THE ASOTIN COUNTY CORRUPTION SCHEME:

PROLOGUE: The Leaky Roof and the Broken Window Imagine you have two problems with your house. First, you have a leaky roof because a few shingles are missing. Water is coming in, damaging the structure and window frame. Then, a bird flies through the window pane, breaking the glass—but the frame was already water-damaged because of the leaky roof. Your next-door neighbor is a commercial contractor who works with the Union. You call your neighbor: "Hey! I just had a bird break my window! You're my neighbor, so I want to give the job to you." The Contractor hires his friend, also a contractor for the Union. They begin the work by taking out the frame of the window. A pesky neighbor asks, "Whatcha' doin'? Let me call your insurance rep for you!" You call your homeowner's insurance. The insurance company sends you two letters. The first says: "We do NOT cover leaky roofs or anything that happens because of them. Period. You're on your own." The County responds, "We already hired Union Contractors for the job." The second letter from the insurance company says: "We MIGHT cover the broken window because of the bird, but we will NOT pay for any water damage that came from the leaky roof. You have to pay for that part yourself." So what do you do? If you are an honest homeowner, you pay for the roof and the water damage yourself. You hire a private contractor. You don't continue to use the Union Contractor. But if you are Asotin County Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie, Asotin County Coroner Lisa Webber, Asotin County Chief Operating Officer Chris Kemp, and their legal counsel Amanda Daylong, you do something different. You create a fake repair order for a pre-existing structural problem that doesn't exist to replace the shingles, roofing, ceiling, insulation, carpet, drywall, and paint. You use that fake order to take tax dollars and pay a contractor $325 an hour. The logic is: "Because a window pane is no good if the roof leaks and there's water damaging the window frame." That subcontractor then fixes the window pane. The contractor also fixes the water damage AND the roof—using insurance and taxpayer money. When someone asks, "Hey, who paid for the water damage, the busted frame, and the leaking roof?" you say: "Don't worry. Insurance handled everything." But it didn't. Insurance handled part of the window. The pane of glass. Not the frame. Not the leaky roof. Not the water damage. That is the Asotin County scheme in a nutshell. THE NEW SMOKING GUN: ATTORNEY GENERAL NICK BROWN TRIED TO FILTER MY EMAILS On July 15-16, 2026, the Washington State Attorney General's Office (AGO) produced documents in response to my Public Records Requests. (pp. 1-164) What they revealed is shocking—even to me. In an April 27, 2026 email, Attorney General Nick Brown personally requested that his staff filter my emails: (pp. 1-7) "Hey Rick - Is it possible to filter this person's emails? I get a bunch from this account every day. Thanks." — Nick Brown, Washington State Attorney General The Attorney General of Washington—the chief legal officer of the state—did not respond to my criminal referral with a substantive legal analysis. He did not acknowledge the conflict of interest in the Asotin County Prosecutor's Office. He did not address the unauthorized practice of law by a prosecutor and coroner. He asked to filter my emails. This is not a minor bureaucratic detail. This is evidence of deliberate avoidance, institutional bad faith, and a refusal to investigate serious crimes reported by a citizen. THE AGO'S "DARKEST TIMELINE" The internal emails reveal even more. On July 8, 2025, AGO staff discussed my complaint internally: (pp. 100-105) (pp. 1-7) "This petitioner is a North Carolina resident who is suing an Asotin county superior court judge because she blocked him on facebook. This is the darkest timeline." — Michael Litts, AGO "Is this an LAL thing? This petitioner is a North Carolina resident who is suing an Asotin county superior court judge because she blocked him on facebook. This is the darkest timeline." "This is not for the AGO. We do not represent the Judge in Asotin County." — Lisa Petersen, AGO "I've pulled up the Supreme Court documents in this case and we can discuss." — Jennifer Bancroft, AGO The "darkest timeline" comment reveals profound ignorance of the applicable law. Just months earlier, the United States Supreme Court decided Lindke v. Freed^[2], which held that public officials who block critics on social media can be liable for First Amendment violations. The AGO staff dismissed a constitutional claim of national significance as a trivial joke. Lisa Petersen is correct that the AGO does not represent Judge Burns. But that is precisely why the AGO had no basis to dismiss the complaint. The AGO was not asked to defend Judge Burns—the AGO was asked to investigate the coordinated scheme. The AGO had independent statutory authority to do so and failed. THE FORM LETTER RESPONSE On March 16, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Melanie Tratnik sent me a form letter: (pp. 5-6) (pp. 1-7) "The Attorney General's Office is not a law enforcement agency... please direct your concerns to the local law enforcement agency... the Asotin County Sheriff's Office." But internal emails reveal the truth. On March 14, 2026, Tratnik wrote: (p. 1) "This writer will not be happy that the proper investigating agency is the Asotin County Sheriff's Office since he seems to think everyone in Asotin County is cahoots but that is the correct answer here. I used the 'civil and or criminal' template for this response." Tratnik knew I believed the Sheriff's Office was implicated in the scheme. She still directed me to them. She used a form template—no individualized legal analysis occurred. The AGO's own records prove they knowingly referred a whistleblower to an implicated agency. THE AGO WAS ON NOTICE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MISCONDUCT The AGO's direction to the Sheriff's Office is even more damning given what the AGO knew—or should have known: Actor: Undersheriff Blake Richards Conduct: Disabled Facebook comments after Switzer reported crimes Date: August 12, 2025 Actor: Undersheriff Blake Richards Conduct: Blocked Switzer's personal account and LCV Blotter business page Date: January 2026; June 14, 2026 Actor: Sheriff John Hilderbrand Conduct: Disabled comments on ACSO Facebook page after Switzer reported crimes Date: April 2, 2026 Actor: Both Conduct: Failed to fulfill RCW 36.28.011 duty to "make complaint of all violations of the criminal law"^[4] Date: Ongoing since August 2025 The Sheriff's Office is not a neutral investigative body. It is a participant in the alleged misconduct. Directing a whistleblower to an implicated agency is not a good-faith response—it is a knowing referral to the wrongdoers. CHAPTER I: The First Amendment Violation Section I.1: March 28, 2025 - Judge Brooke Burns Blocks a Whistleblower