The Troubleshooter and the System: How the Idaho State Bar Protected Its Own While Ignoring a Felony

- Prologue: A System Designed to Protect Itself For nearly five years I watched my reports of bribery tax evasion and embezzlement in Nez Perce County Idaho disappear into a bureaucratic black hole When local prosecutors refused to investigate and then retaliated against me for reporting I turned to the Idaho State Bar The Bar's response was to dismiss my complaints withhold evidence and when I filed grievances against its own officials threaten to delete them What I uncovered is not a system of justice It is a closed loop of self-protection where Bar officials shield their colleagues judges and prosecutors from accountability even when a felony embezzlement indictment proves the whistleblower was telling the truth This is the story of how the Idaho State Bar systematically protected a network of officials while ignoring documented evidence of misconduct ex parte communications conflicts of interest and a criminal guilty plea that validated every claim I made Part One: The Commissioner and the Closed Circle The October 2023 Email On October 19 2023 I emailed Patty Weeks the Nez Perce County Clerk of Court and an incoming member of the Idaho State Bar Board of Commissioners My complaint was specific and supported by law Lewiston City Council candidate Maureen Anderson had received in-kind donations exceeding the $1000 limit from members of Lewiston SMART an unregistered lobbying group violating Idaho Code § 67-6602(4) Anderson had blocked me on social media after I raised concerns about police bribery and corruption violating the First Amendment under Lindke v Freed a unanimous Supreme Court decision issued just months earlier Weeks responded the same day acknowledging my concerns Her authority she wrote was rather limited She promised to take a look at the allegations The Investigation That Wasn't On October 31 2023 twelve days later Weeks sent her conclusion She said she had reviewed the campaign finance activity and found no conflict She provided no evidence of an actual inquiry No subpoenas No interviews No review of bank records Weeks was not just any clerk She was a Bar Commissioner-elect a position that triggers a special procedure under the rules Grievances against commissioners must be submitted directly to the Idaho Supreme Court But Weeks chose to handle it herself And she chose to dismiss it The social media issue she deflected to a private attorney prosecuting attorney or attorney general She did not explain that blocking a constituent on a government page violates the First Amendment nor did she take any action to correct it The Formal Grievance On May 9 2025 I filed a formal grievance against Weeks ISB File No 25-208 I alleged failure to enforce campaign contribution limits First Amendment retaliation and a conflict of interest as an incoming Bar Commissioner working with the prosecutor's office I was complaining about The Bar's Dismissal On May 29 2025 Bar Counsel dismissed my grievance The disposition letter concluded there was no clear and convincing evidence of ethical violations Because Weeks was a Commissioner-elect the matter was automatically forwarded to the Idaho Supreme Court under IBCR 508(a) Bar Counsel Joseph Pirtle's June 20 2025 letter to the Court acknowledged the institutional conflict **The Supreme Court Steps In** On June 24 2025 the Court issued an Order Amending Title sealing the case and assigning it the pseudonym John Doe v Jane Doe Docket No 53006-2025 On July 7 2025 the Court appointed Senior Judge Juneal Kerrick to conduct a review hearing bypassing the standard Professional Conduct Board process The Kerrick Hearing On November 17 2025 I appeared pro se before Judge Kerrick I walked her through the evidence Weeks' initial email acknowledging my complaint Her twelve-day investigation which consisted of reviewing publicly available reports Her refusal to address the First Amendment violation despite the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Lindke v Freed And the conflict of interest inherent in a Bar Commissioner investigating herself Judge Kerrick's Decision on Review issued December 8 2025 upheld the dismissal She wrote that Weeks took timely action and that I had not met my burden She also noted that Weeks had no authority over the prosecutor's Facebook page a point I never made My claim was that Weeks as a Bar Commissioner had an ethical duty not to ignore a constitutional violation The decision ignored that Weeks never performed an independent investigation It accepted at face value Weeks' conclusion that no campaign finance violations existed without any evidence that Weeks had reviewed bank records interviewed donors or conducted any inquiry beyond glancing at publicly available reports Part Two: The Chair and the "Rush Through" Hearing Carole Wesenberg's Role Carole Wesenberg is a career law clerk for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a member of the Idaho State Bar's Professional Conduct Board She served as Chair of the Hearing Committee for ISB Case No 25-168a my grievance against Deputy Prosecutor April Smith The hearing took place on January 15 2026 The "Rush Through" Directive As I joined the Zoom call I heard a Bar Commissioner or Wesenberg herself instruct the committee to rush through this hearing I immediately filed a Motion for Mistrial and Demand for Immediate Stay of Proceedings the same day In my February 23 2026 Supplemental Submission I acknowledged that the rush through statement was not captured by any recording The original audio recording of the hearing done by the Idaho State Bar does not include any identifiable conversation prior to the case being called The Ex Parte Admission At 9 minutes and 55 seconds into the Zoom recording Wesenberg made a stunning admission She and Clerk Karen Carlisle had held a closed-door meeting with a Community Advocate prior to the hearing without my knowledge or presence My grievance states that Chair Wesenberg engaged in ex parte communication with Community Advocate Sherry Montoza on January 15 2026 at the 9:55 time stamp of the published YouTube video The Grievance Against Wesenberg On January 21 2026 I filed a formal grievance against Wesenberg I alleged participation in ex parte communication denial of my motions for mistrial stay and consolidation without addressing the rush through directive and signing a final dismissal order on February 6 2026 after a