Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: OAK HARBOR - Council Members should be charged with Official Misconduct.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    OAK HARBOR - Council Members should be charged with Official Misconduct.

    I have spent the last 4 days going over the transcripts, videos, minutes, comments and agendas surrounding the Oak Harbor situation.

    Prior to the 1/15/13 meeting the Guns in public had been brought forward to the council AND it was discussed that to leave that law in place was to violate state preemption, and explanation of the preemption followed.

    On 1/15/13 Rick Almberg HAD prior knowledge of the state preemption. HE then WILLINGLY and with INTENT brought fourth a proposal targeted at a citizen's rights. The fact that it failed has no bearing. Just because you missed killing someone doesn't mean you didn't try to kill them does it?

    On 1/15/13 Joel Servatius HAD prior knowledge of the state preemption. HE WILLINGLY and with INTENT seconded a proposal targeted at a citizen's rights. Again the fact that it failed has no bearing.

    By LAW:
    "RCW 9A.80.010
    Official misconduct. (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
    (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
    (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
    (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor."


    Both council members are guilty of section 1 trying to deprive a person of a lawful right.

    Both members had knowledge from prior meetings of the preemption.

    Both members need to be charged with Official misconduct.

    I have written to the mayor, and county prosecuting attorney and am waiting on replies. But I am one voice. You wanna make OH a real victory? Get rid of the problems where they start, send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated against citizens. That could have been anyone of us standing there on the 15th.
    Last edited by triehl27; 02-10-2013 at 05:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by triehl27 View Post
    I have spent the last 4 days going over the transcripts, videos, minutes, comments and agendas surrounding the Oak Harbor situation.

    Prior to the 1/15/13 meeting the Guns in public had been brought forward to the council AND it was discussed that to leave that law in place was to violate state preemption, and explanation of the preemption followed.

    On 1/15/13 Rick Almberg HAD prior knowledge of the state preemption. HE then WILLINGLY and with INTENT brought fourth a proposal targeted at a citizen's rights. The fact that it failed has no bearing. Just because you missed killing someone doesn't mean you didn't try to kill them does it?

    On 1/15/13 Joel Servatius HAD prior knowledge of the state preemption. HE WILLINGLY and with INTENT seconded a proposal targeted at a citizen's rights. Again the fact that it failed has no bearing.

    By LAW:
    "RCW 9A.80.010
    Official misconduct. (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
    (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
    (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
    (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor."


    Both council members are guilty of section 1 trying to deprive a person of a lawful right.

    Both members had knowledge from prior meetings of the preemption.

    Both members need to be charged with Official misconduct.

    I have written to the mayor, and county prosecuting attorney and am waiting on replies. But I am one voice. You wanna make OH a real victory? Get rid of the problems where they start, send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated against citizens. That could have been anyone of us standing there on the 15th.
    Actually, you are correct. If these two were prosecuted and especially if they were convicted, it would open a few other council members in other cities and counties that there illegal behaveur could cost the more than just the next election

    I am not sure the the Mayor is the proper person to bring this forward. The proscuter? well, I think here is where you need to talk to a good lawyer about how to go about this, The reason that the Mayor is wrong it it could be protrayed as a partisan vendeta...and depending on the feelings of the jury, a winable case could get flushed down the tubes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113
    Mine went to the mayor, police chief and county prosecutor, (who just recently prosecuted the Langley mayor for a misdemeanor and then sued him to get him kicked out of office and sued again to close down the mayor's private contract work (Day Job)) So Greg Banks has shown he will go after municipal issues. Greg Bank1. kicked the mayor out of office, 2. got his private business taken away and 3. sent him to jail for 15 days, in response to a charge of "False record of a official document"

    He in essence destroyed the mayor, his work, family life, his income and left him a felon. For a misdemeanor. Now that is getting a result on a pretty petty crime
    Last edited by triehl27; 02-10-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    While I would love to see these two council members ran out of town, I am not seeing where a crime was actually committed. In essence the ordinance was already on the books and repealed by state law and then we get to the injured party, who was injured as to being arrested, cited or thrown out of a park, marina or council meeting.

    I would think the citizens of Oak Harbor should recall both and put in place someone what actually care about their citizens and current law.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    SECTION 33 RECALL OF ELECTIVE OFFICERS. Every elective public officer of the state of Washington expect [except] judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of, signed by the percentages of the qualified electors thereof, hereinafter provided, the percentage required to be computed from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for his said office to which he was elected at the preceding election, is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state, and the result determined as therein provided. [AMENDMENT 8, 1911 p 504 Section 1. Approved November, 1912.]

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYR...stitution.aspx
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Daddy Warbucks also committed the crime of trying to get a lawful gun owner ejected from the meeting, he tried to get the police to conspire in this crime, fortunately they did not, so he walked out.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    I'd be great to see a motion in a meeting to have the councilman ejected and brought up on charges. The video would go viral.

  8. #8
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9A.80.010
    Official misconduct. (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
    (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
    (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
    (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.


    ~~ snipped ~~
    And then, Rick Almberg ATTEMPTED to commit the same offense on January 15th when he ATTEMPTED to require Lucas Yonkman to surrender his firearm to the police in order to attend the city council meeting. In Washington, the ATTEMPT to commit the crime results in being guilty of the crime, with the punishment being for the one lesser classification offense, so in this case if Rick Almberg was convicted of attempting to deprive Lucas Yonkman of a right, under color of law, without authority, then he would be punished as if convicted of a misdemeanor, rather than a gross misdemeanor if he had succeeded.
    That still does not even mention the possibility for Making False Official Statements.

    If we make an official statement that is later found to have been false, wouldn't they possibly charge us?
    Yet they swear an Oath of Office.. "An Official Statement" and get a pass when they intentionally violate that Oath?

    What RCW might somone cite to charge them with Making False Official Statements?
    Might it be; Chapter 9A.70 RCW PERJURY AND INTERFERENCE WITH OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

    Specifically;
    9A.72.010
    Definitions.

    The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

    (1) "Materially false statement" means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;

    (2) "Oath" includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:

    (a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

    (b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or
    (c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW

    and;
    9A.72.040 False swearing.

    (1) A person is guilty of false swearing if he or she makes a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.

    (2) False swearing is a gross misdemeanor.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •