Scott Stafne

The Notice of Reassignment states:

The court is reassigning this case to another judge because ... X a party filed a notice of judicial disqualification, or ... X judicial rotation. The court is therefore reassigning the case from JUDGE CHRIS LANESE to JUDGE CHRISTINE SCHALLER.

Hmmm. What does that mean?

Anybody have an idea? Let me know.

I am not sure how the Thurston County Prosecutor's office has become involved in this case and would like an explanation, if possible.

In any event, it sounds like the Prosecutor's Office has read my client's briefing in those Singleton cases, for which a motion to consolidate has been filed. And I am wondering whether your office has also read Singleton's motion to strike the motion for summary judgment filed by the purported second lien holder in West Coast Servicing, Inc. v Heather B.
Singleton v West Coast Servicing, Inc. et al, Thurston County case no. 22-2-02982-34. That motion and supporting evidence in favor of the motion to strike, West Coast's response materials, and Ms. Singleton's reply materials
demonstrate, among other things, that West Coast's scheduling of its motion for summary judgment contains perjuries by plaintiff West Coast's law firm misrepresenting facts related to service of that motion.


Singleton's motion to strike the fraudulently noted dispositive motion also includes a request for relief from the Court that this matter, i.e. including the perjuries, be referred to the Thurston County Sheriff's for consideration as to whether any criminal charges against the Tomlinson Bomsztyk Russ law firm ("TBR") and its culpable employees should be referred to
your office for possible prosecution. However, since your office has now become involved in Singleton's cases, it likely
makes just as much sense for Ms. Singleton, myself, and the Church of the Gardens to also ask the prosecutor to consider the undisputed facts of this case so as to determine whether criminal charges should be filed against TBR and those who have committed crimes on its behalf given the assertions that such perjuries are common in cases like this and
materially adversely affect homeowners' abilities to litigate these types of cases.


In this regard, I now affirm to you under the penalty of perjury as per the laws of Washington State that the TBR law firm misrepresented facts to the Court in an obvious attempt to deny Ms. Singleton that time she was required to have been afforded under applicable court rules to respond to the dispositive motion filed against her. Further, I assert under the
penalty of perjury that law firms representing those entities purporting to have a basis for foreclosing on Washington homeowners' properties commit such perjuries routinely.


Accordingly, if your office decides not to consider this matter I would ask that your office, i.e. the Thurston County Prosecutor's officer, refer this matter to the Washington State Bar Association for an official opinion with regards to the appropriateness of TBR's conduct, including the culpability of those persons who acted on behalf of that law firm when perpetrating these alleged felonies.


I have attached for your review both the evidence and argument supporting the charges made by Ms. Singleton, Church of the Gardens, and myself against TBR, attorney Joseph McIntosh, and paralegal Bailey McCoy in this case. Those documents include: ....

We, who are born into this “modern” world often assume that human
civilization has “advanced” to the time in which we live. In other words, we view our present-day technological achievements as proof that our current societies are more advanced than those which existed before; especially those which existed in prehistoric ancient times.


But what evidence tends to prove we are smarter than our ancestors?

Not much, really.

Claiming that Bergeron's motion for a hearing to determine whether Senior Judge Robart is competent to exercise the Article III judicial power pursuant to 28 U.S.C 294 is frivolous, the senior judge -- who is clearly interested in this outcome which he dictates -- strikes Bergeron's motion for an evidentiary hearing and also strikes her attorney's notice of appearance, deeming Bergeron to be a pro se litigant processing her own bankruptcy appeal.

In this Reply presentation Singleton demonstrates why purported owners of the 2006 deed of trust first and second mortgages have no right to enforce her promissory note or deed of trust in this case. Next Singleton demonstrates why the continuing perjuries by entities like West Coast and its counselk should never have been tolerated by Washington State courts and demonstrating why this type of criminal behavior should be referred to the Thurston County Sheriff's Office in order to determine whether criminal charges should be considered.

Heather Singleton testifies that West Coast persuaded her to participate in settle negotiations based on lies that it possessed the original Note when West Coast knew that West Coast did not possess the paper copy of the Note agreement she signed.

Stafne testifies as to those facts supporting Singleton's motion to strike the motion for summary judgment which Singleton claims was improperly noted and also with regards to Singleton's motion to consolidate the ongoing Torrens Act registration proceedings related to her title based on her 2006 first and second mortgages contracts enterd into a the same time.

This response by Plaintiff debt buyer to West Coast Servicing, Inc., to Singleton's consolidated motions, including West Coast's inappropriately scheduled seperate motion for sanctions against Stafne, asserts in its introductory paragraphs:

Plaintiff West Coast Servicing Inc. responds to Defendant Singleton’s motions to (1) strike Plaintiff’s scheduled August 2, 2024 summary judgment hearing (2) refer for criminal investigation a paralegal from Plaintiff’s attorney’s office, and (3) consolidate this case with a Torrens Act petition allegedly being maintained by Singleton.

The motions are frivolous and were filed with the purpose of harassment, as is typical of Singleton’s attorney, Mr. Scott Stafne. The motions should be denied, and Stafne should be sanctioned.

This response is supported by the Declaration of Joseph Ward McIntosh filed herewith.

West Valley, the purported owner of a second mortgage lien allegededly created in 2006 as if its assignor was a Note Holder responds to Singleton's motions motions to 1) strike Plaintiff’s scheduled August 2, 2024 summary judgment hearing; (2) refer for criminal investigation a paralegal from Plaintiff’s attorney’s office, and (3) consolidate this case with a Torrens Act petition allegedly being maintained by Singleton. Additionally, Plaintiff purported lien holder moves for CR 11 sanctions against Singleton's attorney, Scott Stafne.

The issues presented by this motion include:

1.) Does this Court -- through its clerks -- failure to require Appellee foreign Bank to file an answering brief responding to the Larsons appeal indicate bias or appear to demonstrate a likelihood of bias in these types of
appeals challenging the authority of superior courts to order foreclosures and evictions by entities like this foreign bank claiming to be entitled to foreclose based on its status as a lien holder, as opposed to a Note holder?

2.) Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) was the foreign Bank obligated to file its answering brief to Larsons’ opening brief regarding Larsons’ eviction from their home on or before March 6, 2024 as the Clerk
stated?

3.) After being informed by one of this Court’s clerks that the foreign Bank’s filing of its Answering Brief was late and “[i]f … not filed by April 8, 2024 … will be referred for a ruling imposing sanctions in accordance with RAP 18.9(a)” the foreign Bank was obligated to file its Answering Brief by April 8, 2004?

4.) Whether the foreign Bank’s failure to ever comply with this Court’s order -- generated by a Clerk on behalf of this Court -- instructing the foreign bank that the answering brief must be filed prevents a default situation?

Stafne's declaration presents evidence that Deutsche Bank and its former attorney are arguing that no one knows who represents the Bank now.

