• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

T

triehl27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
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:
hermannr

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
triehl27 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

triehl27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
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:
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
L

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
NavyLCDR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top