On March 28, 2025, Asotin County Superior Court Judge Brooke Burns did something that would set off a chain of events culminating in a criminal referral, a public records lawsuit, and the exposure of a coordinated scheme to misuse public funds. Judge Burns blocked me on Facebook. I had commented on her campaign page, asking: "As a Judge, would you consider this an example of an obstruction of justice?" I was referring to Mayor Dan Johnson's refusal to investigate police bribery in Lewiston, Idaho. The comment that triggered the block is documented in the court record. The block was a First Amendment violation, as established by the Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed^[2]. A public official who restricts access to an official social media page based on the content of speech engages in state action subject to the First Amendment. I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Washington Supreme Court (Case No. 104080-6). The petition sought to compel Judge Burns to unblock me and to declare her conduct unconstitutional. That petition would become the "broken window" in the contractor analogy. And the "leaky roof" would follow shortly after. Section I.2: April 15, 2025 - PDR 25-23 On April 15, 2025, I submitted a public records request to Asotin County (PDR 25-23). I sought communications between Judge Burns, Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie, and Coroner Lisa Webber regarding Liedkie and Webber's representation of Judge Burns in the mandamus action. The request was straightforward: I wanted to know how a county prosecutor and a coroner—both statutorily barred from private practice—had come to represent Commissioner Brian Shinn's daughter in a personal capacity lawsuit. The County's response, when it finally came on June 4, 2025, was a shock: one email had been located, according to Stacey Harman, but it was withheld in its entirety under attorney-client privilege. They just admitted the elephant in the room. Curtis Liedkie and Judge Burns were claiming attorney-client privilege. The County provided an "exemption log" consisting of a one-line description: "The email is exempt from disclosure Per RCW 42.56.070(1); RCW 5.60.060(2)(a)." No explanation of how the privilege applied to the specific content was given. No segregable portions were disclosed. The request was declared "closed." (p. 14) This was the "leaky roof." The County knew that the Prosecutor and Coroner representing the Judge was wrong, and they were trying to hide it. CHAPTER II: The Scheme Unfolds Section II.1: July 1, 2025 - Prosecutor Liedkie Enters the Case On July 1, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court sent a notice to Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie regarding the mandamus action. Liedkie forwarded the notice to Chris Kemp, the County's Chief Operating Officer. (p. 19) The email chain shows: Curt Liedkie: "FYI." (forwarding the Supreme Court filing to Kemp) Chris Kemp: "Received." This email is direct evidence that Liedkie was involved in the representation of Judge Burns from the very beginning. Section II.2: July 3, 2025 - The Insurance Company Says No On July 3, 2025, the County's insurer—Washington Counties Risk Group (WCRG)—issued two letters regarding Claim W1756. (pp. 44-55) Letter 1 (The Disclaimer): Coverage for Public Records Act claims was "not afforded." The County was on its own. Letter 2 (The Reservation of Rights): Coverage for the mandamus action (the "bird through the window") was provided, but with a Reservation of Rights. The County would have to pay for the "water damage" (the PRA claims) themselves. The County knew as of July 3, 2025, that its insurance would not cover Public Records Act claims. But it proceeded anyway. Section II.3: July 8, 2025 - Liedkie Withdraws, Daylong Substitutes On July 8, 2025, a Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel was filed with the Washington Supreme Court. (pp. 57-60) The notice states: "Curtis Liedkie is hereby withdrawing as counsel of record for Defendant Hon. Brooke Burns, and Francis S. Floyd and Amanda D. Daylong... are hereby being substituted as attorneys for Defendant Burns." This document proves three critical facts: 1. Liedkie did appear as counsel for Judge Burns. This contradicts the County's later statement to the State Auditor that "Mr. Liedkie never filed 'Notice of Appearance.'" 2. The representation was personal. Asotin County was not a party to the mandamus action. The Washington Supreme Court explicitly rejected any attempt to add other respondents. Liedkie was representing Judge Burns in her individual capacity. 3. Daylong was substituted for Liedkie. The representation continued, just with a different attorney. Section II.4: July 10, 2025 - The Fee Agreement On July 10, 2025, Asotin County signed a fee agreement with Floyd, Pflueger, Kearns, Nedderman & Gress, P.S.—Amanda Daylong's firm. (pp. 37-38) The agreement states: "For Public Records Act Litigation and Consulting, we charge the following rates for 2025: Partners, including Amanda Daylong - $325/hr." The fee agreement was for "Switzer v. Asotin County, et al."—a case that did not exist at the time. The County created a fictitious case caption to justify spending public money on a private lawyer whose actual purpose was to defend Judge Burns in the mandamus action. Section II.5: July 21, 2025 - The Special Deputy Appointment On July 21, 2025, Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie signed a Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Appointment for Amanda Daylong. (pp. 40-42) The appointment states: "Amanda D. Daylong... is appointed to serve as Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the purpose of representing Asotin County in Public Records Act Litigation and Consulting, Switzer v. Asotin County, et al." The appointment was a legal fiction. The case caption did not exist. The purpose of the appointment was to make Daylong's work appear to be a function of the prosecutor's office, allowing the County to pay her from the prosecutor's budget without specific legislative authorization in order to represent Commissioner Shinn's daughter, Superior Court Judge Brooke Burns. Section II.6: The Notarization The Special Deputy Appointment was notarized by Tammy Bolte—Daylong's own paralegal. (p. 40) This is a critical detail. A notary who notarizes a document for their employer may have a conflict of interest. The notary journal could reveal whether the document was actually signed on July 21, 2025, or whether it was backdated. Section II.7: The Role of Lisa Webber Coroner Lisa Webber, who is statutorily barred from the practice of law (RCW 36.24.170)^[2], acted as a "legal administrative assistant" to Prosecutor Liedkie in this matter. (pp. 41-42) Webber handled the filing of the Special Deputy Appointment. She participated in the representation of a judge—an act directly prohibited by law. This is the "union subcontractor" in the contractor analogy: a person