Caught Again Sled!!!

Good ole Andrew blows it again trying to convince people what a great person he is by getting a hotel room for his son and dog. Well right after he tells that lie he blows it in his next comment where he states “Two of my neighbors were sitting in their cars idling to get warm this this morning.”

Must have neighbors at the hotel …right Sled?

Once Sled reads this he will go back as he often does when he is caught and either delete the comment, change it, or come up with some BS explanation. Any money Sled has for a hotel is taxpayers money not his and most of that is spent on cigarettes.


Wake up folks Sled is a complete fraud…more to come.





Sled hotel 1


Sled hotel 2



I have received a comment from Chuck Tingstad regarding his criminal history and offered him the opportunity to comment prior to his true story being published. Since Chuck is one of the prolific liberal commenters on the SR it will be interesting what he has to say if he has guts enough to comment, so stay tuned!



Comment on Background Investigations on a budget! by chuck

‎Saturday, ‎November ‎14, ‎2015, ‏‎10:55:39 PM | chuckGo to full article

I could save you some trouble, flatfoot. What would you like to know? Brandishing? Defacement of public property? I realize this may reduce your drama effect.


Comment on Background Investigations on a budget! by buffalobrianbreen

‎Today, ‎November ‎18, ‎2015, ‏‎53 minutes ago | buffalobrianbreenGo to full article


To be fair I would like to offer you the opportunity to provide a statement regarding your criminal history in light of many of your comments in the SR Comments Section, so please feel free to respond here prior to my news piece on you. Also if you would like to provide a statement on this feel free to do so.


The truth is we are NOWHERE, and that status hasn’t changed since the cameras were purchased by the City clear back in September of 2013. The WHY is simple! First and Foremost, because of the Guild Contract negotiated by Mayor Condon and Frank Straub then approved by the City Council that gives control of body cameras to the police unions. Secondly, because there is NO State LAW covering the use of body cameras.

Each and every time we have another Officer Involved Shooting the same question comes up, “Was there body camera footage?”, that is evidenced in Rachel Alexander’s November 9, 2015 SR story regarding the latest OIS. Rachael’s response to a question posed by Chairman of the SR Comment Board Andrew Scheldt (Sled) is very telling, unfortunately she really doesn’t know what the Status of Body Cameras is with SPD or the SCSO for that matter. In her defense the Spokesman Review is at an all-time low from the standpoint of staffing and financial backing from the Cowles family. In that story you can find some interesting comments including those of Andrew and Sheila Chase (Shelalal) both of whom are radical liberals and very, very anti-law enforcement, both have told some real whoopers about their background and experience in their SR Comments Section. I will deal with both and provide specifics, including public documents when I return from a trip my wife has planned.


What I find surprising regarding Rachael’s response to Andrew Scheldt is that she linked her May 10, 2015 story regarding body cameras, where, in the comments section I provided facts and detail regarding body cameras, as well as the truth about Frank Straub. What has transpired between May and November clearly shows what I said then was right on the money. If you read my comments in the link below (Hurray the SR will likely delete them) you will note, I criticize the SR coverage which I did a lot of prior to being “Banned” and is the true reason the SR does not want me to comment on Andrew and Sheila’s personal blog.

Another interesting aspect of the May article and my comments is it was one of the many times I pointed out the truth about Frank Straub, which was ignored by most including the SR for some reason. As a matter of FACT, there were many people in the Journalism Community both in Spokane and Indianapolis that knew the facts and truth regarding Frank Straub. My wiretaps and bugs which are strategically placed all over Spokane revealed that Addy Hatch, who by the way, is the one that sent me a very funny “Banning” email, was provided considerable negative documentation regarding Straub in an email that has been somewhat widely circulated and passed around, she received the email in 2013 and it included a strong suggestion to do an extensive story on Straub to inform the public. Her answer was that she had assigned it to Jonathan Brunt who would do the story when he returned from maternity leave. I DID NOT PROVIDE HER THE DOCUMENTATION, other individuals did, and of course the story never ran. It is impossible for Addy Hatch to honestly deny what I have just stated there are far too many witnesses and an extensive paper trail. The big question is if Addy Hatch and the SR informed the public, as is their job would people have taken notice and would we be in the mess we are in today? So does anyone wonder why the SR and Addy Hatch are so afraid of my comments?



I could go into significant detail with respect to problems associated with body cameras and the fraud perpetrated on the Spokane Community but instead I will just list the top 10 questions Rachel needs to get the answers to as I tried to point out in the Andrew and Shelia Comments Section of the SR under the persona “Oliver McMichael”, before they were deleted.

