• Katy

Corrupt Court Administrators

Honorable Judge Sally Olsen is Presiding Judge over Kitsap County Superior Court. The Presiding Judge is responsible for leading the management and administration of the court's business, recommending policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, and allocating resources in a way that maximizes the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously.

This document is intended to disclose evidence of unlawful actions taken by certain Kitsap County Superior and Juvenile Court employees in the name of Judge Sally Olsen that she may not be aware of.


Much of the evidence regarding this misconduct was discovered when a grievance was filed against Custody Investigator Charles W. Stevenson. At the time, there was an expectation of fair treatment and no expectation that court administration would take steps to cover up the GAL misconduct; evidence has indicated that this is not the case.


Relevant History Regarding Charles W. Stevenson and the GAL Report:

In 2015, the Plaintiff requested an order for protection and parenting plan modification due to a domestic matter. Custody Investigator Charles W. Stevenson was appointed to talk to the young man named as the child in the matter. Mr. Stevenson’s work resulted in a report of biased slander and defamation against the Plaintiff, which not only quashed any hope of protection for her family but harmed her reputation both personally and professionally. Charles Stevenson perjured in his report to the Court. That report was used by the respondent in that matter to blackmail the plaintiff into accepting agreements that were unreasonable and unfair and would be considered unlawful had the court been given the opportunity to rule on them.


As a result of that report, the plaintiff was forced to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars meant to be paid back to her pursuant to the previous parenting plan in addition to the tens of thousands incurred in legal fees to litigate up to that point. She was not able to afford the added fees representation would require to defend herself against the false statements made by Mr. Stevenson. The plaintiff conceded to the demands of the respondent who, benefiting greatly from the erroneous GAL report, was emboldened and empowered to continue in maintaining his control over the plaintiff’s life.


Believing there was no other option, the plaintiff planned to file a complaint and have Charles Stevenson account for his misconduct. The GAL's perjury and grossly twisted representations of the plaintiff were malicious and purposeful. It was clear to the plaintiff that his actions needed to be addressed through the court.


Initial Signs of Systemic Corruption Within Kitsap Family and Juvenile Courts:

The plaintiff chose to follow the chain of command and attempted to report the misconduct to Charles Stevenson’s supervisor. The plaintiff made multiple efforts at contacting Mr. Stevenson's supervisor, Saeed Saber. Knowing the plaintiff wanted to report a problem with Mr. Stevenson’s conduct, Mr. Saber refused to answer calls or respond to numerous requests to speak with him. After several weeks of being ignored, the plaintiff stopped by his office unannounced and was finally able to have a private meeting with him.

Mr. Saber was informed that his employee, Mr. Stevenson, had lied in his report to the Court and that there was an audio recording that supported this conclusion.


Instead of launching further inquiry into the situation, offering to look into it, or directing the plaintiff to file a complaint, he acted in a manner meant to deter the plaintiff from taking further action. Specifically, he told the plaintiff he could have her arrested, that what she had done was criminal. He then abruptly stood up from the table and moved to leave the room. Before he exited, the plaintiff told him there was a way to make this all go away. The plaintiff said, "Mr. Stevenson could issue me an apology." Mr. Saber responded, "That will never happen," and left the room. The plaintiff has had no further contact with Mr. Saber.


A Lack of Transparency in the Court System:

After that meeting, in close study and adherence to the GAL Grievance procedures, a formal grievance was filed with Kitsap County Superior Court Administration.


The grievance was submitted on January 3, 2017. The plaintiff waited several weeks without contact from the judicial system and did not know if the grievance had been received by the appropriate persons, if at all. Washington State accords grievants certain rights, one being ‘to be advised promptly of the receipt of the grievance, and of the name, address, and office phone number of the person assigned to its investigation if such an assignment is made.’ Another is ‘to have a reasonable opportunity to communicate with the person assigned to the grievance, by telephone, in person, or in writing, about the substance of the grievance or its status.’ These rights of the plaintiff were not acknowledged.


After waiting three weeks, on January 24, 2017, the plaintiff called Mr. Frank Maiocco, who is the Superior Court Administrator, Administrative Records Officer, and also serves as the GAL program Manager to inquire as to the status of the grievance. Mr. Maiocco claimed that he had just asked Mr. Stevenson to respond to the allegations that very morning. He did not indicate whether the GAL committee had already seen the grievance at that time.