Hmmmm. Does Division One really except us to believe that with all the attorneys purportedly representing Deutsche Bank in foreclosures and evictions like this one  throughout Washington State that no one knows who represents that Bank in the Larson's appeal , which challenges the integrity of Washington State courts?

Anyone else, besides the Larsons and their attorney, think something about the way the Court of Appeals is adjudicating this appeal doesn't smell right?

I don't assert that many judicial officers across this Nation appear to be corrupt as does my friend Gary Zerman suggests here. The reason I don't so is because I am specifically asserting that the judicial officers of Washington State have become corrupted by specific circumstances occrring in this State with which I am personally familiar. So while I believe that judicial corruption likely is a national problem, my purpose in those cases I prosecute for homeowners is to proof the corruption of Washington State's judicial officers. And I have to do that by presenting proof of the corruption of Washington State judicial officers when it comes to adjudicating those homeowner cases the legislature has mandated that judges' retirment funds be invested in.

I understand in making these arguments in favor of judicial accountability that my arguments will have to be decided by the People, who under our system of government remain the actual soverign. Therefore, I assert only facts that I can prove and with regard to which I have little, if any, personal pecuniary interest in proving.

Hi Darek,

I would be happy to talk with you about your product, but there is something you should be aware of before we do as it may make any communications between us not feasible.

I work as the only attorney for Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting (SLAC). SLAC is a not for profit faith based auxiliary of Church of the Gardens (COTG), which is a Christian church. I work through SLAC as the Church Advocate for COTG in pursuing COTG's mission. I have attached a copy of COTG's mission statement below. In my role as the Church Advocate I frequently represent property owners for whom the COTG board of directors has determined my representation will be consistent with achievement of the Church's purposes. My representation of those individuals the COTG board has determined are qualified for representation is performed pursuant to the disclosures set forth below. As can be seen from those disclosures make clear that my primary representation of such persons is to achieve COTG's mission, not necessarily the best economic interests of those property owners who cannot find other attorneys to represent them.

I have no paid staff. I make approximately $1,000 per month from representing clients, which I do for purposes of achieving justice; not making money.

Accordingly, COTG does not routinely obtain high end services like those your company may be selling.

If I have misjudged your service -- or if you are willing to provide discounts to churches, like ours, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss this matter further.

Thanks for your email and have a great Monday.

As can be seen from the latest emails between counsel there is not much civility between them. But query whether this a court created problem resulting from Washington justices and judges failing to address the merits  of the judicial inquiries being advanced by Washington State homeowners based on historic evidence.

I. Relief Requested:

Carmen Astrid Bergeron (“Bergeron”) through Scott Erik Stafne
(“Stafne”), the attorney having filed a limited notice of appearance with regards to representing her through Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting a faith based auxiliary of the Church of the Gardens (“COTG”) hereby moves for a discovery and briefing schedule with regards to whether Senior Judge (“SJ”) James L. Robart qualifies as a constitutionally competent Article III judge for purposes of adjudicating those judicial inquiries related to Bergeron’s “private rights” with regards to the judicial foreclosure of her home occurring as a result of judicial adjudications made by the bankruptcy court below; and


B) for an evidentiary hearing related to whether James L. Robart, who has
retired from active duty and must pursuant to federal statute be periodically assigned to exercise judicial power continues to hold the office of judge during his good behavior.

Can we trust Washington's court as institutions -- operated through these judges and clerks -- to be impartial where these kinds of impropriorities appear to be ongoing in so many cases where Washington's employees (including judges and clerks) benefit from rulings not based on law and court rules?

If you conclude as I have that we cannot; then what can we do about those officials and employees persistent and ongoing corruption of our judicial system?

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 7.1(a)(1), Church of the
Gardens submits the following corporate disclosures:
1. Church of the Gardens is not a publicly traded corporation.
2. Church of the Gardens does not have any parent corporation, nor is there
any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.
3. Nor is the Church of the Gardens owned by any persons or entities as it is a Church

I am not sure why this Motion does not come up. I am able to download it as a pdf and I hope you can do that as well, if you want to read the motion.

The Issue section of this motion states:

1.) Whether the Note for Motion for a summary judgment filed by West Coast Servicing, Inc. (hereafter West Coast) in this case -- involving the enforcement of a subordinate (second) deed of trust mortgage instrument -- should be stricken because that Notice is (a.) based on perjured testimony by the law firm advancing the motion for summary judgment; (b.) does not comply with the court rules applicable to the filing of such motions; and (c.) was filed so as to frustrate Singleton’s rights to a fair and impartial adjudication of this case in violation of (i) the separation of powers and federalism structures of the United States Constitution; (ii) the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; (iii) RCW 2.28.030; and (iv) international human rights law?

(Short Answer: YES)

Among other things Haether Singleton testifies:

2. I live in the house which I financed through the promissory notes which were associated with my first and second deeds of trust. I live in that home with my mother, Pearl, who is 74 years old and suffers from several health conditions and disabilities including: gait disorder, mobility impairments and vision impairment among others that I chose not to disclose
here. I’ve been diagnosed with severe PTSD as a consequence of the ongoing lawfare and constant threat of having my home stolen from me and fear of becoming homeless. My life partner Justin Wood also lives with us. Justin also helps me as my disability advocate with regards to these and related judicial proceedings. I am not able to handle those matters because I become anxious with regards to these types of circumstances and cannot function in them and with regards to other matters in my life when I must do such things on my own. Justin has
acted as my disability advocate since at least 2011. And Justin has been accepted as my disability advocate by courts since that time.

3. I closed the real estate purchase of my homestead, at issue in this litigation, on April 11, 2006. At that time I executed both the senior deed of trust and note and the subordinate deed of trust and note on the same day at the same closing. An unsigned copy of these Notes and associated deeds of trust that I received from the title company after closing are attached to Scott Stafne’s declaration as Exhibits 5, 6, 15 and 16. My loan as I understood it was being 100% financed by WEST VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. A WASHINGTON CORPORATION (hereafter referred to by the foregoing name or simply as West Valley). It is my understanding that West Valley went out of business shortly after my loan was made. I
dispute that my loan was financed by NovaStar or that NovaStar was the Lender pursuant to either Note. My recollection is that NovaStar became a Servicer for two months (June and July of 2006) before Servicer rights were again transferred to Wilshire Credit Corporation. I had no
idea who NoveStar is or was. I understand that NovaStar is also bankrupt and out of business. I also dispute that MERS is or ever was the agent for West Valley, my lender. And I’ve never been presented with any evidence that MERS had any relationship with West Valley.

