MORE EVIDENCE OF SERIAL CORRUPTION IN CLARK COUNTRY AND ELSEWHERE IN WASHINGTON STATE
When my purpose has been to submit a Public Records Request, I have quite consistently directed that to your department (within the City Attorneys Office), addressed it to you specifically (Raelyn McJilton), and I have clearly identified said request as having FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) or PDR (Public Disclosure Request) intent. My January 28th correspondence was sent directly to Lt. Creager in his supervisory capacity with the Vancouver Police Department. I note in the opening line of the January 28th email my focus of concern: Issues concerning the two years I have been a victim to harassment and retaliation, with specific reference to the Vancouver Police Department’s Professional Standards Unit investigation of this matter that has been underway for nearly a year. I then state: “While parts of this request may fall under PDR guidelines, other portions, since they were likely never in existence despite requests made at the appropriate time, may not qualify as ‘public records’ per se.” The requests and commentary detailed in the remainder of the message require no Dawson v. Daly, Hangartner v. City of Seattle, or Smith v. Okanogan County citation. My email to Lt. Creager was simply, and perhaps intentionally, misdirected to you.
While I plan to redirect all of my questions about the current Internal Affairs Investigation back to Lt. Creager, there are a few statements you made in the attached response that raise questions I would ask that you address.
You quoted my statements regarding Vancouver Police Department Policy (involving access to and secondary dissemination of criminal and non-criminal data by VPD personnel), that I had quoted directly from the policy manual: (812.7 QUERIES AND CRIMINAL HISTORY LOG & 812.9 SECONDARY DISSEMINATION REQUIREMENTS). You then stated:
“The City does not track the information requested above. We, therefore, have no documents responsive to your request.”
My confusion regarding this statement (repeated in both instances) is that the list I included was taken directly from the policy itself. VPD policy 812.7 (QUERIES AND CRIMINAL HISTORY LOG) and 812.9 (SECONDARY DISSEMINATION REQUIREMENTS) include mandates that each item on the list presented in my email be documented and kept in record, yet you have stated that the City does not track the information. Therefore, my understanding is that VPD and the City do not adhere to requirements outlined in policies 812.7 or 812.9. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Thank you for your efforts on my behalf,
Lt. Creager, Chief McElvain, Sgt Hatley, and any others who may be involved in the ongoing monitoring of this situation from a distance:
I sent the January 28th email (in this thread) to Lt. Creager as a request for answers that are long overdue. It was not intended as a Public Records Disclosure request to be sent on to Ms. Raelyn McJilton to then be denied based on case law. Perhaps if I clearly state current concerns that prompted the January 28th request of the Professional Standards Unit, you will better understand my expectations and be able to provide an appropriate response.
To recap in summary:
- VPD were in receipt of five separate complaints of harassment by Detective Sandra Aldridge by June 10th, 2014 from Bini and Eccles. All of these complaints were disregarded without consideration. Further, according to emails obtained through Public Records Disclosure, the complaints were the subject of mockery and facetious commentary between Detective Aldridge, her supervisor, Andy Hamlin and other members of VPD and City Attorney’s Office.
- After nearly a year of additional harassment, retaliation and witness intimidation of Eccles and Bini regarding the State’s case against John Garrett Smith (which could have been prevented had the first round of complaints been acknowledged and addressed), complaints submitted by Traci Eccles in February of 2015 were recorded and acknowledged by the VPD. A Professional Standards Unit investigation was allegedly opened against Detective Sandra Aldridge and her supervisor, Sgt. Andy Hamlin.
- Regardless of the claim that an Internal Affairs investigation has been open since March of 2015, the harassment of Eccles and Bini by Aldridge and Hamlin has continued without prevention or intervention by their supervisors. Eccles and Bini have been denied multiple requests for updates on the progress and status of the investigation. Further, Detective Aldridge and Sgt. Hamlin have been verified by Chief of Police, James McElvain to remain on full active duty with the VPD despite repeated acts of continued harassment and retaliation that have been reported to the VPD that includes unlawful access, mischaracterization, and dissemination of non criminal data, as well as slander and libel, regarding Eccles and Bini to outside agencies in an effort to falsely incriminate both complainants.
Note: The violations of VPD policy encompassed in the above explanation are too numerous to count. Further, the statements above do not address the deeper issues regarding the misconduct and shocking criminal behavior of Detective Sandra Adridge which includes, but are not limited to, deprivation of rights under the color of law, first degree perjury, fabrication of evidence, tampering with evidence, witness tampering and intimidation, submitting false reports, criminal fraud, cyber stalking, and criminal impersonation.