A letter went out that same day to Mr. Stevenson informing him of the grievance and that the GAL Committee was requiring a response from him. A copy of that letter was sent to the plaintiff. (X A)


The plaintiff felt this was a positive step as the grievance rules were clear that the GAL would only be asked to respond if there was merit on the face of the grievance. If there were no merit on the face of the grievance, then no further action would be taken.


On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff called Mr. Maiocco to inquire about the status. He said he had just received the response from Mr. Stevenson that very morning and the committee would be considering it at their next meeting.


That same day, March 17, 2017, a letter went out from Mr. Maiocco informing that the committee had determined Mr. Stevenson had met his professional responsibilities and would not take any further action. This determination was made after having read Mr. Stevenson’s written response. (XB committees decision)

None of the grievant's concerns were addressed. There was no stated consideration given to any of the allegations and facts presented in the grievance and no consideration given to why he had lied. The false statements of the GAL were indisputable, as evidenced by the audio recording and no concern was given to what his reasons were for lying. What possible reason could he provide that would convince a committee of three Superior Court Judges that lying was consistent with his professional responsibilities?

No one was accepting responsibility for the decision.


It is the plaintiff's experience that judges tend to inform people what documents were considered to form their conclusions and to avoid appeals and overturned rulings, Judges give reasons and cite laws which support their rulings. This Committee of Judges failed to provide a rule of exception to perjury that would classify falsifying statements as being within the professional responsibilities of a Court-appointed custody investigator.


When asked for a copy of the GAL's response to determine if an appeal was appropriate and to know what points to address in an appeal, the plaintiff was denied the response.


Mr. Maiocco refused to provide plaintiff with the record, claiming that every Judge on the Superior Court bench agreed that, because the Committee found Mr. Stevenson's [perjury] was within the scope of his responsibilities, it meant his reasons for committing perjury were confidential from the grievant and the release of his response, which was used to make that determination, would violate the GAL's right to confidentiality. (XC)


Indications of Unlawful Conduct on the Part of Mr. Maiocco

Mr. Maiocco statement indicates that every Judge on the Superior Court bench was in agreement with a GAL making false statements to the Court, among other violations of conduct. As a professional who has personally worked with those Judges and holds high and reverent respect for each of them, the plaintiff did not believe even one of them would think nothing of such misconduct, much less condone it. Especially not Presiding Honorable Judge Sally Olsen. This belief turned out to be accurate and will be addressed later in this document.


The conclusion that the Kitsap Superior Court Judges would condone such misconduct started a series of exchanges where Mr. Maiocco continued to stonewall and obstruct the plaintiff's rights and ability to have the grievance fairly and lawfully addressed.


Rounds of record requests ensued. The plaintiff is not trained in law or the PRA or GR 31.1 administrative records laws but believed it was a violation of rights that the person who denied the release of the record was the very person to review those denials, then when each request was denied by him, he was the same person to consider the appeals to those denials.


Requests for review properly addressed to presiding Judge Sally Olsen were responded to by Mr. Maiocco. Maiocco’s repeated claims that the requests had been 'forwarded to him,' implying that Judge Olsen had asked him to respond on her behalf, were later discovered through record requests to have been forwarded to him’ by his assistant Jerrie Davies, not Judge Olsen. (XD)


The plaintiff received a handful of responses appearing to be signed by Honorable Judge Sally F. Olsen. Each, in one way or another, ultimately denying the right of due process. The last such letter, dated August 20, 2018, was a denial to an appeal. (XE)


That denial prompted the plaintiff to begin another careful study and close following of the rules before submitting a Request for External review on September 18, 2018. (XF)


The external review was spearheaded by Mr. Maiocco. He unilaterally determined a course of action different than what the plaintiff had requested and pushed the plaintiff out of the process. (XG) . His actions revealed that he had been submitting documents to the plaintiff as signed by Judge Olsen that she had never seen. (XH)


(XI)(INSERT PIERCE COUNTY MOTIONS and EMAILS from Maiocco admitting Judge has never seen the document)

(XJ) (INSERT Pierce County JUDGE CHUSHCOFFS COMMENTS ABOUT Frank’s OMMISSION OF RECORDS)


Mr. Maiocco admitted that on more than one occasion, he had omitted documents submitted by the plaintiff for review. He had done this with submissions from the plaintiff to both Honorable Judge Sally Olsen and Honorable Judge Chushcoff.