who is not allowed to work on private property but is doing so anyway because the "union" (the County) is paying them. CHAPTER III: The False Statements to the State Auditor Section III.1: The Whistleblower Complaint On December 16, 2025, I filed a whistleblower complaint with the Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO Hotline H-25-795). I alleged that Asotin County had used public funds to defend Judge Burns in a personal capacity lawsuit—a violation of state law. (pp. 65-67) The SAO initially indicated it would consider reviewing the concern in its Fall 2026 audit. On March 31, 2026, however, the SAO closed the hotline without action, stating: "Based on review of the emails and documents received from citizen and County, we determined there are certain circumstances in which the prosecuting attorney can represent the County Judge. We are not attorneys so cannot determine whether the prosecuting attorney can represent the judge - this is a legal question." The SAO punted on the legal question. This underscores why a criminal referral to the Attorney General is necessary—and why the AGO's failure to act is so damaging. Section III.2: The County's False Statements On December 31, 2025, Stacey Harman, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, responded to the SAO. (p. 69) Harman stated: "As of today, no funds have been expended for this purpose." This statement was false. The July 10, 2025 fee agreement obligated the County to pay Daylong's firm months earlier. On December 16, 2025, Chris Kemp made additional false statements to the SAO. (pp. 14-16, 27-28) Kemp stated: "The County did not hire and pay a private law firm." The truth: The fee agreement proves the County did hire and agree to pay a private firm. Kemp stated: "Coverage was provided under our insurance policy and assigned legal counsel." The truth: The WCRG letters show coverage for PRA claims was "not afforded." Kemp stated: "Mr. Liedkie never filed 'Notice of Appearance.'" The truth: The July 8, 2025 substitution notice proves Liedkie did appear and withdrew. These false statements materially misled the SAO. The County's representations were used to close the whistleblower complaint prematurely. Section III.3: The Strategy Meeting On December 22, 2025, a Zoom meeting was held titled "Asotin County SAO Complaint." (pp. 10-13) The meeting included: Stacey Harman Chris Kemp Amanda Daylong Tammy Bolte Commissioners Whitman, Seubert, and Shinn This meeting was a strategy session to coordinate the County's response to my whistleblower complaint. The meeting was held in secret, without public notice. Section III.4: The Retroactive Retainer Email - The Proof of Falsification On January 9, 2026, Amanda Daylong sent a critical email to Chris Kemp and Stacey Harman. (p. 4) The email states: "We need to have you get a retroactive retainer agreement signed to ensure we are cleared regarding Switzer's potential objections on expenditure of public funds." A "retroactive retainer" is an agreement that purports to take effect on a date earlier than the date it is actually signed. The only reason to seek one is to create the appearance of lawful authority after the fact. This email is the "smoking gun." It proves that Daylong, Kemp, and Harman knew the expenditure of public funds was legally questionable. They proposed creating a retroactive paper trail to "clear" the County. The unredacted version of this email (Exhibit P-Unredacted) proves that the document presented to the State Auditor—the July 10, 2025 Fee Agreement and the July 21, 2025 Special Deputy Appointment—were falsified. The County attempted to create a retroactive paper trail to make it appear that the expenditures were authorized when they were not. Section III.5: The Claw-Back - Daylong Tries to Bury the Smoking Gun On June 9, 2026, immediately after I filed the unredacted version of Exhibit P with the Columbia County Superior Court, Amanda Daylong sent an email demanding that all parties delete the document. (pp. 5-6) The email states: "That email is subject to attorney client privilege and was inadvertently disclosed in the unredacted format. This email is formal notice of claw back of an inadvertent privileged disclosure. Pursuant to the rules of professional conduct and Washington law, I ask that all parties who received a copy of the correspondence delete the original and all copies immediately." This claw-back demand is itself evidence of bad faith for three reasons: 1. No Inadvertence: The email was sent to me by the County as part of a public records production. It was not "inadvertently disclosed" in litigation—it was a public record that the County was legally required to produce. Daylong's claim of inadvertence is false. 2. No Privilege: The email discusses a scheme to create a "retroactive retainer" to "clear" the County regarding "expenditure of public funds." This is not legal advice—it is evidence of a crime. The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applies. Dietz v. Doe^[1]. 3. No Confidentiality: The email was sent to Chris Kemp and Stacey Harman, both non-attorneys, and copied to a wide distribution list. There was no expectation of confidentiality. The privilege was waived when the document was produced as a public record. Daylong's claw-back demand is a desperate attempt to suppress evidence of her own misconduct. It fails. Section III.6: The Repeated Appearances Before the Asotin County Commissioners Immediately before my first appearance before the Asotin County Commissioners on January 12, 2026, while waiting for the public comments portion time for me to speak, Stacey Harman offered her resignation to the Asotin County Commissioners and Chris Kemp. Harman's resignation, coming immediately before my public testimony, is powerful evidence that she knew she was caught in a lie and chose to resign rather than face accountability. The timeline is devastating: December 31, 2025: Harman falsely states "no funds have been expended" to the State Auditor. January 9, 2026: Daylong sends the retroactive retainer email (with Harman cc'd). January 12, 2026: Harman resigns. Three days after the retroactive retainer email, Harman resigned. This is consciousness of guilt.^[8] CHAPTER IV: The Public Records Act Violations Section IV.1: PDR 25-23 - The Withheld Email The County withheld the email between Liedkie, Webber, and Burns under attorney-client privilege. But the privilege is invalid for four reasons: (p. 14) 1. Deficient Exemption Log: The County provided only a one-line citation to the statute, with no explanation of how the privilege applies to the specific content. This violates RCW 42.56.210(3)^[8] and Sanders v. State^[5]. 2. Failure to Segregate: The County withheld the entire email without showing that no segregable non-exempt portions could be released. This violates RCW 42.56.070(1)^[7]. 3. Crime-Fraud Exception: The communication was made in furtherance of an unlawful scheme—the unauthorized representation of a judge using public funds. Dietz v. Doe^[1]. 