A vote for Jesse Young or a vote for Michelle Caldier is voting to void constitutional mandates.
A person may be a candidate for public office only by “swearing or affirming that he or she will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington”. See RCW 29A.24.031
Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier, Jan Angel and Kevin Hull have violated the very first Article, first Section of Washington’s Constitution that they all have promised to uphold — to “protect and maintain individual rights”! If these “candidates” cannot fulfill their very first obligation, why should we think they will uphold the 99.999% of Washington’s remaining constitutional and statutory obligations?
The “individual rights” these public officials deny, violate or aid and abet in government’s violation of consist of a long scheme in ‘trading office’ for quid pro quo protections — Said another way… I’ll protect your misconduct if you protect mine.
At the vortex of Young, Caldier, Angel and Hull’s crime is the defrauding of retired/disabled citizens Article 7, Section 10 rights by a scheme devised by the department of revenue under the supervision of the Washington State Attorney General and executed by county assessors.
It is a simple fraud that anyone who can read can easily recognize. However, because the ‘fraud’ is based upon the public’s perception that our public servants are “honest” we are easily fooled when government intentionally deceives us and uses our “belief” in their honesty as the means to defraud us.
In a nutshell ….
…the Department of Revenue in consultation with the Washington State Attorney General, through the Kitsap County Assessor distributes false instructions to applicants who apply for the property tax exemption granted by Washington’s constitution Article 7, Sec 10. The “application”, APPENDIX 3, is irrefutable evidence of the Assessor’s fraud by misstating RCW 84.36.383(5) (page 3 of APPENDIX 3) that then results in a false determination of income, which is a qualifying criterion.
The fraudulent scheme, as you can validate for yourself, is accomplished by changing words, adding words, omitting words, or rearranging words of the statute at issue, RCW 84.36.383, which is a statute describing a formula for the calculation of “disposable income”. When words that describe a formula are changed, omitted, or added, numbers used in the calculation are changed, added or omitted and the result is changed as a consequence of changing the formula. This results in a ‘false value’ for disposable income compared to the actual language of the statute if no words were added, changed or omitted.
Neither the Assessor, nor any other government official has any authority to change the language of a law by adding words, rearranging words, or omitting words established by the legislature in RCW 84.36.383(5). In fact the legislature made this prohibition in altering statutory language explicitly clear in the very first line of RCW 84.36.383, which states:
“As used in RCW 84.36.381 through 84.36.389, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: inter alia, (5) “Disposable income” means …”
By adding words, rearranging words, omitting words, the Attorney General, the Department of Revenue and Assessors have unlawfully changed the law, which they then interpret, and in this way, by this fraud, the Article 7 Sec 10 exemption is artificially denied to those who would qualify, including Scheidler, absent the fraud.
Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier, Jan Angel and Judge Kevin Hull are all fully aware of this fraud and they refuse to do anything to correct these violations by the Attorney General, Department of Revenue or the Assessor so as to “protect and maintain individual rights”… their most fundamental obligation as a public official as demanded of them by Article 1, Sec 1, which they swear to uphold.
An ethics complaint against Young, Caldier and Angel resulted in the “Ethics Board” calling the State Patrol to remove Scheidler from making public comment when Scheidler attempted to address this substantive public issue at the Ethics Board’s Oct 11th meeting.
Thereafter, the Ethics Board “dismissed” the ethics complaint based upon their own view that ‘failure’ to act as required by Washington’s Constitution, is NOT an “ethics issue”.
Until Citizens DEMAND our public servants UPHOLD THE LAW and not devise schemes by which THEY CAN VIOLATE THE LAW and escape accountability it is CITIZENS who pose the greatest threat to a civilized society.
Just my 2-cents.