To this point, there has been no indication that command staff with VPD takes citizen complaints regarding harassment, retaliation and violation of constitutional rights by VPD officers seriously. Furthermore, it appears that the “code of blue” is much more powerful that the sworn ethical code of law enforcement that would, if followed, necessitate a re-evaluation of the circumstances under which John Garrett Smith, an innocent man, was convicted of a crime that did not occur due almost exclusively to the misconduct and fraudulent acts of a single VPD officer.
A call for action is long overdue, please act in accordance with your oath of ethics. Thank you.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Traci Eccles <email@example.com> wrote:
I would like to clean up some loose ends regarding the ongoing harassment and retaliation of which I have been victim for nearly two years, and about which you have been conducting a PSU investigation for nearly a year. While parts of this request may fall under PDR guidelines, other portions, since they were likely never in existence despite requests made at the appropriate time, may not qualify as “public records” per se. However, since I have a right to be provided such information, some of which was denied earlier, my request to be provided said data is legitimate and necessary for my own records. Thank you for your efforts in providing the following:
- RECEIPT FOR IPHONE SEIZED FROM MY POSSESSION BY SGT. ANDY HAMLIN ON THE MORNING OF MAY 7, 2014 IN FRONT OF STARBUCKS ON 8TH AVE., VANCOUVER, WA.
- I requested this receipt per both email and multiple phone conversations with Sgt. Hamlin and Sgt. Landwehr in the weeks following the incident. I supplied multiple documents to prove ownership of the iPhone. I have two emails and a recorded phone message I left on Sgt. Hamlin’s voicemail detailing my explicit and clear request to be provided a receipt; a receipt was never provided. I would like to be provided that receipt now, along with a complete chain of custody as to the exact location and activity regarding the seized iPhone from 11AM May 7th, 2014 until its return to my possession in late November 2014.
- AN EXPLANATION OF HOW MY PERSONAL INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED AND USED, INCLUDING A MAGNIFIED DRIVER’S LICENSE PHOTO OF ME WHICH I DID NOT SUPPLY, ON AN 8 X 10 “WANTED-STYLE” POSTER POSTED IN THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
- In addition to the poster, personal information, including my social security #, driver’s license # and birth date appeared in UNREDACTED court documents submitted by Detective Sandra Aldridge falsely implicating both Guy Bini and myself of criminal activity in an effort to support Sheryl Cresap Smith’s claims in a civil matter in which Aldridge was not an investigator or a “party” (March 2015).
- In order to correct this blunder, I submitted a request for redactions to the court, which had to be processed and signed by a judge, in order to protect my personal information that Detective Aldridge had carelessly provided to the general public under the Color of Law.
Please provide me with the legitimate, law enforcement purpose Detective Aldridge had to supply the court and the prosecutor’s office with my unredacted, personal information, and how/why she gained access to it (ie—relevant case number; legitimate investigation for which I was—or am– considered a suspect to a crime) NOTE: All of this activity took place months after the conclusion of the Smith trial.
- ALL DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IDENTIFYING CRIMINAL/NON-CRIMINAL DATA QUERIES REGARDING TRACI D. ECCLES AND/OR GUIDO A. BINI (GUY BINI) BY ANY VPD OFFICER FROM APRIL 1, 2014 – CURRENT
According to Policy 812: ACCESS…
812.7 QUERIES AND CRIMINAL HISTORY LOG
“VPD personnel who query criminal history information must complete the Criminal History Log.”
Included should be Eccles and/or Bini’s full names, date of birth, correct and legitimate law enforcement purpose code, description of legitimate purpose (ie: case number and/or crime being investigated), date of query, specific type of request, requester’s name and PSN, name and PSN of person running inquiry, name and PSN of authorizing supervisor.
- ALL SECONDARY DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL/NON-CRIMINAL DATA QUERIES REGARDING TRACI D. ECCLES AND/OR GUIDO A. BINI (GUY BINI) BY ANY VPD OFFICER FROM APRIL 1, 2014 – CURRENT
According to Policy 812: ACCESS…
812.9 SECONDARY DISSEMINATION REQUIREMENTS
“Each user must observe all restrictions placed on the use or dissemination of information received through ACCESS.
Personnel shall not use any information obtained through the ACCESS system, including all Department of Licensing (DOL) and Department of Corrections (DOC) information, for private business or personal reasons or furnish any information so obtained to any other person for such use.”
For all events in which criminal/non-criminal data relating to Traci D. Eccles and/or Guido A. Bini (Guy Bini) was disclosed to any agency by any VPD officer, please provide the following:
A copy of the signed CJIS letter on file from the requesting agency, Secondary Dissemination log completed by the providing officer to include name of person requesting information, agency requesting information, date requested, full name of subject being queried, specific reason for request, date of dissemination, name and PSN of supervisor authorizing release of information.