4. It has always been my understanding that the Note agreement made clear that only the Note Holders are entitled to payments due under the Note. The named Lender in the Note provides that the Lender is WEST VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. A WASHINGTON CORPORATION. I believed this provision of the contract to mean that I would be responsible for paying my Lender or any subsequent Note Holder monies owed to the actual Note Holder as a result of the payment provisions as they were to be construed by applicable law. It’s my understanding and was my reasonable expectation that applicable law means the law in effect at the time I signed the contracts. I dispute that the phrase applicable law includes changes in
the law intended to allow others than Note Holders to foreclose the DOT mortgages in order to enforce the payment obligations of those Note contracts I entered into in 2006.

5. When I read the boilerplate MERS contracts related to these loans it is my reasonable expectation that the payment obligations under the terms of the Note agreement to the Note Holder do not apply to the successor and assigns of “Lender”, i.e. West Valley and/or MERS unless it is an agent of West Valley. I assert that here, like any reasonable person would, that
my reasonable expectations were that the deed of trust instrument could not modify or change the specified terms of the Note agreement consistent with applicable law.
                                            *                            *                        *

I am not sure why this Motion does not come up. I am able to download it as a pdf and I hope you can do that as well, if you want to read the motion.

Among other things the President of the Church of the Gardens testifies:

6. I have firsthand experience with U.S. Bank's attempts to obtain a judgment in a judicial foreclosure lawsuit, in King County Superior Court case no. 15-2-12970-8-KNT, which was captioned as U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Peterson. In that case U.S. Bank employed a process server who declared under penalty of perjury that I had been personally served with the summons and complaint. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 2 a copy of the process servers declaration of service.

7. The process server’s declaration of service was fabricated and falsified as I was in a business meeting during the time that the alleged “service of process” took place. As proof of this I have attached hereto as Exhibit 3 the declaration I filed in a Washington Superior Court stating this fact. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 4 the declaration the person I was with at the time purported service was obtained as further proof that U.S. Bank
purposely fabricated the service of this process upon me.

8. I have attached hereto a copy of the unpublished Court of Appeals’ reversal of Superior Court Judicial officer Samuel Chung award of a default judgment against me in U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Peterson, 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 205 (2017) as Exhibit 5 hereto.

9. As a property owner and concerned citizen of the State of Washington I ask how in the first instance the Superior Court for King County -- through its judicial officer -- could have awarded a default judgment against me based on my presentation of facts that U.S. Bank’s service was fabricated.

10. I think most reasonable people would conclude, as do I, that the reason courts adjudicate cases like this in a way which defies common sense is the judicial officials and employees of Washington’s King County Superior Court have been incentivized to adjudicate homeowners’ interest in these types of cases in a way which bests protects Washington’s government officials and their wealthy corporate/creditor allies. And in this regard, I would ask my fellow citizens why else would a competent judicial officer have issued a default judgment against me where it was obvious I was never served as set forth in U.S. Bank’s perjured declaration of service?

11. I am also the defendant in another foreclosure case which was brought against me and my property in the Washington Superior Court for Mason County. The caption of that Superior Court case is Citibank N.A. v. Daniel Peterson, et al. case no. 16-2-00654-3. The  judicial officer who acted as a judge in that case without ever informing me and my counsel as to whether he had complied with RCW 2.28.030 granted a summary judgment that a
purported successor and assign of the Lender could foreclose notwithstanding I submitted evidence that the deed of trust and  promissory Note had been forged.

12. Especially clear cut was the fact that my wife testified she had not signed the deed of trust mortgage. And in support of her and my testimony that this document was fabricated she pointed out that her name was misspelled and she does not (like many of us) sign legal documents which misspell her name. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 6 copies of my wife’s and my declarations to the Mason County Superior Court in this regard.

13. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 7 a copy of Division Two’s decision in
Citibank, NA v. Peterson, 2021 Wash. App. LEXIS 516 with regards to our judicial inquiry just described.

14. Once again, I find it difficult to believe that candid and unbiased citizens could believe the superior court judicial officer’s decision with regard to the judicial inquiry we presented to the trial and appeals courts regarding this forgery could have been resolved as a matter of law. And I, like I think most people would, attribute such wrong-headed decision making to Washington judges bias in favor of forcing homeowners to bear the burden
associated with the costs of bailing out the banks.

15. I testify that these are dark times for the State of Washington, whose judicial officers appear to be stretching in favor of banking and creditor entities like those involved in Singleton’s case in order to protect government employees, including judges.

Justin Wood testifies among other things that:

7. Based on my experiences helping Mr. Stafne litigate these types of cases dealing with Banks, Servicers and purported Trusts, and also based on my initial advocacy for Ms. Singleton, I have personally observed many cases throughout Washington state where the same type of procedural missteps and violations of court rules as has happened here with West Coast Servicing, Inc. (West Coast) service of process of its motion for summary judgment has also occurred in other cases. My experience has been that more than 50% of those cases I have been involved with contain the same service issues as are described in Singleton’s motion to strike, which has been filed simultaneously with this declaration.

Attorney Scott Erik Stafne testifies, among other things that:

4. Based on my well over forty years of experience practicing law in Washington State, and my decades of experience practicing law before the superior courts of Washington. I hereby testify that Superior Courts of Washington frequently use court clerks’ noncompliance with court filing rules as a means of adjudicating or attempting to adjudicate cases in favor of entities like West Coast (purporting to be enforcing the second mortgage) and U.S. Bank N.A. as trustee (purporting to be enforcing the first mortgage) as “successors and assigns” as opposed to being Note Holders.

5. With regards to providing proof of the allegation set forth above I have attached hereto as Exhibit 1 copies of the emails between myself and the Tomlinson Bomsztyk and Russ law firm (hereafter “TBR”) regarding service of their summary judgment materials. I located these documents from my email account but I have not found all that I recall should be there.
Specifically, I recall at some point after I became aware that no evidentiary materials were included as part of TBR’s Notice of Hearing, I requested that such evidence be sent to me. In response to that request which I made after the 28 deadline had passed I received only two declarations; not all three which the TBR law firm states in its Motion for Summary Judgment
that it is relying upon.

6. I dispute TBR’s perjury in both Notices of Hearing that TBR mailed me the evidentiary materials that it claims were mailed or served in the service of process testimony it provided this Court on July 5, 2024. I do so based on the facts that A) I do not recall receiving any such mail from TBR or having those evidentiary materials personally served on me; B) Exhibit 2,
which is attached hereto and contains recent notices I have received from the United States Postal Service indicating that the TBR law firm did not serve or attempt to serve anything on Singleton in a manner that such materials could have been received by July 5, 2024 as is sworn to by TBR under the penalty of perjury; C) Exhibit 3, which is attached hereto, and which envelope I was not able to pick up from the Post Office until today, July 16, 2024. As can be seen Exhibit 3 indicates that it is an envelope which indicates that it was sent to me by TBR to me after July 5, 2024 notwithstanding TBR perjured declaration of service “declares under the
penalty of Perjury” otherwise; D) Exhibit 4, which are all the documents received in Exhibit 3 by me when I obtained this presentation from the Post Office today, July 16, 2024. As can be seen the documents I was sent and which are attached as Exhibit 4 include only TBR’s perjured Notice of Hearing, a copy of the purported motion for summary judgment (hereafter“MSJ”), and an “Ex Parte Order dismissing Chapter 13 case.” As can be seen no evidentiary submissions were included as part of the contents of Exhibit 3, which are those I have reproduced and set forth as Exhibit 4.

