The anticipated “resignation” of City Attorney Nancy Isserlis has now been reported, and many speculate her resignation has a lot to do with the Cotton/Straub case and the possibility that there may have been some nefarious activity on her part including possible violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Washington State Lawyers.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/may/23/city-attorney-nancy-isserlis-resigns/

 

But I can’t help but wonder if the case involving Lynden Smithson, one of her City Prosecutors may have also played into “her” decision. For those that don’t recall Lynden Smithson was in some way implicated in a large scale Federal Drug Case, and as seems to be SOP in the Condon Administration, again there is no available evidence to indicate Isserlis did one iota of investigation into Smithson’s involvement in the case.

This is another one of those cases where the Spokesman Review had the same information I had in Public Records Request Responses, but never did one lick of investigative reporting on the case and chose instead to hammer the hell out of the Furniture-gate case.

 

As is always the case these days, I’m still waiting for the Condon Administration to respond to my PRR requests…we shall see. It will be interesting to see if the City responds to my PRRs prior to September 5^th, 2016…which is an important date in the overall scheme of things.

 

 

 

 

https://examplepro.me/2015/12/29/lynden-smithson-update/

https://examplepro.me/2016/02/09/prr-update-lynden-smithson-vs-brad-arleth/

https://examplepromeblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2746&action=edit

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/02/breaking-news-it-is-the-unions-fault/

https://examplepromeblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=919&action=edit

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

(**NOTE: I apologize for the misspelling of “Implications” in my previous headlines, admittedly my spelling and grammar are poor, and spell check doesn’t always catch my errors. I hope that any spelling or grammar mistakes I make in my stories won’t stop you from reading the stories which are intended to get at the truth. Thank you to those that brought the error in my ways to my attention.)

 

The best place to start, as it is in any case, is at the beginning of course. To be clear, this case began with this EEOC complaint by Bolton alleging gender discrimination in the local office of the United States Attorney General. The complaint evolved to where we are today in a civil litigation by Bolton against her previous employer, United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and our Government.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a16c98a0-9050-44b3-8e38-6a8c731e7d30

 

 

There are a number of key elements in Bolton’s complaint, but one that may stand out for some of you is the remedies she sought in here complaint:

 

I personally make note of the fact that her remedies do not include any type of monetary remedies for herself, or a specific demand for equal pay. The remedies she sought in her EEOC complaint appear to be an effort at establishing some type of structure and equality in the Office.

I can’t of course get into Bolton’s mind and determine if her end goal was monetary in nature rather than a legitimate concern for gender equality, but the evidence as far as the EEOC complaint is concerned tends to support a desire to clean-up the “good ol boy” control of the office.

Her remedies also requests a response to her FOIA regarding salary information for the office in which she worked. If you have ever done an US Government FOIA request you would know that depending upon the case it may take years to obtain a response from the Government. As we will see later her FOIA request was eventually honored in typical Government fashion and her FOIA request, among other things it would appear, lead to USA Michael Ormsby accusing Bolton of a number of serious Felony Crimes similar to those alleged against Hillary Clinton.

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ebd0a837-00b7-49cf-a649-b8134fee793c

 

One of the things we all should consider when formulating an opinion regarding the Bolton case is that Bolton was NOT the only individual making an EEOC compliant, there were others alleging the same conduct by other gals in the office. If this case isn’t settled, which there is a high probability of, I’m sure those facts will be brought out in depositions and at trial.

 

 

I always enjoy reading the comments section of the SR when stories like the Bolton case become public. I have the advantage of knowing who all the people making comments are and in most cases involving criminal justice issues exactly what information has been provided to the SR, so I het a kick out of some of the comments made by people who know absolutely nothing about the case.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/21/female-prosecutor-in-us-attorneys-office-in-spokan/comments/

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/3ea987a1-1cb0-4b0c-b721-890284cd6b50

 

http://www.spokesman.com/documents/2015/oct/21/jill-bolton-lawsuit/

 

One of the things I like to do with my stories is attempt to get input from both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, in this case especially gals. The dynamics of this case are interesting, at least in my opinion, since we have a Obama appointed local US Attorney accused of gender discrimination at a time when gender discrimination is a hot topic, we have a Presidential Candidate being scrutinized by the FBI for National Security Breaches, we have a former local US Attorney appointed during the Bush Administration during who’s time the “good ol boy network” is alleged to have been an issue, and a Conservative Spokane County Prosecutor who’s name comes up in the lawsuit. So who better to reach out to than the Conservative Voice of the Spokesman Review, Sue Lani Madsen?

As fate would have it however my poor spelling did me in!

 

 

The more I get into this case the more interesting it becomes and this is Part One of a series.