- PLEASE CLARIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT PER POLICY 812 IS TRUE AND CORRECT:
“VPD personnel may not release criminal history information to agencies who do not meet the definition of a criminal justice agency. Such agencies making a request must be referred to the Washington State Patrol WATCH program at https://watch.wsp.wa.gov to obtain the information.”
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter,
Traci D. Eccles
Dear Mr. Bohler (on behalf of Senator Don Benton),
Thank you for responding… you are the only one who did. However, I have to call “BS” regarding your comments. I suspect that you, Senator Benton and others representing Clark County in the WA legislature are unaware that according to a research study released in 2013 by the National Registry of Exonerations, Clark County, WA ranks 7th in the Nation of exonerations per capita of counties over 300,000. This is just below number 6, Cook County, IL (Chicago), and just above numbers 8, 9, and 10, District of Columbia, Bronx, NY, and Wayne, MI (Detroit) respectively. This notable designation indicates a serious and deeply embedded problem that should be of utmost concern to legislators who represent Clark County. Whether this continues to happen as a result of malicious prosecution of the innocent, lack of oversight, or a complete disregard for constitutional protections and due process of law, it is inconceivable that it is not at the TOP of the agenda of each and every Clark County representative.
As a law abiding citizen who still holds onto the hope that the ideals of “justice for all” are salvageable in Clark County, I believe it is your job, within your jurisdiction, and of critical importance to your constituents, that you take every measure humanly possible to address problems like this at the legislative level. As stated by Bill Scheidler on the website “Corrupt Washington”:
- The WA State Legislature, by abandoning their duty prescribed by the WA State Constitution has created a dilemma by which a citizen cannot find justice. This dilemma arises when the judges of the courts use their own rules to deny fundamental and substantive rights. Under law, RCW 2.28.030 (the Federal Counterpart is Title 28 Part V Chapter 131 § 2072), no person may act as judge in a matter in which the judge has a “direct interest.” Clearly the rules judges of the courts devise, the power they give themselves, the punishment levied under these rules are the direct interest of these judges. This means a citizens can never receive an “impartial” judge when judges utilize their own court rules in deciding cases.
- When a citizen reports violations of law, by a public servant, to their representative(s) the complaining citizen typically receives a response from their representative claiming they lack “jurisdiction” to do anything about the misconduct. This is a fraudulent excuse because the representative has the duty to make legislation, repeal bad law, impeach or remove state officials, or bring the issue to the attention of the full legislature and forward the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authorities. In other words, the representative must investigate the matter to determine if the allegation(s) are true and then insure justice is done by the powers they have.
- This scheme by half-truths and false statements used by WA state’s elected representatives is designed to deceive citizens, by frustrating their effort to report government corruption, and thereby protect public officials and employees from their wrongdoing
Within the past two years, highly publicized civil awards totaling over 30 million dollars were granted for egregious civil rights violations suffered by wrongfully convicted Clyde Ray Spencer, Alan Northrop and Larry Davis. Clark County was subsequently removed from the Washington Counties Risk Pool as a result of these cases, and had to borrow nearly 10 million dollars to cover just a part of that obligation. In addition, Clark County paid in excess of half million dollars in the Spencer case alone to defend the deplorable actions of former employees Detective Michael Davidson and Detective Sharon Krause. In the Northrop/Davis civil action, it was revealed that Clark County Detective Donald Slagle had been disciplined 16 times and had been investigated by internal affairs for dozens of complaints, yet kept his position for 26 years and collects full retirement benefits. The primary factor allowing the wrongful convictions of Spencer, Northrop, Davis, and on December 3rd, 2014–John Garrett Smith, was malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence and the intentional withholding of evidence that would have proven innocence of the accused. Will the same outrageous behavior of Detective Sandra Aldridge (who has been under internal affairs investigation for nearly a year) and former Deputy Prosecutor Jennifer Nugent (who was separated from employment as a Clark County Prosecutor under a shroud of secrecy following the conviction of John Garrett Smith) be addressed in real time, or buried as the financial liability they have created multiplies over time?
It seems illogical that reports of a continuation of the same behavior that brought such devastation to the lives of innocent people and their families, not to mention the financial liability to Clark County, would not be worthy of the attention and intervention by all of our elected leaders. Thank you for further consideration to this call to action.