4. No Provisions for "Attorney-Client Privilege" When a Prosecutor and Coroner Unlawfully Represent a Judge: The "crime-fraud" rule then applies. Section IV.2: PDR 26-01 - The Unlawful Scanning Fee On January 7, 2026, I submitted PDR 26-01, seeking records related to the County's hiring of Amanda Daylong. (pp. 21-28) The County responded with an invoice for $10.20 for "102 pages scanned." But my request sought electronic records—emails, PDFs, and Word documents—that already existed in digital form. RCW 42.56.120(2)^[8] authorizes a scanning fee only for paper records that are scanned to become electronic. For born-digital records, the rate is $0.05 per four files or $0.10 per gigabyte. The County's fee was unlawful. I paid under protest and requested a refund. The County ignored my request. The County then contacted Amanda Daylong, which positioned her to send the January 9, 2026 email to Kemp, Harman, and Shinn to create a retainer agreement because one did NOT exist—6 months after it was said to have been signed. Section IV.3: PDR 26-10 - The Unreasonable Estimate On March 7, 2026, I submitted PDR 26-10, seeking communications between Judge Burns and the County Commissioners (including her father, Brian Shinn). (pp. 29-30) On March 13, 2026, the County responded with an 87-day estimate—until June 8, 2026. The estimate was presumptively unreasonable. A narrow electronic records request should take days or weeks, not months. The County offered no justification for the delay. This violates RCW 42.56.520^[9]. Section IV.4: The Non-Responsive Production On June 5/6, 2026, the County produced its "first installment" for PDR 26-10. (pp. 29-30) The production contained 157 email files. A CSV manifest of all files showed: Zero (0) files containing any email to, from, or copied to Judge Burns, Prosecutor Liedkie, or Coroner Webber 139 files consisting exclusively of emails authored by me, forwarded by County officials to each other 18 additional files that are delivery receipts or out-of-office replies I had explicitly instructed the County to omit my own emails. The County ignored that instruction and produced only my own emails, while producing no internal communications among the target individuals. This is not a good-faith error. It is a deliberate strategy to evade disclosure. They DID produce ONE email, unredacted with metadata, however. That email was the unredacted version of Amanda Daylong, Chris Kemp, and Stacey Harman conspiring to create a retroactive retainer agreement to satisfy the Washington State Auditor's investigation into the expenditures of funds to represent Judge Brooke Burns before the Washington State Supreme Court. (p. 4) CHAPTER V: The Social Media Retaliation Section V.1: The Sheriff's Office Censorship On August 12, 2025, Undersheriff Blake Richards posted a public statement on his official Facebook page. I posted a comment reporting potential criminal violations by Prosecutor Liedkie and Coroner Webber representing Judge Brooke Burns. (pp. 1-3) Immediately after I posted that comment, Richards disabled the comments section entirely. On April 2, 2026, Sheriff John Hilderbrand did the exact same thing: he posted a recruitment video, I commented with the same report, and he immediately disabled comments. (pp. 1-3) Section V.2: The Second Block In January 2026, Richards created a second campaign Facebook account. I was blocked from accessing it. (pp. 1-3) On June 14, 2026, immediately after LCV Blotter published an article about Richards' graduation and certification, Richards blocked the official business page of LCV Blotter from viewing his second campaign account. (pp. 1-4) Section V.3: The CJTC Review The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) has reviewed complaints against both Richards (2026-0000406) and Hilderbrand (2026-0000213). Both were administratively closed despite evidence of: 1. Viewpoint discrimination under Lindke v. Freed^[2] 2. Violation of RCW 43.101.105(j)(iv)^[14] (conduct that "discredits the profession") 3. Failure to fulfill RCW 36.28.011^[4] (mandatory duty to report crimes) But the CJTC's review contained errors: On June 14, 2026, the CJTC confirmed it would review the alleged retaliatory conduct by Richards within its jurisdictional limits. However, the intake summary misstated Knight v. Trump as "overturned"—it was actually vacated as moot. Additionally, Richards was not certified at the time of the 2025 incident, but he was certified on June 14, 2026 when he blocked LCV Blotter. The CJTC failed to consider the new incident. Reconsideration requests were filed on July 9, 2026. Randy Hullinger (Case Review Manager) acknowledged on July 13, 2026, but no timeline for decision has been provided. CHAPTER VI: The Criminal Referral Section VI.1: The Targets On June 8, 2026, I filed a Request for Criminal Referral and Appointment of Special Prosecutor. (pp. 1-18) The targets include: Curtis Liedkie – Asotin County Prosecuting Attorney – Violations: Unauthorized practice of law (RCW 2.48.180^[1], RCW 36.27.060^[3]); Official misconduct (RCW 42.20.010^[5]) Lisa Webber – Asotin County Coroner – Violations: Unauthorized practice of law (RCW 2.48.180^[1], RCW 36.24.170^[2]) Chris Kemp – Asotin County Chief Operating Officer – Violations: Official misconduct (RCW 42.20.010^[5]); False/misleading statement to public servant (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) Stacey Harman – Former Clerk to the Board – Violations: False/misleading statement to public servant (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) Amanda Daylong – Special Deputy Prosecutor – Violations: Accomplice to official misconduct (RCW 9A.08.020) Section VI.2: The Need for a Special Prosecutor The Asotin County Prosecutor (Curtis Liedkie) is a target of this referral. He cannot investigate or prosecute himself, his subordinate (Lisa Webber), or his co-conspirators (Kemp, Harman, Daylong). Only a special prosecutor—from the Attorney General's Office or an adjacent county—can overcome these conflicts of interest. But the Attorney General's Office has refused to act. Instead, the AGO sent a form letter, made jokes about my complaint, and directed me to an implicated agency. The Attorney General himself requested to filter my emails. CHAPTER VII: The New Evidence - AGO Internal Emails Section VII.1: The "Filter" Request On April 27, 2026, Attorney General Nick Brown sent this email: (p. 7) (p. 7) "Hey Rick - Is it possible to filter this person's emails? I get a bunch from this account every day. Thanks." The Attorney General of Washington personally requested to filter a citizen's emails. This is evidence of deliberate avoidance of constituent communications. It potentially violates RCW 42.56.550(4)^[10] (retaliation against PRA requesters). It demonstrates institutional bad faith at the highest level of the AGO. Section VII.2: The "Cahoots" Email On March 14, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Melanie