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/05/21/local-case-national-implecationsor-not/

 

Since I posted the teaser linked above a lot of folks have reached out to me with questions, primarily when will there be more. Most of those questions started coming in when I reached out to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch in an effort to obtain her comments and ask a few questions. HONEST people I am working on this but it takes some time, analysis of the documents, attempts to get interviews from both sides, and corroborating my sources, something other local media outlets are unwilling to do. The Spokesman Review for example was provided information about the Bolton case as well as similar EEOC complaints in the local US Attorney’s Office two years ago when knowledge was widespread in the local legal community, including the possible involvement of Senator Patty Murray in the case, something Jim Camden was supposedly going to look into.

 

This case could really get interesting since two local criminal justice figures keep coming up including Jim McDevitt the former local US Attorney now leader of the Spokane Police Department, and Larry Haskell our current County Prosecutor who worked for a short period of time for McDevitt in the US Attorney’s Office.

In reaching out to some of the individuals involved in this case so far the only one who has responded is Bolton’s lawyer Mary Schultz who has agreed to answer questions once I have them formulated. Not being a complete dummy and knowing Mary from back in the day one of the first things I did establish with her is whether or not she is still involved in Karate to the extent she used to be, her response was “I’m still living Karate.” Be assured this reporter will still ask my usual pointed and hard questions…just from a safe distance!

 

Some folks are wondering why I would reach out to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch for comment, indicating she will never talk to you. They may be right but I have to at least try since she stated the following in her attempt to get the Bolton case dismissed and I would guess silence the bad press. The USAG’s attempt to have the case dismissed of course failed.

____________________________

1. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch. Such claims are not subject to judicial review – under Title VII or otherwise – and as a result, they should be dismissed. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the following claims: (1) the USAO management’s inquiry into the security breach; (2) the referral of Plaintiff’s actions – obtaining, without authorization, Privacy Act protected personnel information of other Agency employees – to other DOJ offices and individuals, including, but not limited to, the DOJ OIG and DOJ security personnel; (3) the subsequent investigation into Plaintiff’s actions by the DOJ OIG, which substantiated the allegations against Plaintiff; (4) Plaintiff’s placement on paid administrative leave; (5) the suspension of Plaintiff’s TS security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI; (6) Plaintiff’s indefinite suspension without pay from her position as an AUSA; and (7) Plaintiff’s constructive discharge.

 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2016.

 

LORETTA E. LYNCH

United States Attorney General

s/ Ann E. Harwood

ANN E. HARWOOD

Special Attorney

 

Case 2:15-cv-00294-DWM Document 20 Filed 04/28/16

_________________________________

 

USAG Lynch clearly states in her filing that in her opinion based on the constitution the Executive Branch has broad discretion regarding suspension and eligibility for access to National Security Information.

________________________________

“Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch”

_________________________________

The question I would ask USAG Lynch, should be pretty obvious… “How does your position in the Bolton Case correlate to the Hillary Clinton Case?” I would of course have a number of follow-up questions.

 

Hopefully that explains why I made the effort. I have this feeling that USAG Lynch really doesn’t have much knowledge of this case. The odd thing about this case is that it appears, at least at this point, to be the “good ole boy” network versus the gals stepping up and complaining about it, yet nearly the entire case is in the hands of gals, Jill Bolton the plaintiff, Mary Schultz her lawyer, USAG Loretta Lynch the defendant, and Anne Harwood the USAG’s lawyer…. IRONIC TO SAY THE LEAST!

 

TRUST ME I’M WORKING ON IT SO THAT I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

This story is somewhat of a teaser for another story I am working on that ultimately involves our local criminal justice and law enforcement systems, but given this is a Presidential Election year and a lot of questions regarding the two front runners have come up I thought my readers both Liberal and Conservative alike would be interested in some of the things I’m finding as they relate to the national scene.

Please keep in mind that I don’t have a political ideology and could care less which group my stories might rub the wrong way. Also keep in mind that the story I am working on involves individuals that are on opposite sides of the political spectrum yet maintain a close relationship and both were involved in the River Park Square Case. You in all likelihood will not find other local media outlets covering this…but I will.

This SR story might give you some clues as to where I’m headed.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/02/ormsby-names-new-top-assistant-in-us-attorneys-off/

 

The story I’m working on involves a lot of document analysis, interviews and good old gumshoe so it will take some time and of course some players will refuse to grant interviews.

 

In reviewing documents, I ran across this which immediately struck me in light of the ongoing FBI Investigation of Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. This is a mere snippet of the documents available, and the documents in the link are lengthy but I wanted to provide them so you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the threat of criminal charges was an effort to intimidate. Criminal charges, by the way were never filed. I should also note that the Government fought to have documents like this excluded from the court file, however the Judge in the case decided they should be. IMO it is obvious why the Government didn’t want the documents public.

 

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/8e599e7d-ea2c-4f26-9272-cd83275a5de6

 

When you weigh what is alleged Hilary Clinton did in comparison to what is alleged Bolton did in this case…boy you have to wonder.

 

Lots more to come!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!!