In other words, while he failed to present many of the plaintiff’s requests for internal review to Honorable Judge Olsen, on the occasions that he did, he submitted an altered request. These alterations were targeted, designed to lead Honorable Judge Olsen to a specific conclusion.


Due to the lack of transparency within the court system, it is still unclear what documents Honorable Judge Olsen did respond to, if any, as well as how many of the signed responses received by the plaintiff were forged.


The consequences of Mr. Maiocco’s actions did not end there. When the plaintiff requested an external review of that same document, Mr. Maiocco omitted it from the record and submitted it to Pierce County Judge Chushcoff, causing Judge Chushcoff to error. Mr. Maiocco purposefully manipulated the outcome of proceedings, record requests, and requests for review.


This discovery begs the question of what documents from the grievance and supplemental materials may have been withheld from the GAL Committee. The answer to that question may explain their lack of concern for what the grievance and supplemental materials made clear was a biased, unqualified GAL with a propensity to make false statements to the Court.


The discovery may also explain why there were no documents listed as having been considered by the Committee and why there were no legal citings or rules that allowed or provided exceptions for such outrageous GAL misconduct.


Until June 30, 2017, KCLGALR 7 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (a)2(C) read: Action upon Receipt of Complaint. Upon receipt, the Court Administrator shall forward the complaint and any supplemental materials to the Guardian ad Litem Committee.


Records show that on January 3, 2017, when Mr. Maiocco received the grievance against Mr. Stevenson, he abandoned procedural rule KCLGALR7(a)2(C) by providing the grievance to Mr. Michael Merringer at Kitsap Juvenile Court Services (KJCS) for his consideration instead of forwarding it to the GAL Committee. (XK intraoffice memo)


The intraoffice memo documents that before the grievance was provided to the Committee, it was provided to Juvenile Court Director Michael Merringer, who is not a member of the GAL Committee. The side-stepping of procedural rule was a violation of the grievant’s privacy and confidentiality rights.


Regardless, what is gravely concerning is that after considering the proof contained in the supplemental materials provided with the grievance, showing that the custody investigator made false statements to the Court, the Juvenile Court Director would provide ‘certification that upon his review, none of the allegations rise to the level of employee misconduct.’


Changing the Rules to Justify Prior Actions:

On April 19, 2017, Mr. Maiocco and Mr. Merringer together drafted a proposal to change the rule requiring a grievance be directly provided to the GAL Committee. The new rule was adopted on June 30, 2017 and became effective September 1, 2017.


The new rule, KCLFLR14 Custody Investigator grievances: (A) Scope. This rule pertains to any grievance which relates to the conduct of custody investigators in cases which are no longer pending before the Court. Such grievances will be directed to the Juvenile Court Director and handled as a personnel matter.


It would seem this rule is in answer to Judge Olsen’s letter to the plaintiff (XL) wherein she states, ”following a thorough discussion, the Judges concluded that (1) the Court needs to establish a custody investigator grievance procedure that is clearly distinguishable from the Courts current GAL grievance procedures. And (2) the Court’s local Guardian ad Litem rules require a revision on order to properly comport with overriding State GAL rules.”


That these comments would come from an honorable and experienced judge is surprising because the rules were already in compliance with State Rules. The only non-compliance had been Mr. Maiocco’s and Mr. Merringer’s actions in response to the grievance. It is possible that such an out-of-character statement indicates that there is more deception left to be uncovered.


Despite the disconnect between Honorable Judge Olsen’s comment and the proposed change, the new rule was written. It justified a new section being added to the local court rules. Unfortunately, Judge Olsen’s concern that local rules should comport with overriding State rules was overlooked as the new rule deviates substantially from State rules:


State GR7 LOCAL RULES--FILING AND EFFECTIVE DATE

(a)Generally. ‘…’New proposed rules and amendments must be filed on or before July 1, to be effective September 1 of the same year’. Kitsap filed the proposed change in April and applied it three months retroactively to the previous February.


It is unclear why Kitsap County determined the need for a whole new Rule in the first place. They are the only County in the State of Washington to adopt a separate grievance procedure for custody investigators from GALs:


RCW 26.09.220 Parenting arrangements—Investigation and report—Appointment of guardian ad litem. (1)(a) The court may order an investigation and report concerning parenting arrangements for the child, or may appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to RCW 26.12.175, or both. The investigation and report may be made by the guardian ad litem, court-appointed special advocate, the staff of the juvenile court, or other professional social service organization experienced in counseling children and families. (emphasis added)

(b) An investigator is a person appointed as an investigator under RCW 26.12.050(1)(b) or any other third-party professional ordered or appointed by the court to provide an opinion, assessment, or evaluation regarding the creation or modification of a parenting plan.