The statement of the facts giving rise to this motion to considate states:

Singleton filed a Torrens Application to register her fee simple title interest in her land
pursuant to Chapter 65.12 RCW with the Thurston County Superior Court on May 8, 2018.
The Superior Court of Thurston County did not comply with its obligation to immediately refer
Singleton’s land title registration application to the Thurston County Examiner of Titles to
examine the chain of title issues raised pursuant to RCW 65.12.110. When it became apparent
to Singleton that Thurston County, its officials and judges, were not going to comply with their
statutory duties pursuant to Chapter 65.12 RCW, Singleton filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court
of Mason County alleging, among other things, that Thurston County, its officials, and judges,
as well as the private defendants, were refusing to comply with Chapter 65.12 RCW while
enforcing the Deeds of Trust Act (DTA), which was an unconstitutional statute in a way that
was inconsistent with other statutory law.

The purpose of the Torrens Act was to provide homeowners like Singleton with access
to a county-wide public registration system for parcels of land. At the end of the twentieth
century and in the early part of the twenty-first century, the financial industry created a private
registration system, called Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS). The purpose of MERS was to change the laws of Washington, and likely other states, by way of contract law.
This effort was rejected in part by Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012).

The judicial inquiries in this case, Case No. 2, regarding Singleton’s recorded title and
any foreclosure thereof based on the associated Note and second deed of trust mortgage are
controlled by Bain. See Stafne declaration. So are the issues in Case No. 1. Id. Indeed, the title
issues in both Case 1 and 2 are controlled by the same primary judicial inquiries, which are
whether MERS’ purported creation of a four party deed of trust pursuant to its 2006 boilerplate
note and deed of trust mortgages 1.) changed Washington’s three party deed of trust system
into a four party deed of trusts, including MERS?; 2.) eliminated the requirement that lost
notes can only be foreclosed pursuant to provisions of Washington’s Uniform Commercial
Code, in effect at the time the associated contracts were executed?

My understanding is that a Church of the Gardens (COTG) board meeting has been set up for this weekend to consider which of us, myself as the author of The Duties of Citizenship or COTG as my employer, should own the rights to the book.

This is important to me because as you will recall I told you on July 4, 2024 that I needed to finalize this aspect of our negotiation, notwithstanding that I was willing to initially front the publishing fees for the Church if the Board of the Church wanted ownership of the book. Accordingly, I expect that the Board will determine this weekend whether to move forward with publishing the book and reimbursing me the monies I have paid your team. Additionally, if the board decides the Church wants to own the book I expect the Board will move forward with the presale proposal we discussed. ....

Deutsche Bank, asserts among other things, that the Church and property owners are not telling the truth when they charge that this Court's clerk appears to not have timely notified the Court of Appeals about the filing of their Notice of Appeal. Specifically, the purported attorneys for the bank argue: "In the Objection/Opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel makes an unsubstantiated allegation about the public servants in the Washington Courts to attempt to distract from the fact that he did not
move for a stay in this Court. See CR 62; RAP 7.1 (“The trial court retains full authority to act in a case before review is accepted by the appellate court,…”). But is this an appropriate charge where the point was to point out the appearance of the clerk's corruption?

This is a video of Scott Stafne arguing to a judge of the Snohomish County, Washington Superior Court that he should be allowed to withdraw as the attorney for the Bergerons in this case where Deutsche Bank is seeking to foreclose on their home.

This video can be accessed through the following:

https://churchofthegardens.org/videos/2024.06.12_-_Stafne_-_Bergerons-640p.mp4

II. RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to RAP 18.8(a) the Appellants requests this
Court to grant a 30-day extension of time to file their Response
pursuant to Clerk’s Letter dated July 2, 2024 regarding whether
the order is appealable as a matter of right pursuant to RAP
2.2(d). The deadline for response is due July 17, 2024.

Opposition by Plaintiffs Church of the Gardens and Alvin B. White's motion to disburse funds White paid into the Court registry based on mistaken notion that Whatcom County Clerk properly and timely submitted White's notice of appeal to Division One of the Washington Count of Appeals.

Declaration filed by property owner Alvin B. White offering evidence in support of the Church's and White's opposition to judge issuing an order from Court disbursing funds from the court registry where premise of the motion was the superior court properly filed the Notice of Appeal with Division One of the Court of Appeals when that Notice was properly filed with the Superior Court for Whatcom County, Washington

Declaration filed by attorney Scott Stafne offering evidence in support of the Church's and Whites opposition for an order from Court disbursing funds where premise of the motion was the superior court properly filed the Notice of Appeal with Division One of the Court of Appeals when that Notice was filed with the Superior Court for Whatcom County, Washington

The Snohomish County Superior Court through its judge refused to hear oral argument set forth here; notwithstanding that Deutsche Bank takes the position that the motion can be renoted for oral argument next Friday, July 19, 2024.

It is Bergerons' position, and that of her counsel, that this conduct by the judicial officer based on  the facts before the court, was an inappropriate one which either was -- or appears to have been -- in inappropriate judicial bias.

Today the Snohomish County Superior Court will hear argument regarding the Bergerons' motion to strike Deutsche Bank's summary judgment filings and Stafne's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding his notice of withdrawal as counsel for the Bergerons based on his age, disabilities, and currently acute medical problems and his spiritual beliefs. A copy of the motions left for argument are set forth herein.

For me the problem with this decision by Justice Gorsuch on behalf of six justices for the Court is not with its legal reasoning. The difficulty is that the court does not own up to its own unconstitutional conduct in 2006 when it changed judicial rules by judicial decison-making (as opposed to a legitimate legislative process) in such a way as to promote that homelessness that the Supreme Court as a part of government helped to create. See Federal Judicial Center report entitled, “Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim After Iqbal: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules“ which is accessible at:          https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/motioniqbal_1.pdf

Church of the Gardens and its members and advocate are suing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, its Clerk, and John and Jane Doe deputy clerks for acting outside of their authority. The Church and related plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief to require compliance with this Nations organic law.

This is a interesting motion in  light of the history of the purported plaintiff in this case (i.e. bankrupt out of business West Coast Servicing, Inc.) new claims that it is not attempting to enforce the payment provisions of Singleton's 2006 Note  and/or deed of trust.


Now that things are getting more truthful one wonders how Washington's judicial officers will attempt to avoid the constitutional issues Singleton is raising with regards to standing to enforce the Note pursuant to its own terms as well as the applicable law which existed in 2006.

