, Prosecutor Jennifer Nugent, made outrageous claims indicating that ‘600 pages of medicals’ prove that the victim, Sheryl Cresap-Smith, is still fighting for her life ‘to this day’.
April 24th, 2014 Sheryl Cresap-williams filed a personal injury claim in neighboring Skamania County. The complaint alleged life-threatening personal injury from a bicycle crash that had occurred in September 2012, when the dog belonging to Steve and Judith Whitcomb chased the tandem bike she and Garrett were on while they rode past the Whitcombs’ house. Sheryl Cresap was attempting to collect for personal injury citing the same injuries for which she claimed Garrett had ‘brutally beat her and left her for dead’.
Important note: When responding to questions during a defense deposition regarding her allegations against Garrett Smith, Ms. Cresap claimed Garrett tried to kill her in that September 2012 tandem bike crash as she insisted she ‘had no recollection of any dog’.
April 28th, 2014 Detective Sandra Aldridge improperly served (missing multiple pages of document) a temporary anti-harassment order to Guy Bini on behalf of Sheryl S. Smith. In her written statements, petitioner Cresap claimed that the same emotional trauma she attributed to Garrett was instead due to (fictitious) harassment by Guy Bini. While her statements verified that she has never seen, met or been contacted by Guy, she claimed to be terrified of him and believed he planned to kill her.
The questions below are regarding information about a personal injury claim filed against Steve and Judith Whitcomb by Sheryl Cresap in April of 2014. A visual displaying the three court cases can be found by clicking this link:
[Questions asked and my responses follow]
Traci, do you have the court case number for this alleged personal injury claim?
Court: Skamania Superior
Case Number: 14-2-00059-8
This claim was filed within days of the filing of anti-harassment order against Guy. She filed this one in Skamania County under one of her previous alias (Cresap-williams… with a lower case ‘w’) undoubtedly in the attempt to keep her 3 current litigation actions from intersecting.
Did Cresap retain an attorney for this claim?
Yes, her attorney for this personal injury claim was Bruce Colven of the Vancouver law firm Caron, Colven, Robison & Shafton. During trial, Cresap first feigned memory loss regarding this attorney… then she said she had “no idea what her attorney did…”, then eventually she broke into a detailed and bitter explanation of how she didn’t get anything out of the Whitcombs because they did not have homeowner’s insurance. During this testimony Cresap made the comment, “no insurance, no money.”
Additional interesting tidbits:
During this short stretch of time in April-May 2014, while she was alleged to be destitute and living in a garage, Ms. Cresap was retaining the services of :
1. Attorney Brian Walker, who had been representing Ms. Cresap’s interests for nearly a year regarding her alleged injuries from the incident of June 2013 AND, according to Sheryl Cresap’s testimony during the May 28th anti-harassment hearing, was representing her in her current fictitious divorce. The divorce had not been filed as claimed under oath on May 28th by Cresap; this was not refuted by attorney Brian Walker who was in the courtroom when Cresap made this statement. Ultimately, the divorce was initiated by Garrett, NOT Sheryl, in September 2014.
2. Attorney Scott Swindell, who, according to Cresap’s testimony during Guy’s anti-harassment hearing on May 28th, was representing her interests in the “Garrett and Sheryl Smith Trust of 2012” (we have been unable to determine what this is, but she brandies it about regularly in her testimonies and court documents)
3. Attorney Bruce Colven who was representing her regarding her fraudulent personal injury claim against the Whitcombs of North Bonneville, WA in Skamania County.
4. Attorney Jeff Holmes who represented her in the May 28th anti-harassment hearing against Guy
Ironically, in Ms. Cresap’s anti-harassment petition against Guy Bini, she applied and was granted a waiver of all fees due to her “indigent” status. She even stated, in the documentation, under penalty of perjury, that she ‘had to sell all of her clothes in order to survive.’
**I always wondered where someone who ‘lives in a garage’ parks her BMW…
Re the bike/dog incident: was that the same alleged incident mentioned in court regarding injury involving a dog, a fall and a broken arm?
No, these are two entirely different events:
Bike/dog incident was basis of the personal injury claim above… took place with both Sheryl and Garrett on a tandem bike in North Bonneville, WA in September 2012, about 8 months prior to Garrett’s DV arrest in June 2013.
Dog/leash/fall/broken wrist incident took place in July 2013 prompting additional trip to emergency room. PA Nugent and Cresap tried to call these injuries ongoing trauma from the “brutally-beat-and-left-for-dead-” false claims from the beginning of June 2013.
Lieutenants Creager and Luse:
Guy and I are fully aware that due process requires notice, and that the VPD may be found without liability for 14th Amendment due process violations in the event of an emergency situation warranting immediate action where public safety is concerned. However, in a case such as ours where due process is possible, practicable and constitutionally required, but ignored, a serious problem exists. Is it too much to ask that you keep us informed in regard to the current status of the malicious “death threat” BOLO warnings placed against us by the VPD?
Friday, October 24th, 2014 during a terry-stop three blocks from my residence, I discovered for the first time that my vehicle license plate had been placed on a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) alert as a VPD agency-wide broadcast…
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered in March that my license plate was associated with a new BOLO.
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered in April that Guy and I had both been placed on BOLO as “threat”
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered that we were alleged to have made “death threats” and had been labeled as “OFFICER SAFETY RISK” “APPROACH WITH CAUTION”
Note: To this day, we have not been contacted or questioned regarding these allegations.
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered that these outrageous, fictitious allegations against us had been elevated to a county-wide alert so that all law enforcement agencies in Clark County would consider us “OFFICER SAFETY RISK” “APPROACH WITH CAUTION”.
Note: This escalation of harassment against us was initiated by Sgt. Andy Hamlin, one of the subjects of a VPD Professional Standards Unit investigation in progress at the time of this bad act. Most “shocking to the conscience…” authorization for Hamlin’s actions came from his supervisor Lt. Doug Luse, a member of the Professional Standards Unit investigating our complaints of harassment by Sgt. Andy Hamlin and Detective Sandra Aldridge.
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered that on April 30, Lt. Luse cancelled the existing “death threat” BOLO alerts, and reissued new ones identical to the previous, but with “OFFICER SAFETY RISK” unchecked. All defamatory and false narrative information regarding the danger and caution remained unchanged.
Through persistent public records requests, not through notification by the VPD, I discovered that on May 28, Lt. Luse cancelled the existing “death threat” BOLO
First, please verify the final entry above, indicating cancellation of the alleged “death threat” BOLO alerts. If affirmative, please explain to me why this information was not shared with us considering the fact that I have been denied repeated requests for the removal of the defamatory and dangerous mandate against us. In numerous emails, I have expressed the impact this has had on my life and sense of safety outside of my own home (see attached for summary of just the initial requests for the BOLO to be removed).
Thank you in advance for your prompt response to my questions. Also, if the BOLO issue is closed, I would like the information/findings that led you to this decision.