Tratnik wrote: (p. 1) (p. 1) "This writer will not be happy that the proper investigating agency is the Asotin County Sheriff's Office since he seems to think everyone in Asotin County is cahoots but that is the correct answer here. I used the 'civil and or criminal' template for this response." Tratnik knew I believed the Sheriff's Office was implicated. She directed me there anyway. She used a form template—no individualized legal analysis occurred. Section VII.3: The "Darkest Timeline" Comments On July 8, 2025, AGO staff discussed my complaint: (pp. 100-105) (pp. 1-7) "This petitioner is a North Carolina resident who is suing an Asotin county superior court judge because she blocked him on facebook. This is the darkest timeline." The AGO's ignorance of Lindke v. Freed^[2] is now evidence that my claim is not frivolous—it is a constitutional issue of national significance. Section VII.4: Lisa Petersen's Confirmation "This is not for the AGO. We do not represent the Judge in Asotin County." (pp. 102-104) (pp. 1-7) Ms. Petersen is correct. But that is precisely why the AGO had no basis to dismiss the complaint. The AGO was not asked to defend Judge Burns—the AGO was asked to investigate the coordinated scheme. The AGO had independent statutory authority under RCW 43.10.040^[11] and RCW 43.10.232^[12] to do so and failed. CHAPTER VIII: Stacey Harman Was Trained - No "Good Faith" Defense The AGO's production also included Stacey Harman's training records. These prove that Harman was trained on the Public Records Act on multiple occasions between 2022 and 2025: (pp. 11-12) Date: August 31, 2022 Training: PRA University Legal Update Significance: Trained on PRA Date: September 21, 2022 Training: PRA University Exemptions Webinar Significance: Trained on exemptions Date: December 21, 2022 Training: PRA University Legal Update Significance: Additional training Date: August 2023 Training: PRA Legal Update Significance: Ongoing training Date: March 2025 Training: PRA University "The PRA Puzzle" Significance: Training before the violations Date: September 2025 Training: PRA Legal Update Significance: Training after the violations This rebuts any "good faith" defense. Harman was not an untrained official acting in good faith. She was a trained Clerk who knew—or should have known—the law. The AGO records reveal that this is not a case of "he said, she said" or "coincidence." This is a document trail that proves a coordinated scheme involving: 1. A Prosecutor who violated state law by representing a Judge (RCW 2.48.180^[1], RCW 36.27.060^[3]) 2. A Coroner who violated state law by practicing law (RCW 2.48.180^[1], RCW 36.24.170^[2]) 3. A Chief Operating Officer who made false statements to the State Auditor (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) 4. A Clerk who lied to the State Auditor and then resigned three days after the retroactive retainer email (State v. Gentry^[8]) 5. A private attorney who proposed backdating documents and then tried to suppress evidence 6. A Sheriff's Office that suppressed reports of crimes (RCW 36.28.011^[4]) 7. An Attorney General who tried to filter a citizen's emails 8. A state agency that mocked a First Amendment claim CHAPTER IX: The Contractor Analogy - Explained The scheme that Asotin County orchestrated is best understood through the Union contractor / Private Contractor analogy. Generally speaking, Union Contractors are allowed ONLY to work on Commercial Property. Private Contractors work on Private Property. Never between shall meet. The Leaky Roof: PDR 25-23, the public records request for the email between Burns, Liedkie, and Webber. The County knew the email would expose their scheme, so they withheld it under a bogus claim of privilege. (June 4, 2025). Even claiming privilege, however, was damning enough to say that the Prosecutor represented the Judge. (p. 14) The Broken Window: The mandamus action against Judge Burns. Liedkie and Webber represented Burns, despite being statutorily barred from private practice. They realized this exposure and hired Amanda Daylong. (July 8, 2025). No matter when the deputization of Daylong occurred, whether it be after the January 9, 2026 email to Chris Kemp (suggested by the email and claw-back demand), or it actually happened that the document was signed in July, 2025 as suggested, the Washington State Statute still bars deputies of the Prosecutor to represent anyone except for the county. (pp. 37-42) (p. 4) The Bird Through the Window: The mandamus action itself—the catalyst for the entire scheme. Judge Burns blocked me for asking a legal question regarding a different state, completely out of her jurisdiction, on a post in which she was personally thanking the Lewiston Clarkston Valley Chamber of Commerce. I asked her if what Mayor Dan Johnson did ever happened to come across her desk, if that looked like obstruction. The Insurance Company: WCRG, the County's insurer. They said: "We don't cover the leaky roof (PRA claims). We might cover the broken window (the mandamus action), but you have to pay for the water damage (PRA attorney fees) yourself." (pp. 44-55) The Fake Repair Order: The Special Deputy Appointment of Amanda Daylong. The County created a fictitious case caption ("Switzer v. Asotin County, et al.") to justify spending public money on a private lawyer. It's a serious question as to exactly when this document was created given Amanda Daylong's Communication and subsequent claw-back demand. (pp. 40-42) (pp. 5-6) The Union Subcontractor: Daylong, who was appointed as a "Special Deputy Prosecutor" to make her work appear to be a function of the prosecutor's office—allowing the County to pay her from the prosecutor's budget for the Judge's Defense, voted on by her father Brian Shinn, the Commissioner. This violates RCW 42.23.030^[6] (conflict of interest). (pp. 40-42) (pp. 10-13) The Lie to the Auditor: The County told the State Auditor that insurance covered everything, that Curtis Liedkie had never appeared, that no funds had been expended. This violates RCW 9A.76.175^[15]. (p. 69) (pp. 14-16) The Truth: Insurance covered the window pane, allegedly. No receipts for that have been produced. Not the frame. Not the leaky roof. Not the water damage. The County used public tax money to pay for something insurance refused to cover, isn't allowed by law, and then they lied about it to cover their tracks to the bean counters, who admittedly aren't judges of anything. CHAPTER X: The Network Section X.1: The Family Connections The players in this scheme are not strangers. They are connected by family, employment, and professional ties. Hannah Liedkie – Nez Perce County Commissioner, former Lewiston City Council President. She is the sister-in-law of Curtis Liedkie. Curtis Liedkie – Asotin County Prosecuting Attorney. He is Hannah Liedkie's brother-in-law. He appointed Amanda Daylong as a Special Deputy Prosecutor. Trae Turner – Former Attorney at Clark & Feeney. He used to work