This response to Deutsche Bank's objection requests the following relief:

The Bergerons and Stafne request this Court overrule Deutsche Bank’s objection to Scott Stafne’s declaration filed in opposition to Deutsche Bank’s renoted undisclosed amended motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Bergerons object to and move to strike Deutsche Bank’s request for relief set forth in Section C.

Stafne presents evidence of judicial ruling holding that Snohomish County judicial officers, and the judicial officers of other counties where judges refused to comply with their statutory duuties under the Torrens Act are competent judges for purposes of exercising judicial power with regards to their own conduct.

In this regard, Stafne testies at the conclusion of his declaration "7.) So if this Court believes it wants to protect itself and its judicial officers from my
criticisms of them in Washington courts I would recommend prohibiting me from practicing law in these types of cases, or altogether, because I am committed to exposing this Court’s corruption under this Nation’s organic law, international law, and those historical norms as have existed for centuries."

Stafne also includes as exhibits to his declaration rulings from various Washington courts, including Washington's Supreme Court which ten to prove his disqualification contentions.

The  law firm and attorneys purportedly representing Deutsche Bank as an institution object to Stafne's declaration opposing the Bank's motion for summary judgment on grounds that the declaration is A) "unauthorized by any court rule; B)"lacks foundation for any of its contentions";  C) improperly attempts to treat unsourced legal arguments as 'testimony'" ; and D) "constitutes the latest in a series of violations of explicit court orders."

Notwithstanding the stated standard for accepting an overlegth brief by the appellate courts of Washington is set forth in RAP 1.2 which states: "Cases and issues will not be determined on the basis of compliance or noncompliance with these rules except in compelling circumstances where
justice demands, subject to the restrictions in rule 18.8(b)", a Commissioner of the Court of Appeals refused to apply it. Why? What's the purpose of courts that don't apply laws to those facts which actually exist. This Nation's founders called it "tyranny" and I agree with them. Happy Fourth of July!!!

This is the first volume of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing which the Whatcom County Superior Court held to determine whether COTG and White had presented proper grounds for requiring Deutsche Bank to bring a judicial foreclosure pursuant to RCW 61.24.130 to foreclose on real property which White owned.

This is a second transcript of the evidentiary hearing which the Whatcom County Superior Court held to determine whether COTG and White had presented proper grounds for requiring Deutsche Bank to bring a judicial foreclosure to foreclose on real property which White owned.

Please find attached the opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. Appellant requests this Court review this Opinion when adjudicating the judicial inquiries raised in this Appeal about the meaning of Article III's good behaviour tenure clause.

Justice Roberts' 6-3 majority opinion holds based on the structure of the Constitution that when the SEC seeks penalties against defendants for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles defendants to a jury trial before "a life tenured judge, salary-protected Article III judge." See Opinion, at pp. 3. See also pp. 7-8 and 13-14 (explaining why the separation of powers structure of our government mandates such a result); pp. 18-19 (asserting congress cannot withdraw from Article III judicial cognizance any matter which is the subject of a suit at common law, or in equity or admiralty); p. 27 stating “[a] defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral [and independent] adjudicator.”

In his concurring opinion Justice Gorsuch writes “separately to highlight that other constitutional provisions reinforce the correctness of the Court’s course.” Gorsuch Concurrence, p. 1. Gorsuch asserts the Seventh Amendment “operates together with Article III and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to limit how the government may go about depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property.” Id. Article III, Gorsuch asserts, “entitles individuals to an independent judge who will preside over [the] trial. And due process promises any trial will be held in accord with time-honored principles.” Id. According to Justice Gorsuch these constitutional principles “vindicate the Constitution’s promise of a ‘fair trial in a fair tribunal.’” citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 135 (1955).

It is the appellant's position here that the historical analysis our Supreme Court uses in SEC v. Jarkesy to determine how this Nation’s Article III judicial power can be exercised is inimical to the “Haunted House” analysis Senior Adjudicator Lasnik belatedly adopts to justify his inappropriate exercise of judicial power after he resigned his life tenure pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 294.

The Larson family requests the following relief in response to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment against them: (1) that this case not be adjudicated by a judicial officer who is a named Defendant in the complaint or pending Amended and Supplemental Complaint; (2) that they be granted an extension of time to perform any task necessary to authenticate the evidence they have presented herein and to obtain that discovery, which is identified in their CR 56(f) motion which is also pending before this Court; and (3) that if the Larsons motion for CR 56(f) is not granted, that Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment be denied in all respects.

I encourage the Senate Judiciary Committee to carefully consider President Trump’s concern that the Ninth Circuit is acting in an arbitrary fashion without an adequate understanding of the Judicial Department’s role in government. My support for this proposal is based on the
people’s concern that our government is unjust and therefore has lost much of its reason for being because the legislative and executive branches of government are not adequately overseeing the judicial branch.

The Court concludes in January, 2014 that ReconTrust is not a neutral trustee:

While the DTA appears to have been amended and arguably might permit a subsidiary to act as a trustee, the statutory requirement remains that the trustee be
independent and not beholden to the lender or borrower. Acting as an agent of BANA and being a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA, it seems specious to attempt to argue that ReconTrust was an independent trustee.

For your convenience you will find enclosed a copy of the declaration by the Lane Powell attorney who submitted the unredacted social security number, as well as the first page of the pleading requesting this information be redacted and the portion of the brief requesting redaction. The homeowner not only objected to the disclosure of the document containing his social security number, but also claimed that the document was not properly before the Court pursuant to a motion to dismiss.

I presume that you are fully aware of the conduct by Lane Powell in this case as you were one of the attorneys who participated in the appeal, which continued to include this purposely unredacted Personal Identity Information.

I request the Attorney General’s office immediately initiate an investigation of Lane Powell’s practices in disclosing Personal Identity Information and/or refusing to honor requests to redact Personal Identity Information in all cases involving homeowners.

Because I believe you have a conflict of interest in handling an investigation involving Lane Powell, I request you not have any involvement with this investigation of your former employer.

Further, I also request the Attorney General's Office investigate whether Lane Powell, through you, has abused its authority to investigate matters which lie exclusively within the province of the judiciary for purposes of benefitting your former clients at Lane Powell.

In another recent case a King County Superior Court Judge decided pursuant to a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling that Ocwen was not a holder and therefore could not be a beneficiary within the meaning of Washington law.

Eliminating the regulation and/or taxation of hemp aka cannabis will be one of my priorities if elected to Congress. Other matters which are priorities for me include addressing the growth of debt buying and reforming our federal and State judicial systems, which seem not to be working for most of us.

It is not like being a republican or democrat candidate where the party tells you what the 1% requires of you.
We, the people, get to figure this out!

For example, would a free market in the Libertarian sense include pharmaceutical, software and agricultural patents that protect huge corporations and deter innovation for decades?