The State already has a provision for the investigator’s role as well:

GUARDIAN AD LITEM RULE 6: LIMITED APPOINTMENTS

There may be situations where the court wishes to appoint a person in addition to, or instead of, a guardian ad litem to fulfill very limited roles. This will help avoid conflict of interest situations for guardians ad litem serving in a case and will limit the time and expense spent on cases which do not require a guardian ad litem. A person appointed pursuant to this rule is strictly limited to the duties of the role below selected by the court. If the order of appointment does not specifically designate a limited appointment as listed below, the person appointed is presumed to be a guardian ad litem, subject to the Guardian ad Litem Rules. (emphasis added)


It is questionable why Michael Merringer and Frank Maiocco felt it necessary to write a special Rule for how to process the grievances filed against Mr. Stevenson. Regardless of his title as “employee” or “custody investigator” by his appointment by the Court, the State presumes he is subject to the same rules as a GAL.


The only time the State calls for a separate procedure is when the matter is still pending before the Court. The only difference between these two situations is the parties are afforded more time to accomplish the tasks if the matter is no longer pending. It does not intended to release anyone from full accountability. Another State rule provision for a separate grievance procedure is when the appointed investigator is a volunteer. See:


STATE GUARDIAN AD LITEM RULE 7: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

(b) Separate procedures. The rules shall establish separate procedures addressing grievances or complaints filed during the pendency of a case, and grievances or complaints filed subsequent to the conclusion of a case. (c) Fair treatment of grievances. The rules shall establish procedures providing for fair treatment of grievances including appearance-of-fairness and conflict issues. (d) CASA grievance procedures. Where applicable, local rules shall accommodate the grievance procedures of Court Appointed Special Advocate(s) (CASA) or other volunteer program(s).


Recently, another grievance was filed against this same investigator, Charles Stevenson. (XI) Despite the matter in which the claimant was a party to being a Title 26 domestic family court matter heard in Superior Court and did not involve the Title 13 (delinquency) Juvenile Court, the grievant was informed by Frank Maiocco that the Superior Court would forward the document in keeping with the new (but not yet published) rule KCLFLR14.


The grievant did not hear back as to whether the grievance had been received. After a time, he contacted the juvenile court and was told by Mr. Merringer that because Mr. Stevenson was an employee, under the (new) rule, the grievance was considered a 'personnel matter' and personnel matters are private. Therefore, the grievant could not know what, if anything, had been done to address his grievance. (XM letter from MM to Jonathan)


Once again, this is a violation of basic citizen’s right to have their grievance addressed and not only ignores State Laws outlined above, but also violates RCW 74.13.045:


Washington State Juvenile Court Services public grievances against employees:

The department shall develop and implement an informal, non-adversarial complaint resolution process to be used by clients of the department, foster parents, and other affected individuals who have complaints regarding a department policy or procedure, the application of such a policy or procedure, or the performance of an entity that has entered into a performance-based contract with the department, related to programs administered under this chapter. The process shall not apply in circumstances where the complainant has the right under Title 13, 26, or 74 RCW to seek resolution of the complaint through judicial review or through an adjudicative proceeding.


The department shall develop procedures to assure that clients and foster parents are informed of the availability of the complaint resolution process and how to access it.


The department shall compile complaint resolution data including the nature of the complaint and the outcome of the process.

[ 2018 c 284 § 41; 2009 c 520 § 57; 1998 c 245 § 146; 1991 c 340 § 2.]


NOTES: Intent—1991 c 340: "It is the intent of the legislature to provide timely, thorough, and fair procedures for resolution of grievances of clients, foster parents, and the community resulting from decisions made by the department of social and health services related to programs administered pursuant to this chapter. Grievances should be resolved at the lowest level possible. However, all levels of the department should be accountable and responsible to individuals who are experiencing difficulties with agency services or decisions. It is the intent of the legislature that grievance procedures be made available to individuals who do not have other remedies available through judicial review or adjudicative proceedings." [ 1991 c 340 § 1.]