under Curtis Liedkie in the Asotin County Prosecutor's Office. He represented Justin Coleman, Heather Moore, Jason Marketti, and Travelland RV. Justin Coleman – Nez Perce County Prosecuting Attorney. His mother is a Turner, making him a relative of Trae Turner. Kali Jo Parker – Deputy Prosecutor in Coleman's office. She is Trae Turner's ex-wife. Their divorce was heard by Judge Brooke Burns. Amanda Daylong – Partner at Floyd, Pflueger, Kearns, Nedderman & Gress, P.S. She was appointed as a Special Deputy Prosecutor by Liedkie and represented Judge Burns before the Washington State Supreme Court. Lisa Webber – Asotin County Coroner. She is statutorily barred from the practice of law but acted as a "legal administrative assistant" to Liedkie. Brooke Burns – Asotin County Superior Court Judge. Her father is Commissioner Brian Shinn. She was represented by Liedkie and Daylong in a personal capacity lawsuit. Section X.2: The Pattern The network operates across state lines and between counties: Idaho side: Travelland RV, Hannah Liedkie, Justin Coleman, Trae Turner, April Smith, Patty Weeks, Dan Johnson Washington side: Curtis Liedkie, Lisa Webber, Amanda Daylong, Chris Kemp, Stacey Harman, Brooke Burns, Blake Richards, Trae Turner, Kevin Munstermann (owner of Travelland RV) The same pattern appears in both states: 1. A whistleblower reports corruption. 2. The network closes ranks. 3. Public records are withheld. 4. False statements are made to oversight agencies. 5. The whistleblower is retaliated against. CHAPTER XI: The Pattern of Official Inaction Agency: WSBA Action: Dismissed without investigation Evidence: ODC File No. 25-00667 Agency: SAO Action: Deferred to Fall 2026 Evidence: Exhibit L, Exhibit Q (p. 69) (pp. 14-16) Agency: CJTC Action: Administratively closed both complaints Evidence: Case Nos. 2026-0000406 & 2026-0000213 Agency: AGO Action: Sent form letter, filtered emails Evidence: PRR-2026-0558 (pp. 1-164) (pp. 1-7) Agency: Sheriff's Office Action: Suppressed reports, failed to investigate Evidence: Declaration, CJTC complaints (pp. 1-3) (pp. 1-4) This is not a series of isolated failures—it is a coordinated pattern of official inaction. The court is the only remaining forum for justice. CHAPTER XII: The Questions That Remain Questions for Curtis Liedkie 1. Why did you represent Judge Burns in a personal capacity lawsuit? (pp. 57-60) 2. Why did you appoint Amanda Daylong as a Special Deputy Prosecutor for a case that did not exist? (pp. 40-42) 3. Why did you cite Neal v. Wallace^[4], which does not apply to this situation? (p. 17) 4. Did you know that your sister-in-law, Hannah Liedkie, was involved in the underlying Idaho corruption? 5. Did you discuss this case with Hannah Liedkie or any other Nez Perce County official? 6. Did you discuss this case with your former employee Trae Turner? 7. Did you discuss this case with Justin Coleman? Questions for Lisa Webber 1. Why did you act as a "legal administrative assistant" to Prosecutor Liedkie in this matter? (pp. 41-42) 2. Did you know that RCW 36.24.170^[2] bars you from practicing law? 3. Did you know that RCW 2.48.180^[1] specifically prohibits coroners from practicing law? 4. Why did you handle the filing of the Special Deputy Appointment? (pp. 41-42) 5. Did you know that when you negotiated legal agreements on behalf of the county in inter-county agencies that you are specifically prohibited by law from acting as a paralegal or negotiator for said agreements? Questions for Chris Kemp 1. Why did you authorize the expenditure of public funds using Curtis Liedkie for Judge Burns' defense? (pp. 37-38) 2. Why did you make demonstrably false statements to the State Auditor? (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) (pp. 14-16) 3. Did you know that the County's insurance would not cover PRA claims? (pp. 44-55) 4. Why did you participate in the December 22, 2025 strategy meeting? (pp. 10-13) 5. Did you receive the January 9, 2026 email from Daylong requesting a "retroactive retainer"? (p. 4) Questions for Amanda Daylong 1. Why did you propose a "retroactive retainer agreement" to "clear" the County regarding expenditures of public funds? (p. 4) 2. Did you know that the Special Deputy Appointment was for a case that did not exist? (pp. 40-42) 3. Did you know that you were representing Judge Burns in a personal capacity lawsuit using public funds? (pp. 37-42) 4. Why did you threaten me with defamation on March 23, 2026? (RCW 9A.72.150^[16]) (pp. 71-72) 5. Why have you not responded to my demand for clarification or retraction? 6. Why did you demand that all parties delete the unredacted Exhibit P email on June 9, 2026, if it was not evidence of wrongdoing? (pp. 5-6) Questions for Stacey Harman 1. Why did you tell the State Auditor that "no funds have been expended" when the fee agreement was already in place? Was it not in place? (p. 69) 2. Why did you resign shortly after making that false statement, delivering your resignation letter to the commissioners moments before I appeared to speak publicly? 3. Did you know that the statement was false when you made it, or did the county throw you under the bus with their retroactive retainer agreement, which MAKES your statement to the auditor false? (p. 4) 4. Did you participate in the December 22, 2025 strategy meeting? (pp. 10-13) Questions for Judge Brooke Burns 1. Why did you block me on Facebook for asking you a very simple ethical question? (Lindke v. Freed^[2]) 2. Did you ask Curtis Liedkie to represent you, or did he offer it? (pp. 57-60) 3. Did you know that Liedkie was statutorily barred from private practice? 4. Did you know that public funds were being used for your defense? (pp. 37-38) 5. Did your father, Commissioner Brian Shinn, have any role in arranging your representation before January 9, 2026? (pp. 23-24) Questions for Blake Richards 1. Why did you disable comments on your Facebook page immediately after I reported potential criminal conduct? (Lindke v. Freed^[2]) (pp. 1-3) 2. Why did you block me from your second campaign account? (pp. 1-3) 3. Why did you block the LCV Blotter business page? (pp. 1-4) 4. Did you investigate the report I made? 5. Did you fulfill your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011^[4]? Questions for Attorney General Nick Brown 1. Why did you request to filter my emails instead of responding to my criminal referral? (p. 7) (p. 7) 2. Did you read the criminal referral before dismissing it? (pp. 1-18) 3. Do you believe that the AGO has authority to investigate official misconduct when the county prosecutor is disqualified? (RCW 43.10.040^[11]) 4. Will you refer this matter to a special prosecutor? CONCLUSION: The Paper Trail Is Complete The Asotin County scheme is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper trail. The Fee Agreement (Exhibit F) proves the County committed public funds to private counsel. (pp. 37-38) The Special Deputy Appointment (Exhibit G) proves the County manufactured a legal fiction to