How would a free market protect itself from governmental manipulation like that which chose
Edison over Tesla and criminalized the hemp industry to promote petroleum based plastics?

How can we, the people, protect against this type of governmental manipulation?

Being a member of the Libertarian Party, or any third party, at this time in history is exciting because it gives each of us a seat at the table where our future will be decided.

Scott Stafne is running for a seat in the United States House of Representatives for the first Congressional District of Washington as a Libertarian candidate.

Stafne's campaign website, http://www.stafne4congress.com/ , includes his video series on "Garden and Government," a page on Gardening in Washington's First Congressional District, cartoons, and editorials written by Stafne.

Sunday, July 10​th​, 2016

2:30pm – 4:30pm

Everett Public Library
2702 Hoyt
Everett, WA 98201

DOWNSTAIRS AUDITORIUM
This event is not sponsored by the Everett Public Library.
This will be a forum for Libertarian Federal Candidates in Snohomish County: Mike Luke (U.S. Senate)​, Scott Stafne (1​st​Congressional District)​, and Brian Luke (2​nd​ Congressional District)​.

A question and answer session will follow opening statements.

Also Speaking​will be Libertarian Statewide Executive and Snohomish County State Legislative District Candidates.

Parking Information:​The Everett Public Library on Hoyt has a public parking garage. Furthermore, there is parking on the streets and nearby pay parking lots. This Event is Planned by 2nd Congressional District Candidate Brian Luke

We, the people, are aggrieved by a government that has abandoned thriving local economies and business in order to facilitate the growth of debt based industries and products. This stupid policy by our government has resulted in a rapidly diminishing middle class which will further disappear as this debt-based economy matures. 

Surely, Congress must know what it is doing??

So here is a court's take on the conduct of federal prosecutors arguing a case affecting states' rights related to core federalism issues.

This is what people all over the empire are complaining about: Lawyers outright lying in court.

Why aren't the DOJ attorneys who lied to the Court going to jail? Why aren't the lawyers who lied to the Court being punished in any meaningful way?

Do you think the empire's justice system works for anyone?

Stafne believes that the time has come for a change in our " mono-party " system. " When our country was founded capitalism provided an adequate mechanism for most people to accumulate sufficient economic resources to enable them to exercise their personal liberties. Today, crony capitalism promoted by the republican and democratic parties has created such disparity of wealth that only a few have access to those fundamental freedoms our forefathers took for granted. " When asked why he was running on the Libertarian ticket Stafne stated " I cannot continue to support the two party system which has created the greatest system of injustice the world has ever seen. No longer do we engage in debate over entitlement programs; we simply evict our vulnerable and let them die unknown on our streets. There are several other parties I could have joined, however I picked the Libertarian Party because I believe it is the best organized to upset the mono-parties (i.e. Republican and Democrat), and because of its emphasis of " liberty " because I still believe that is key to the purpose of government. " " I believe the time has come that we, as a people, must make a choice between the crony capitalism economic system and the actual liberties our creators intended we have, and that is why I have chosen to run for office. " For more information on Scott Stafne you can visit his campaign Facebook Page (Stafne For Congress) or his website at www.Stafne4congress.com

This is a well written motion for rehearing filed by Florida attorney Mark Stopa with a court of appeals in that State. I bring it to your attention because its arguments suggest a predisposition toward our judges to believe only the banks have equity on their side. It also has good information regarding those arguments banks are making to get around long standing statute of limitations principles.

The Millennial generation has witnessed first the immorality of a world where virtually everything is based on materialism. A world in which debt generation, sale, and recovery has become the biggest industry in the empire. They understand the immorality of what we have created. Should they move in power now in order to solve the crisis their greedy elders have created?

This is Stafne's reply to Midland's arguments...

Does this case make you wonder about Washington's courts?

If a lawyer with 40 years of experience gets steamrolled by scum debt buyers what happens to most people who can't defend themselves?

The burnsides are rampant... DWT actually represents Midland

Notwithstanding the lack of any agreement, two lower courts upheld debt buyer's claim Stafne owed money pursuant to credit card agreement and denied Stafne's claims that Midland (DWT client) violated Fair Debt Collections Act.)

Stafne files a motion for discretionary review.

By this original Petition for Writ of Mandate, Petitioner seeks a writ pursuant to California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 and Rule 8.486 of the California
Rules of Court, preventing Respondent, Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State of California, from placing Proposition 9 on the November 2018 ballot. Popularly known as the “Cal 3” or “Draper” initiative, Proposition 9 seeks the complete abolition of the existing State of California, its Constitution and every institution created thereunder, to be replaced by three new states and three new constitutions.

Pursuant to rule 8,487 ofthe California Rules ofCourt, the court has directed that I request a preliminary opposition to the petition in the above referenced matter. The petition was served on your office on July 9, 2018. The preliminary opposition is to be served electronically upon
petitioner and filed electronically in this court on or before July 13, 2018. Petitioner will then have until and including July 16, 2018, to file and serve electronically an informal reply to the preliminary opposition.

Respondent Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, submits this
preliminary response to the writ petition filed by Petitioner Planning and
Conservation League. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to restrain
Respondent from taking steps to place an initiative measure—Proposition 9—on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot.

    Respondent takes no position on the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 9. Respondent also takes no position on Petitioner’s request for pre-election review of Proposition 9.

The concept of breaking this enormous State into smaller, more manageable states is not new. In fact, the voters of California were asked to, and did approve, the Pico Act in 1859, which asked Congress to approve splitting the State into two. Congress never acted on that request, as it might not do if Proposition 9 is approved. Thus, voter involvement in this important policy debate is not foreign to our Constitution, and contrary to Petitioner’s dire warnings, giving voters a chance to speak on Proposition 9 would not “invite other similar initiative abuse.” (Pet. at p. 7.). This Court’s long history of jealously guarding the
exercise of initiative power should not be cavalierly disregarded now, especially on such a truncated timetable.

Public Counsel and Western Center on Law and Poverty jointly file this letter brief as amici curiae in support of the original petition for writ of mandate filed by petitioner Planning & Conservation League (PCL). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(g).). Amici join in PCL’s prayer to strike Proposition 9, the “Three Californias” initiative, from the November 2018 ballot.

    As we explain, this Court has the right and obligation, through preelection review, to prevent this invalid statutory initiative from delegitimizing the electoral process and destabilizing state governance.

Both respondent Padilla and real party in interest Timothy Draper are ordered to show cause before this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioner. Planning and Conservation League, should not be granted. The returns of respondent and real party in interest are to be served and filed on or before Monday, August 20, 2018. Petitioner is ordered to serve and file its reply within 30 days of the timely-filed returns.

Judge  Colleen Kollar- Kotelly belatedly allows pro se pleading by Eugene Martin LaVergne to be filed in court docket. See judge's instructions in upper right hand corner.