Emphasis: shall not apply in circumstances where the complainant has the right under Title 13, 26, or 74 RCW to seek resolution of the complaint through judicial review or an through adjudicative proceeding. This ‘exception’ is because when the court wishes to appoint a person (regardless of title) instead of a guardian ad litem, the person appointed is presumed to be a guardian ad litem and is subject to the Guardian ad Litem Rules. RCW 26.09.220(1)(a) (b),RCW 26.12.175, RCW 26.12.050(1)(b)


Following up on Mr. Merringer’s refusal to take action toward addressing grievances filed against his employees and concerned because he had previously ‘certified’ his opinion that employees falsifying statements does ‘not rise to the level of misconduct,’ prompted a request for the policy and procedures used to process grievances filed against juvenile court employees by the public. The response to that request was that there is no such policy or procedure. This is a direct violation of RCW 74.13.045.


It is unlawful for a court rule to point to an action of a nonexistent rule or policy.


Complaints, grievances, and subsequent record requests have been unlawfully mishandled by Saeed Saber, Frank Maiocco, and Michael Merringer. Research has brought forward other victims of Mr. Stevenson’s illicit investigating and reporting techniques. One can only speculate as to the reasons why these court representatives have knowingly condoned the malicious activities of Mr. Stevenson and whether the acts of covering illicit conduct is limited to Mr. Stevenson or if every GAL on the registry or custody investigator employed by the Juvenile Court is encouraged to act unlawfully, if only by the negligence of superiors, lack of disciplinary policies or procedures, negligence to enforce County employee policies, and superiors using their positions of authority to cover up the misconduct of court-appointed child representatives.


Abuses of authority of office range from unnecessarily creating rules to disconnect from the State standards to changing rules that would lead to discovery of their misconduct, then applying those rules as effective retroactively, to swapping out documents and altering and/or omitting documents to gain a Judge’s signature for rulings on documents the Judge has never seen. This conduct, especially from people who have the authority to separate children from their parents, and Court administrators is alarming.


Concerning the Guardian ad Litem Registry

(XN Administrative Policy) Kitsap County Superior Court RCW 26 Guardian Ad Litem Registry for Family Law Proceedings.


1. Administration: Guardian ad Litem Registry for Guardianships 1.1 The Kitsap County Superior Court Administrator shall be responsible for maintaining a registry of those qualified to serve as a Guardian ad Litem in family law proceedings as provided in RCW 26.09.220 and RCW 26.12.175.


1.5 Each applicant, including persons currently on the registry, must annually submit the following documents to the Kitsap County Superior Court Administrator:


3C) Description of nature, status and outcome of any professional complaints, investigations or disciplinary actions, lawsuits or professional liability claims, 3D) Description of any claim(s) or litigation that has been commenced involving allegations of improper fee charges, charges of fraud, theft or other forms of dishonesty or professional malpractice or misconduct


Mr. Stevenson’s submission for the above two (2) requirements was a letter dated May 1, 2017 from Judge Sally Olsen to the plaintiff (X May 1 letter) As you can see, the document does not provide a “description of the nature” of the complaint.


Stevenson failed to disclose another grievance that had been filed against him previous to this one and failed to disclose the nature of the allegations of that grievance also.


Mr. Maiocco being fully aware of both grievances did not require a correction to the submission. This is an act of negligence that denied the right of attorneys and their clients to make an informed decision when using the GAL strike list to appoint GALs to their cases.


Further to the negligence of Mr. Maiocco, the personal name and contact information of the grievant on the publicly posted letter was not redacted, creating further damage by seeming to offer credence to the slander of the initial GAL report.


WA STATE GALR2. Qualifications: Guardian ad Litem Registry for Guardianships 2.1 In addition to any qualifications required under RCW 26.09.220 and RCW 26.12.175, the following shall be the qualifications for the Guardian ad Litem Registry: 2B) Non-Attorneys: Five years’ experience in needs of children and families involved in disputes over parenting issues, dissolution or parentage determinations documented in the applicant's curriculum vitae.


Kitsap CountyLGALR 2 (3) Non-Attorneys, Title 26. Non-attorney applicants for the Title 26 registry must have no fewer than five years’ experience in the needs of children and families involved in disputes over parenting issues, dissolution or parentage determinations, as documented in the applicant’s curriculum vitae: (emphasis added)


As the authority responsible for the Registry, Mr. Maiocco knew Mr. Stevenson was not qualified but accepted him nonetheless. Even after grievances had been filed, each having similar allegations. Mr. Stevenson’s May 2016 registry application offers the following experience:

• 14 months as Kitsap County Custody Investigator

• 3 years Kitsap County CASA

• 2 year as GAL Title 26


What is misleading here is the omission of dates. Stevenson started working for Kitsap County Dispute Resolution in October 2012. That employment overlapped the two years he claimed as a GAL. These years were simultaneous.