launder taxpayer money. (pp. 40-42) The WCRG Insurance Letters (Exhibit H) prove the County knew insurance wouldn't cover PRA claims. (pp. 44-55) The Notice of Withdrawal (Exhibit I) proves Liedkie appeared as counsel for Judge Burns. (pp. 57-60) The Retroactive Retainer Email (Exhibit P-Unredacted) proves Daylong, Kemp, and Harman knew the expenditure was legally questionable and sought to create a false paper trail. This document is the definitive proof that the Fee Agreement and Special Deputy Appointment presented to the State Auditor were falsified. It's also why Stacey Harman resigned, because it then made her statements to the auditor false statements. (p. 4) Daylong's June 9, 2026 claw-back demand—asking all parties to delete the unredacted email—is itself evidence of bad faith. If the email was truly privileged, she would not have sent it to non-attorneys Kemp and Harman. If it was truly inadvertent, she would not have waited until it was filed with the Court to object. The claw-back is a desperate attempt to bury evidence of a crime. (pp. 5-6) The False Statements to the SAO (Exhibits L and Q) prove the County lied to an oversight agency. (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) (p. 69) (pp. 14-16) The Non-Responsive PRA Production (Exhibit C to Motion to Compel) proves the County obstructed a lawful records request. (RCW 42.56.520^[9]) (pp. 21-28) The Facebook Blocks (Declaration of Corey Switzer) prove the County retaliated against a whistleblower. (Lindke v. Freed^[2]) (pp. 1-3) (pp. 1-4) The AGO Internal Emails (PRR-2026-0558) prove the Attorney General tried to filter a citizen's emails and mocked a First Amendment claim. (pp. 1-164) (pp. 1-7) Stacey Harman's Training Records (PRR-2026-0565) prove she was trained on the PRA—rebutting any "good faith" defense. (Sanders v. State^[5]) (pp. 11-12) The County used public tax money to pay for something insurance refused to cover, isn't allowed by law, and then they lied about it to cover their tracks. The cover-up is exposed. The receipts are public. The process continues. TIMELINE 2025 March 28 - Judge Burns blocks Switzer on Facebook (Lindke v. Freed^[2]) April 14 - Switzer files Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Burns (WA Supreme Court No. 104080-6) April 15 - Switzer submits PDR 25-23 (communications between Burns, Liedkie, Webber) June 4 - County denies PDR 25-23; one email withheld; deficient exemption log (RCW 42.56.210(3)^[8]; Sanders v. State^[5]) (p. 14) July 1 - Liedkie forwards Supreme Court filing to Kemp (Exhibit S) (p. 19) July 3 - WCRG issues Disclaimer and Reservation of Rights letters (Exhibit H) (pp. 44-55) July 8 - Liedkie withdraws as Burns counsel; Daylong substitutes (Exhibit I) (pp. 57-60) July 10 - Fee Agreement signed; $325/hour for "Switzer v. Asotin County" (Exhibit F) (pp. 37-38) July 21 - Special Deputy Appointment signed (Exhibit G) (pp. 40-42) July 23 - Oath of Office notarized by Daylong's paralegal (p. 40) August 12 - Richards disables comments after Switzer reports crimes (RCW 36.28.011^[4]) (pp. 1-3) December 16 - Switzer files SAO whistleblower complaint (Exhibit K) (pp. 65-67) December 16 - Kemp makes false statements to SAO (Exhibit Q) (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) (pp. 14-16) December 22 - Strategy meeting on "Asotin County SAO Complaint" (Exhibit P) (pp. 10-13) December 31 - Harman falsely claims "no funds expended" (Exhibit L) (RCW 9A.76.175^[15]) (p. 69) 2026 January 7 - Switzer submits PDR 26-01 (pp. 21-28) January 9 - Daylong requests "retroactive retainer" to "clear" the County (Exhibit P-Unredacted) (Dietz v. Doe^[1]) (p. 4) January 2026 - Richards creates second campaign account; blocks Switzer (pp. 1-3) January 12 - First public appearance before Asotin County Commissioners; Harman resigns (State v. Gentry^[8]) January 20 - Second public appearance January 26 - Third public appearance February 20 - County invoices $10.20 for unlawful scanning fee (Exhibit C) (RCW 42.56.120(2)^[8]) (pp. 21-28) March 7 - Switzer submits PDR 26-10 (pp. 29-30) March 13 - County gives 87-day unreasonable estimate (Exhibit D) (RCW 42.56.520^[9]) (pp. 29-30) March 14 - AGO's Melanie Tratnik writes "cahoots" email (PRR-2026-0558) (p. 1) (p. 1) March 16 - AGO sends form letter response (RCW 43.10.232^[12]) (pp. 5-6) (pp. 1-7) March 23 - Daylong threatens defamation (Exhibit M) (RCW 9A.72.150^[16]) (pp. 71-72) March 31 - SAO closes Hotline H-25-795 without action April 1 - Switzer files deficiency notice (Exhibit E) (pp. 32-35) April 2 - Hilderbrand disables comments after Switzer reports crimes (pp. 1-3) April 13 - Switzer files final demand letter (Exhibit J) (pp. 62-63) April 20 - Switzer files PRA complaint in Columbia County Superior Court April 21 - Daylong produces withheld insurance documents outside PRA process April 22 - Switzer files resolution proposal (Exhibit N) (pp. 75-88) April 22 - Switzer files final consolidated notice of deficiencies (Exhibit O) (pp. 98-116) April 27 - Attorney General Nick Brown requests to filter Switzer's emails (PRR-2026-0558) (RCW 42.56.550(4)^[10]) (p. 7) (p. 7) May 4 - SAO Hotline H-25-795 officially closed May 22 - Daylong accepts service of amended complaint May 28 - Switzer files Motion for Partial Summary Judgment May 29 - Switzer demands clarification or retraction of defamation threat June 4 - County produces 157 non-responsive files for PDR 26-10 (pp. 29-30) June 8 - Switzer files Request for Criminal Referral (RCW 42.20.010^[5]) (pp. 1-18) June 9 - Switzer files Consolidated Supplemental Request for Criminal Referral June 9 - Switzer files unredacted Exhibit P (retroactive retainer email) (p. 4) June 9 - Daylong sends claw-back demand attempting to suppress unredacted Exhibit P (pp. 5-6) June 11 - County files Answer; 20 affirmative defenses June 11 - Switzer files Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses June 11 - Switzer submits nine new PRA requests June 14 - Switzer files Motion to Compel Evidence of Retaliation (Richards' block) (pp. 1-4) June 14 - LCV Blotter publishes article on Richards' certification June 17 - Kemp responds to new PRA requests; 68-111+ day estimates June 17 - Switzer demands corrective action on new PDRs June 18 - Hearing set for August 3, 2026; Switzer objects to delay June 24 - Switzer files Motion to Compel on PDR Nos. 26-38 through 26-47 June 29 - CJTC confirms review of Richards' retaliatory conduct July 7 - CJTC closes Hilderbrand complaint (2026-0000213) July 8 - CJTC closes Richards complaint (2026-0000406) July 8 - Criminal Referral Amended filed with Court (pp. 1-18) July 8 - ADA harassment complaint filed against Lauren Allen-Caputo July 9 - Reconsideration requests filed with CJTC (both Hilderbrand and Richards) July 13 - Randy Hullinger acknowledges reconsideration requests; instructs Switzer to stop contacting Lauren Allen-Caputo July 15 - AGO produces training records (PRR-2026-0558, PRR-2026-0565) (pp. 1-164) (pp. 11-12) July 15 - Court Order