Is anyone aware of any rules where judge is given authority to prevent the filing of pro se pleadings with the court clerk?

Significantly Washington attorney general Robert Ferguson refused to join other AGs of Western States to argue against government attorneys committing fraud on the Court in the Moonlight Fire case. Why? Think the OSO landside... The Thirty Mile Fire case. (I know about that one.)

Is fraud by government lawyers on the Court the rule, or the exception? Some federal judges apparently believe such fraud really doesn't matter.

Scott Stafne did not author this brief...

Judge Richard J. Leon rules in this recent case that government regulations exempting churches and religious organizations from Affordable Care Act violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but not the free exercise clause of religion clause of the First Amendment.

The only way slavery and genocide can exist openly in a society is with the participation of the government – and indirectly the people. In the United States the final check on tyranny was supposed to be the judicial department, composed of courts governed by judges whose judicial power was intended to be checked by juries of citizens.

IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361) is GRANTED to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated.
2) The United States’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408) is DENIED.
3) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5) The parties should confer and inform the Court within 15 days of the date of entry of this Order how they wish to proceed on determining the issue of what remedy, if any, should be applied in view of the violation.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 21 day of February, 2019. st
______________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge

Church of the Gardens is a new church which seeks to join the growing spiritual movement against rampant materialism and wealth disparity in order to achieve a more Godly world. Church of the Gardens is not a 501(c)(c) organization, but a 508(c)(1)(a) "Free Church". The Mission Statement was developed and approved by Church's board of directors. Scott Stafne was later elected by the board to the position of Church Advocate.

This is a request for public records pursuant to CH. 42.56 RCW by the Church of the Gardens (COTG) on behalf of its members to you and your respective City of Seattle departments. It is
the intent of the COTG that the Seattle's Public Disclosure Officer, who is responsible for

coordinating disclosures to achieve the purposes the Public Records Act wil l coordinate with each of your departments, and other departments, so to insure that all public record writings, as that term has been construed by our Supreme Court will be produced for COTG.

Church of the Gardens attempts to obtain information about King County's role with regard to the delay in the release of “City of Seattle Review of Mortgage Documents”, including any appendices thereto, prepared by McDonnell Analytics pursuant to Office of City [Seattle] Auditor Agreement No. 20014-06.

As we discussed over the phone, COTG wants to obtain information regarding the interactions, if any, between the City of Seattle and/or King County and/or the Office of the Washington Attorney General and/or MERS regarding the “forensic audit”, i.e. Report, commissioned by the City of Seattle and its Departments from McDonald Analytics. The Church wishes to understand the interactions, if any, between these entities so that it can evaluate their effects on its members and those persons the Church was created to protect, including the hungry, the sick, the poor, the homeless, the indebted, the enslaved, the vulnerable, and all others who are unfairly prevented from exercising their inalienable God-given natural rights, which the Church believes includes the right to live peaceably in their homes.

The Church is having difficulty downloading Seattle's response because 1.) it is unable to download the documents from the Hightail technology in anything but a zip format not consistent
with my law firm's technology; 2.) We are not familiar with that technology; and 3.) the responses appear to be being made available for only a limited period of time, i.e. 14 days, after
which the responses will expire.

The Church would prefer to have this data in a format that is durable and which can be easily
copied to share with its members and those persons whom the Church was established to protect.

One of McDonnell's opinions:

My opinion is that this Notice of Trustee Sale contains numerous false statements, including without exclusion a.) that there was any obligation owed to MERS and/or the non-existent AWL based on the “Assignment of the Deed of Trust” which was signed only on behalf of MERS; b.) that MERS owned a beneficial interest in the deed of trust when the deed of trust states MERS owns only legal title to the Security Instrument; and
c.) that BNYM, as trustee received any interest from MERS and/or AWL which could have been a basis for compliance with the requirements of RCW 61.24.040(1)(a) and (f).

I struggle sometimes in knowing where the Lord is shepherding us. By “us” I mean the world, and everything in it.

I struggle less in knowing what God’s will is for me. This is because I have the temple (body, mind, and soul) God has given me to ascertain and carry out what His will is for me.

I pray only that I know what it is that God wants me to do and that I have the courage to do that.

In addition to writing legal documents, Scott Stafne also writes creatively. Given the current state of the judicial system Scott has decided that spending all of his time writing legal briefs for judges is not the best use of his time. Accordingly, as part of Stafne Law Firm's full spectrum advocacy to securing justice for the people, Scott will spend much more of his time writing for the public as opposed to writing for judges and magistrates.

I found this email correspondence from fellow advocate in the fight against fraudulent foreclosures Wendy Allison Nora:

I am familiar with the technique of causing admissions against interest and other evidence to disappear from the MERSCORP ever-changing website which ultimately became largely inaccessible, so I suspected that the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) would realize the danger of the admissions in its March 22, 2020 letter seeking a bailout from the Treasury and the Fed and make the connection from its website to the letter disappear.  Therefore, I converted the page of the MBA website which linked to its letters from HTML to PDF on March 25, 2020 after it was shared between two (2) other witnesses to the published link: Virginia Parsons and Charles Cox.  I have attached the PDF version of the HTML as it appeared on the MBA website on March 25, 2020, which can be authenticated by me (because I created the PDF from the HTML), as well Virginia, Charles and others who viewed the website before the March 22, 2020 letter was made to disappear. See attached.

We should all be aware that the banks and big companies can and do manipulate digital data to protect their own interests because they can. We don't have that option. But we can accumulate evidence of their manipulation of data and evidence.

For people of influence in any walk of life, from corporate leaders to sports
stars, the question of when to leave the stage is a crucial one. Do you go out at the top of your game, giving up any shot at further glory? Or do you dig in until the end, at the risk of tarnishing a distinguished career?

In March 1869, Justice Robert C. Grier of the Supreme Court of the United States turned seventy-ve years old. His health had been in severe decline for several years, in part because of a series of strokes that left him paralyzed. As a result, Justice Grier had to be carried by attendants to his place on the bench. Believing that he could no longer endure the rigor of serving on the Court, his friends and family had long urged him to resign, but Grier had resisted. Had Grier resigned from the bench then, he would have been entitled to no further compensation from the federal government. Article III of the U.S. Constitution endowed federal judges with tenure "during good behavior"-equivalent to life tenure, provided a judge were not removed from of ce by impeachment and conviction, an exceedingly rare event. For nearly all federal judges, their service could end in only two ways: resignation or death. To some, this system was unfair, even Home [https://www.fjc.gov/] History of the Federal Judiciary [https://www.fjc.gov/history] Exhibits Spotlight on Judicial History [https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history]

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, composed of a Manual and a Facilitator’s Guide, is the result of a joint endeavour of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Bar Association, a key international legal organization with more than 180 member bar associations and law societies. Its objective is to provide a comprehensive core curriculum on international human rights standards for legal professionals. Readers of the Manual (published in 2003) are offered basic information on international human rights law and the jurisprudence of universal and regional bodies and national courts. Each module addresses a specific human rights area. In view of the nature of the legal professions, the Manual should have multiple applications: as training material for collective exercises, as a resource tool for carrying out individual studies, and as a reference source for the interpretation and application of the law.