The proceedings discussed in this paper took place during 2015/16. 2012 to 2015 does not meet the five year minimum requirement to serve as a GAL. Kitsap County Dispute Resolution confirmed this fact when, in September 2017, they issued him a five year certificate of service. That means he was not qualified for the registry until September 2017 based on the five-year requirement alone. This does not account for the fact that, by Rule of qualifications, he could not have been a Title 26 GAL for two years. This further does not account for his lack of educational background and lack of experience working with children and families who are involved in disputes.


Mr. Maiocco is responsible for maintaining the Court GAL registry. He accepted Mr. Stevenson to the registry even though he knew Mr. Stevenson was not qualified.


As a condition of appointment, the guardian ad litem's background information record shall be made available to the court. The GAL registry is updated annually. Mr. Maiocco neglected to correct the errors on the 2018 registry. The known three (3) grievances filed against Mr. Stevenson were omitted from the registry record. Absent opportunity of discovery and due to the stone-walling of public and GR31.1 administrative record requests, it is unclear how many grievances have been filed against Mr. Stevenson and other GAL’s or Custody Investigators.


Evidence shows Mr. Maiocco was fully aware of the violations to the plaintiff’s right to privacy and confidentiality because, throughout the record request exchanges, the plaintiff complained of that fact numerous times. It wasn’t until the plaintiff provided the link to the GAL registry page citing the document as public record to Honorable Judge Chushcoff in Pierce County that Mr. Maiocco redacted the plaintiff’s private information from the public record. It was also at that time that he posted the disclosures of the other two (2) grievances, including the most recent one that was supposedly a ‘personnel matter’ and private.


Plaintiff requested an external review to consider what had been presented as Judge Olsen's denial of the appeal. The motion for external review pointed the reviewing party to the GAL registry to show that the record sought had been publicly cited. The citing was the letter from Judge Olsen that had not redacted the plaintiff’s name or contact information. The very same morning that Mr. Maiocco was cc'd a copy of that motion as provided to an outside judge for external review, he redacted the plaintiff’s name and address from the online record. This shows that he was aware it was a violation of plaintiff’s confidentiality and privacy rights and his attempt to cover up his negligence.

Insert the matter with Judge Chushcoff...


The authoritarian stance Mr. Maiocco has taken to deny the plaintiff the right to know why a panel of three Superior Court judges think it's reasonable for a Custody investigator to misrepresent facts and falsify statements, misrepresent his qualifications, and even outright lie is outrageous. It is also in direct violation of established law and in contradiction to the democratic process.

The GAL training required by the State of Washington addresses what custody investigators can expect if a grievance is filed against them:


Washington State Title 26 Family Law Guardian Ad Litem Guidebook page 22; "If the GAL committee does not dismiss the complaint, it may request a response from the GAL. A letter is sent to the GAL and asks for the response within a time deadline. The complaint will be included with that letter. The GAL writes a response to the complaint, methodically responding to each point" ...


"The GAL committee looks at the response and then copies and mails it to the complainant. (emphasis added)


Despite all the facts and examples presented throughout numerous pleadings and requests, Mr. Maiocco, Michael Merringer, and Saeed Saber have denied plaintiff even a resemblance of due process regarding the grievance filed against Charles Stevenson. There is no reasonable lawful explanation for their actions.


The Implications of the Corrupt Actions

In light of Mr. Maiocco's recent confession that he did not provide documents to Honorable Judge Sally Olsen but then had her compose letters addressing the documents she had never seen, there is no way of knowing what documents or information has or has not been presented to a committee or a Judge for consideration; the same goes for the plaintiff's grievance.


That the document may never have been presented to a Committee after all is, in fact, the only thing that has made sense since the onset of this matter. It is believed the purposeful omission of documents may be an explanation for the seeming disconnect between the Judges, the law, and the rights of the plaintiff.


Plaintiff requests to be provided with a copy of Mr. Stevenson's response to the grievance filed against Mr. Charles W. Stevenson. Plaintiff requests to be afforded the right to know what the committee’s findings were and to be provided opportunity to make a reasonable appeal based on the knowledge of facts.



8 views
Please consider donating to support our work and help us afford legal advice
 
Thank you!