Setting Hearing – August 31, 2026 at 1:00 PM July 17 - Switzer sends formal response email to AGO (pp. 1-7) July 17 - AGO acknowledges Box viewing and estimates next installment by August 11, 2026 July 18 - This article is published KEY EXHIBITS Exhibit A – PDR 25-23 Denial (June 4, 2025) (p. 14) Exhibit B – PDR 26-01 Deficient Exemption Log (pp. 18-19) Exhibit C – PDR 26-01 Unlawful Scanning Fee Invoice (pp. 21-28) Exhibit D – PDR 26-10 Unreasonable Estimate (pp. 29-30) Exhibit E – April 1, 2026 Deficiency Notice (pp. 32-35) Exhibit F – Fee Agreement (July 10, 2025) (pp. 37-38) Exhibit G – Special Deputy Appointment (July 21, 2025) (pp. 40-42) Exhibit H – WCRG Insurance Coverage Letters (July 3, 2025) (pp. 44-55) Exhibit I – Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution (July 8, 2025) (pp. 57-60) Exhibit J – April 13, 2026 Final Demand Letter (pp. 62-63) Exhibit K – December 16, 2025 Formal Complaint to Board (pp. 65-67) Exhibit L – December 31, 2025 False Statement to SAO (p. 69) Exhibit M – March 23, 2026 Defamation Threat Letter (pp. 71-72) Exhibit N – April 22, 2026 Resolution Proposal (pp. 75-88) Exhibit O – April 22, 2026 Final Consolidated Notice (pp. 98-116) Exhibit P – Strategy Meeting and Daylong Email (redacted) (pp. 10-13) Exhibit P-Unredacted – January 9, 2026 Retroactive Retainer Email (PROVES DOCUMENT FALSIFICATION) (p. 4) Exhibit Q – December 16, 2025 False Statements to SAO (pp. 14-16, 27-28) Exhibit R – Liedkie's Neal v. Wallace Memo^[4] (p. 17) Exhibit S – July 1, 2025 Liedkie Forwarding to Kemp (p. 19) Exhibit T – July 18, 2025 Kemp Email to Burns (p. 20) Exhibit U – July 29, 2025 Daylong Email to Burns (p. 21) Exhibit V – June 12, 2025 Liedkie Forwarding Courtesy Copies (p. 22) Exhibit W – July 11, 2025 Shinn Forwarding Allegations to Kemp (pp. 23-24) Exhibit X – January 8, 2026 Kemp Forwarding PDR 26-01 to Daylong (pp. 25-26) Exhibit Y – July 17, 2025 Kemp Forwarding WSBA Complaint (pp. 27-28) Exhibit Z – August 13, 2025 Shinn Forwarding WSBA Follow-Up (pp. 29-31) Exhibit AA – January 22, 2026 Seubert Forwarding ISB Grievance (pp. 32-33) Exhibit AB – June 29, 2026 CJTC Correspondence (p. 34) Exhibit AC – March 14, 2026 Tratnik Internal Email ("cahoots") – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (p. 1) (p. 1) Exhibit AD – April 27, 2026 Nick Brown "Filter" Email – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (p. 7) (p. 7) Exhibit AE – March 16, 2026 Tratnik Form Letter – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (pp. 5-6) (pp. 1-7) Exhibit AF – July 8, 2025 "Darkest Timeline" Email Chain – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (pp. 100-105) (pp. 1-7) Exhibit AG – July 8, 2025 Lisa Petersen Confirmation – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (pp. 102-104) (pp. 1-7) Exhibit AH – Harman Training Certificates – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (pp. 11-12) Exhibit AI – AGO Common Exemption Codes – NEWLY DISCOVERED AGO RECORD (pp. 117-130) DECLARATION OF COREY MICHAEL SWITZER I, Corey Michael Switzer, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the facts stated in this article are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that the exhibits referenced are true and correct copies of the original documents as produced by the Washington State Attorney General's Office and Asotin County in response to my public records requests. (pp. 1-3) I am the Plaintiff in Switzer v. Asotin County, No. 26-2-00027-07 (Columbia County Superior Court). I am visually impaired and appearing pro se. I have no income and have spent five years documenting a pattern of corruption that crosses state lines. All documents cited in this article are public records and are available upon request. DATED this 18th day of July, 2026, at Gibsonville, North Carolina. Corey Michael Switzer, Pro Se [REDACTED ADDRESS] coreyswitzer@gmail.com [REDACTED PHONE] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 18, 2026, I published this article on the LCV Blotter website (www.lcvblotter.com) and served a copy upon the following persons by email: Amanda D. Daylong – ADaylong@nwtrialattorneys.com Tammy Bolte – tbolte@nwtrialattorneys.com Chris Kemp – CKemp@asotincountywa.gov Public Disclosure – PDisclosure@asotincountywa.gov Nick Brown – Nick.Brown@atg.wa.gov Melanie Tratnik – melanie.tratnik@atg.wa.gov Jessica Krueger – Jessica.Krueger@atg.wa.gov Randy Hullinger – randy.hullinger@cjtc.wa.gov Kriston Chapman – kriston_chapman@co.columbia.wa.us Kimberly Braden – Kimb@co.adams.wa.gov Adrianne Krull – AKrull@asotincountywa.gov /s/ Corey Michael Switzer LCV Blotter is an independent watchdog publication. It is not supported by advertising. It is supported by readers who believe that a free press must be free of corporate influence. If you value investigative journalism, consider becoming a contributor. CITATIONS ^[1] Dietz v. Doe, 131 Wn.2d 835, 843 (1997) – crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege ^[2] Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024) – social media blocking by public officials as state action ^[3] RCW 36.27.060 – Full-time prosecuting attorney in counties over 18,000 shall not engage in private practice ^[4] RCW 36.28.011 – Duty of sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of criminal law ^[5] Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 845 (2010) – exemption log must explain how privilege applies ^[6] RCW 42.23.030 – Conflict of interest – public officers prohibited from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest ^[7] RCW 42.56.070 – Duty to segregate exempt portions and disclose remainder ^[8] State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 617 (1995) – subsequent acts as evidence of consciousness of guilt ^[9] RCW 42.56.520 – Prompt response and reasonable estimate of time ^[10] RCW 42.56.550 – Statutory penalties for bad-faith PRA violations; prohibition on retaliation ^[11] RCW 43.10.040 – Attorney General shall represent state when county prosecutor is disqualified ^[12] RCW 43.10.232 – AGO authority – exceptions for prosecutorial disqualification ^[13] Yousoufian v. Office of King County Exec., 168 Wn.2d 444, 467 (2010) – factors for enhanced PRA penalties ^[14] RCW 43.101.105 – CJTC authority – conduct that discredits the profession ^[15] RCW 9A.76.175 – False or misleading statement to a public servant ^[16] RCW 9A.72.150 – Witness intimidation – Class C felony ^[17] O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205 (2024) – applied Lindke to campaign pages ^[18] RCW 2.48.180 – Unauthorized practice of law – strict liability offense ^[19] RCW 36.24.170 – Coroner shall not appear or practice as attorney in any court ^[20] RCW 42.20.010 – Official misconduct – Class B felony ^[21] State v. DeFusco, 77 Wn.2d 455 (1970) – unauthorized practice of law is strict liability ^[22] RCW 42.56.120 – Lawful copying fees – scanning fee only for paper records ^[23] RCW 42.56.210 – Requirement for detailed exemption logs