I. INTRODUCTION TO CASE

2. Developing a safe and effective vaccine against the novel Coronavirus (“COVID19”) was a matter of urgency. But that urgency does not excuse cutting corners in clinical trials, wasting taxpayer dollars, violating federal regulations, and possibly endangering Americans’ health. Defendants Pfizer Inc., Icon PLC, and Ventavia Research Group, LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”) conducted a clinical trial to test one of the COVID-19 vaccine candidates. In the race to secure billions in federal funding and become the first to market, Defendants deliberately withheld crucial information from the United States that calls the safety and efficacy of their vaccine into question. Namely, Defendants concealed violations of both their clinical trial protocol and federal regulations, including falsification of clinical trial documents. Due to Defendants’ scheme, millions of Americans have received a misbranded vaccination which is potentially not as effective as represented. The vaccine’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authorization resulted from a deeply flawed clinical trial that violated FDA regulations. Defendants have profited from the COVID-19 pandemic at the expense of the United States and its citizens by abusing the scientific process.

Plaintiffs Elizabeth "Beth" Van Duyne and the State of Texas seek relief from this Court against Defendants United States of America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the "CDC"), Rochelle P. Walensky (in her official capacity as Director of the CDC), Sherri A. Berger (in her official capacity as Chief of Staff of the CDC), United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), and Xavier Becerra (in his official capacity as Secretary of HHS) (collectively, the "Defendants"). Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality and statutory authority of Defendants' mandate for people to wear masks while on commercial airlines, conveyances, and at transportation hubs (the "Mask Mandate" or "Order"), ...

I don't know if the information in this article is correct. And if it were not for my distrust of the governments of the United States and my state of Washington would not overthink this article. But the truth is I don't trust either of my governments .

History teaches me that pharmaceutical companies, such as Bayer, have been at the forefront of governmentally sponsored genocides.

I am not a scientist, but I am a student of history, governments, and legal systems.

And this article, in the context what I do have some expertise in, gives me cause for concern, especially since I have been vaccinated and have those boosters my national and state governments have irresponsibly reccommended.

Per Curiam:
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and
other federal government defendants move to stay a district court’s
nationwide, preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of one of the
federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates. The enjoined mandate applies to the staff of many Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers such as
hospitals, long-term care facilities, home-health agencies, and hospices.

We DENY the motion insofar as the order applies to the 14 Plaintiff
States. We GRANT a stay as to the order’s application to any other
jurisdiction. Briefly, we will explain.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) federal vaccine mandate on a wide range of healthcare facilities. On November 5, 2021, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (“IFC”) entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination” (the “mandate”), 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555 (Nov. 5, 2021), revising the “requirements that most Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555601. Specifically, the mandate requires nearly every employee, volunteer, and third-party contractor working at fifteen categories of healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against SARS CoV-2 (“COVID”) and to have received at least a first dose of the vaccine prior to December 6, 2021. See id. at 61,573. On November 10, 2021, Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint challenging the mandate. Doc. [1]. The Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. [6], requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate.

Having fully reviewed the administrative record and submitted material, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted here

Utah and West Virginia; the governors of several of those states; and various state agencies, including the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, filed this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Executive Order 14042, which requires, inter alia, that contractors and subcontractors performing work on certain federal contracts ensure that their employees and others working in connection with the federal contracts are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (Docs. 1, 54.) Upon filing the lawsuit, Plaintiffs requested that this Court issue a preliminary injunction. (Docs. 19, 55.) Additionally, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter, "ABC"), a trade organization, and one of its chapters, Associated Builders and Contractors of Georgia, Inc. (hereinafter, "ABC-Georgia"), (hereinafter, collectively, "Proposed Intervenors")) filed a Motion to Intervene in the action, (doc. 48), and also filed their own Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 50). The Court established an expedited briefing schedule and, following the submission of responses by the Defendants to all motions, (docs. 61, 63), and the submission of replies by Plaintiffs and by the Proposed Intervenors, (docs. 76–78), the Court conducted a hearing on the Motions on December 3, 2021.

As another Court that has preliminarily enjoined the same measure at issue in this case has stated, “[t]his case is not about whether vaccines are effective. They are.” Kentucky v. Biden, No. 3:21-cv-55, 2021 WL 5587446, at *9 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2021). Moreover, the Court acknowledges the tragic toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought throughout the nation and the globe. However, even in times of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that, while the public indisputably “has a strong interest in combating the spread of [COVID-19],” that interest does not permit the government to “act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021) (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582, 585–86 (1952)). In this case, Plaintiffs will likely succeed in their claim that the President exceeded the authorization given to him by Congress through the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act when issuing Executive Order 14042. Accordingly, after due consideration of the motions, supporting briefs, responsive briefing, and the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the
Motion to Intervene, (doc. 48), GRANTS ABC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 50), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 55).

The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff States 1 are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the Government Defendants 2 as a result of a COVID-19 CMS vaccine mandate ("CMS Mandate") implemented by the Government Defendants on November 5, 2021. 86 Fed. Reg. 61555-01. The CMS Mandate requires the staff of twenty-one types of Medicare and Medicaid healthcare providers to receive one vaccine by December 6, 2021, and to receive the second vaccine by January 4, 2022. Failure to comply with the CMS Mandate may result in penalties up to and including "termination of the Medicare/Medicaid Provider Agreement." 86 Fed. Reg. at 61574.

IV. CONCLUSION

¶58 We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning,Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis. 2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13) which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.21 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.

¶59 We further conclude that Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, upon which Palm claims to rely.

By the Court.—Palm's Emergency Order 28 is declared unlawful,
invalid, and unenforceable.

... [T]he Court ORDERS that Defendants are ENJOINED, during the pendency of this action or until further order of this Court, from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in any state or territory of the United States of America.

For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is
GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard”22 remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.

In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no
steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.

Court states in its Introduction:

This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are. Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level, and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can. The question presented here is narrow. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED.

Gentlepersons:

With help I have produced the following attached statement of religious principles which supports the right to self determination with regard to whether to take the Covid vaccines. It is only a starting point, but hopefully one that will help others in preparing their own statements if so inclined.

Please let me know if and how you believe it can be improved.

These are attorneys that appear to be in the fight to protect our rights; obtained from various sources including existing lawsuits. We are not in direct contact with most of them yet; and this list is not to be construed as an endorsement, recommendation or referral. Note: many of these attorneys work in multiple states and have the experience to work with other counsel (pro hac vice) in your jurisdiction if needed.