Traci Eccles, resident of Clark County, Vancouver, WA
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Bohler, Alexander <Alexander.Bohler@leg.wa.gov> wrote:
Elected legislative officials are not allowed to intercede or intervene in judicial cases—under any circumstances— so trying to lobby them in regards to specific cases (or convictions) is generally not considered a good use of time or energy. The Judicial Branch—for better or worse—is governed by the legal profession itself (through the state bar association and the state supreme court). This principle, called the “separation of powers doctrine,” has been the framework for American Jurisprudence since the founding of the Republic. The best place to show your dis-satisfaction with individual judges or prosecutors is through the ballot box when they come up for re-election.
Hope this helps.
ALEXANDER BOHLER (jd, llm) office of senator don benton Washington state senate
PO Box 40417
Olympia, WA 98504
Clark County Commissioners, Vancouver City Councilmen, and Clark County Legislators~
During a time of year that many spend in the comfort of their homes, with a festive atmosphere, enjoying the company of friends and family, and reflecting on the blessings of the past year, as well as hopes for prosperity in a New Year, a wrongfully convicted man spends his third Christmas separated from the family that he loves. This message contains verifiable indictments that will prove the innocence of John Garrett Smith. This an opportunity for decision-makers to act sooner rather than later.
PREVIOUSLY SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
RESULTING IN A CONVICTION FOR A CRIME THAT DID NOT OCCUR
CLARK COUNTY CASE #13-1-01035-6
STATE V. JOHN GARRETT SMITH:
- Defendants iPhone was accessed, settings were changed, and information was deleted while in VPD possession hours after arrest. GPS data as well as over 3000 emails were deleted without authorization or a warrant.
- “Inadvertent” voicemail recording alleged by VPD to have been found on the iPhone has been verified through audio analysis to be a highly-edited falsification.
- VPD chain of custody regarding physical evidence used during trial verifies that the iPhone was checked out of the evidence facility 17 months before trial by Detective Sandra Aldridge and was never returned. It was not used in trial and its whereabouts is still in question today.
- CD admitted into evidence as the official recording copy to be used at trial was not checked out for trial, according to the chain of custody. Instead, a copy of the recording was used that had never been entered into evidence.
- VPD Detective Sandra Aldridge acted as lead investigator, assistant prosecutor, primary State’s witness and gave perjured testimony as an unqualified digital forensics expert.
- Suppressed photos of the defendant’s hands taken hours after incident indicated no blood or injury on his hands or body despite reports by alleged victim that he had “pummeled her punching bag style with both fists.” DNA lab results (hidden throughout trial, but uncovered post-conviction) indicate that the victim’s DNA (blood) WAS NOT found to be on defendant’s clothes, shoes, person or vehicle.
- SW Washington Medical Center reports confirm minimal injury, and dispute any serious or life-threatening injury occurred based on extensive physical exam & numerous MRI reports NOT ENTERED INTO TRIAL RECORD.
- Patient was cleared for release from the hospital within 36 hours. Medical billing indicates victim only spent one night in the hospital in contrast to Prosecutor Jennifer Nugent’s claim under oath of a five day hospital stay during which alleged victim fought for her life.
- Medical reports in the month following the June 2nd incident detail the alleged victim returning to Emergency Departments repeatedly with a variety of complaints. After being sent home numerous times, she was admitted for observation (ie- victim reports to ED at Legacy June 16, is seen and sent home; returns June 17, is seen and sent home; returns June 18th, is admitted for observation overnight and then sent home). This pattern is repeated other times in medical record yet Prosecutor Nugent mischaracterizes these events as “ongoing, life-threatening injuries.”
- Prosecutor Nugent submitted multiple falsified State’s subpoena lists over a twelve month period to include MDs and other medical providers whose testimony would have revealed the information provided in #7-9 above. FOIA records requests submitted to the prosecutor’s office records officer, Mindy Lamberton earlier this year indicate no record could be found to verify that the witnesses on the list (who did not appear or testify at trial) received subpoenas alleged to have been sent by former Deputy Prosecutor, Jennifer Nugent.
PLEASE READ A MORE IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF THIS TRAVESTY:
GARRETT SMITH’S 7.8 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT SUBMITTED TO CLARK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE ROBERT A LEWIS ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 2015.
John Garrett Smith is a brilliant engineer, entrepreneur and inventor who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome. Prior to the incident of June 2nd he was targeted by individuals who had financial motive to falsely accuse him of criminal activity. The actions taken in connection with his intellectual and proprietary property beginning the day following Garrett Smith’s arrest are a testament to this, and, as everything written in this correspondence, can be proven as fact. To date, during his incarceration, Garrett Smith has been swindled out of more than $1 million.
This is not the first wrongful conviction in Clark County. A tragic mistake was made that demands immediate action. Please help to correct this wrong. Thank you.