  1. Where do the negotiations stand with the Police Guild and the Lieutenants and Captains Association regarding the use of body cameras?
  2. What is the likelihood body camera issues will have to be resolved in mediation by Jamie Siegel or later by the PERC as is outlined in the Union Contracts?
  3. Will the unions want more money to wear the body cameras resulting in an MOU similar to the one agreed to in order to entice Field Training Officers?
  4. Since the passage of a law covering body cameras failed in the legislature are you using the Attorney General’s Opinion as a guideline for the usage of body cameras?
  5. The original plan to purchase dash cams went by the wayside after the Use of Force Commission Report so would the City have been better off to purchase dash cams which have been widely used throughout the state for a long time and wait until a body camera law was passed which Frank Straub originally stated would be the best route?
  6. In his response to questions relating to body cameras the Attorney General Stated that is was NOT necessary to obtain the consent of police officers wearing body cameras absent a collective bargaining which, might affect whether police officers must consent to wearing or using body cameras, so was it premature to enter into a contract with the unions prior to a body camera law being passed?
  7. The Attorney General’s opinion makes it quite clear that unlike the dash cam law where police departments can withhold public disclosure of dash cam video, body camera video is subject to the Public Records Act so what problems have been associated with public disclosure and have there been any objections by police officers to public release of body cam video and will there be a problem with that in the future?
  8. Since Frank Straub and Tim Schwering publically stated that the results of the ASU study will impact SPD’s decision to go ahead with a body camera program, what elements of the study will be significant in making that decision?
  9. SPD has said time and again that because the requirements of the PRA apply to body camera video the costs of implementation are overwhelming and those costs are a consideration as far as full implementation is concerned, were those costs anticipated prior to the Taser International contract and exactly what have those costs been during the pilot program?
  10. The AG’s opinion points out the complexity of Washington State Privacy Laws especially as it relates to what constitutes a “private conversation” and makes it very clear with this statement in the opinion just how important the need to understand our State Privacy Laws actually is, so exactly what type and to what extent are SPD Officers trained in Washington State Privacy Laws?


“The Washington Privacy Act, RCW 9.73, provides greater protection for private conversations and communications than the United States and Washington Constitutions. The Privacy Act is considered one of the most restrictive privacy statutes in the nation. State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718, 725, 317 P.3d 1029 (2014); see also Clark, 129 Wn.2d at 224. The Privacy Act provides that no individual or public agency can intercept or record a private conversation without first obtaining the consent of all of the parties to the conversation, unless an exception applies. RCW 9.73.030(1)(b).”


Good Luck Rachael see what you can do. I can predict the answers for you, and hope you don’t take what you are told as gospel.

BC LanguageAlexander to AndrewOliver McMichael


This article appeared in today’s Spokesman Review, but left out some important information regarding Washington State’s “government openness”.


To begin with Washington State is one of the most liberal States when it comes to “government openness”. Washington State’s Public Records Act (PRA) is pretty consistent in establishing the public’s right to know, and the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled time, and time again in favor of the public’s right to know. Some of those Supreme Court Decisions have become somewhat legendary on the national scene.

As an example, a recent WSSC decision makes messages from private phones or email accounts of public officials that involve the conducting of public business PUBLIC RECORDS which the public has a right to see.

Here is a pretty good synopsis of the case if you don’t wish to read the entire case.


As I type this blog post Public Officials all over the State, and especially here in Spokane as a result of my recent FOIA, are trying to figure out ways to evade the Lindquist decision. The Lindquist decision does have its drawbacks for the public however as public officials were quick to realize the need to revert back to pre-technology days when decisions were made and secrets kept by meeting face to face (no more smoke filled rooms though).

You might ask…so what is the problem. The answer is pretty simple and is alluded to in Jim Camden’s article.

Quote from Article:

Most were graded down for public access to information and ethics enforcement, he said in an emailed response to a question about the fairness of a system that has such low overall grades.


“The majority of states have serious deficiencies in those areas, such as open records laws riddled with exemptions and no entities tasked to oversee compliance with those open records laws,” he said.


The fact is in Washington State there is NO “ETHICS ENFORCEMENT” when it comes to State and Local Agencies violating or obstructing the PRA. The only option for private citizens or the deeper pocket media is to take their PRA case to court with hopes of recovering attorney fees and relatively small amounts of fines from the violating public agency. Ironically the attorney’s fees and fines are paid using public money. There was a time when citizens could count on the Cowles Family and the Spokesman Review to battle it out in court for them and many of the leading PRA cases in this State were initiated by the Spokesman Review, something Jim Camden should well remember. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, primarily because Stacey Cowles has gutted the SR to the point they are no longer what they were at one time. As an example SR Public Records Requests now have a caveat at the end of the request to let the agency know if fulfilling the request will be in excess of $150.00, which in and of itself is very telling.

Most people aren’t aware that the Washington State Attorney actually has an “Open Government Ombudsman” whom I have found to be quite lacking from the standpoint of the FOIAs I have been involved in, and there is a conflict of interest with the AG when seeking records from State Agencies.

In reality the question of ethics boils down to the ethics and integrity of the individual who within the public agency is appointed the legal responsibility for responding to public records requests. They have a choice of yielding to the pressure they receive from within or doing what is right and fulfilling their responsibilities.


RCW 42.56.580

Public records officers.



(1) Each state and local agency shall appoint and publicly identify a public records officer whose responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members of the public in requesting disclosure of public records and to oversee the agency’s compliance with the public records disclosure requirements of this chapter. A state or local agency’s public records officer may appoint an employee or official of another agency as its public records officer.


     (2) For state agencies, the name and contact information of the agency’s public records officer to whom members of the public may direct requests for disclosure of public records and who will oversee the agency’s compliance with the public records disclosure requirements of this chapter shall be published in the state register at the time of designation and maintained thereafter on the code reviser web site for the duration of the designation.


     (3) For local agencies, the name and contact information of the agency’s public records officer to whom members of the public may direct requests for disclosure of public records and who will oversee the agency’s compliance within the public records disclosure requirements of this chapter shall be made in a way reasonably calculated to provide notice to the public, including posting at the local agency’s place of business, posting on its internet site, or including in its publications.



As many people know I’m in a battle on my own with the City over public release of the Cotton/Straub case (not my first Rodeo) and the City is making every effort to hide the facts so I thought I would post some examples of what the average citizen has to go through to get to the truth.

TF email 1TF email 2TF email 3TF email 4TF email 5