grievance against her had been filed referred to the Supreme Court and sealed by the Court The Conflict of Interest Wesenberg never acknowledged the grievance against her She never recused herself She continued to act as Chair and issued the dismissal A decision-maker cannot adjudicate a case against the person who has just accused her of misconduct especially while that accusation is pending before the highest court Judge Kerrick's Report On February 17 2026 the Supreme Court appointed Judge Kerrick to investigate the Wesenberg grievance I filed a Limited Objection to Appointment and Request for Reassignment on February 18 arguing that Judge Kerrick had already ruled against me in the Weeks matter and that the facts were intertwined The Court denied my objection on March 2 2026 Judge Kerrick's final Report and Recommendation was filed April 3 2026 She recommended dismissal and the Court accepted She concluded that Wesenberg's pre-hearing conversation was procedural rather than substantive and that the filing of a grievance alone does not mandate recusal The record is clear Wesenberg ruled on my case while the Court was actively seized of a grievance against her Part Three: The Clerk and the "Delete" Email Karen Carlisle's Role Karen Carlisle is the Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board Her job is purely administrative Accept filings Maintain records Facilitate the process She has no adjudicative authority The Arbitrary Gatekeeping On January 20 2026 I submitted a supplemental filing at 5:16 PM for the Turner case 25-187a The deadline was close of business Carlisle had previously said 5:00 PM but I submitted 16 minutes later Carlisle responded the next morning This email was received at 5:16 p.m. and will not be included in the record The Shifting Demands On January 21 2026 I tried to file multiple emergency motions Carlisle engaged in a series of shifting demands At 1:57 PM my motion was rejected as not the proper format At 2:10 PM she instructed me to submit in one single pdf document At 2:34 PM after compliance the motion was rejected because the cases were not consolidated At 3:26 to 3:50 PM after I split them into three she rejected them for containing additional attachments and duplicative pages The "Delete" Email At 8:05 PM Carlisle wrote that grievances are not filed with the Professional Conduct Board and that any additional grievances received from me would be promptly deleted from her email She was threatening to delete grievances the very lifeblood of the disciplinary process I filed a grievance against her on January 21 2026 But because Carlisle is not an attorney the Bar never opened a case Her conduct was never formally investigated Part Four: The Embezzlement Indictment and the Bar's Blind Eye The Smoking Gun For years I reported that Travelland RV was committing tax fraud and embezzlement Prosecutors including Justin Coleman called me delusional The Bar dismissed my complaints On February 3 2026 the Lewiston Tribune reported that Di Ann R Geagley had been indicted for embezzling $554000 from Travelland RV between 2021 and 2025 Court documents indicated that between 2021 and 2025 Geagley embezzled over $554000 from the business through unauthorized salary increases cutting extra paychecks taking cash and misusing company bank accounts I immediately served the article on the Bar and the Supreme Court on February 4 2026 The Bar's Response Wesenberg signed the dismissal order in the Smith case on February 6 2026 just 8 hours after my notification and her order never mentioned the indictment The Turner committee issued a dismissal on February 9 also silent The Coleman committee at least acknowledged the indictment but said a newspaper article about charges is not a verdict or conviction and dismissed it The Guilty Plea On March 24 2026 Geagley pleaded guilty to felony grand theft On June 11 2026 she was sentenced Nez Perce County Prosecutor Justin Coleman the very subject of my grievance told the Lewiston Tribune that $233522 in restitution was reached in a mediated agreement He did not mention that I had been reporting these crimes for years The indictment proved I was right The Bar treated it as irrelevant Part Five: The Patterns and the System The Institutional Blind Spot This is not a series of isolated incidents It is a pattern Fragmentation Treating connected events as isolated incidents Deference Granting extreme latitude to prosecutorial discretion Procedural barriers Setting burdens of proof that are virtually impossible for a pro se complainant to meet without institutional cooperation Self-protection Protecting insiders while dismissing legitimate grievances The Numbers In 2025 the Idaho State Bar received 522 attorney grievances a significant increase from 378 in 2024 The vast majority are dismissed without public sanction When a grievance is filed against a Bar Commissioner or a Hearing Committee Chair the system's protective mechanisms kick in automatically Grievances against commissioners go directly to the Supreme Court bypassing the very process that might hold them accountable Grievances against hearing chairs are investigated by the same judges who already ruled against the complainant And evidence that proves the whistleblower right like a felony embezzlement indictment is dismissed as irrelevant The "Data Dump" Dodge On January 5 2026 I submitted a Google Drive link containing the complete Bates-stamped evidentiary record for all my cases the same evidence already compiled by the Idaho State Bar Three hearing chairs Wesenberg Moss and Claiborne sent nearly identical letters rejecting it as a data dump They did not want to look at the evidence because the evidence was damning The Pattern of Cronyism The connections are not coincidental Patty Weeks is a Bar Commissioner and Nez Perce County Clerk working directly with the Prosecutor's Office Hannah Liedkie is a Nez Perce County Commissioner and Board member of the Idaho Community Foundation which sponsored the Bar's 100th Anniversary Gala where Chief Justice G Richard Bevan spoke Carole Wesenberg is a Ninth Circuit law clerk and Bar Hearing Committee Chair Karen Carlisle is the PCB Clerk who threatened to delete grievances This is a closed network of officials protecting each other Part Six: The Failure of Oversight The Patty Weeks Grievance What the Bar found: No clear and convincing evidence of ethical violations What the evidence shows: Weeks dismissed a legitimate complaint without investigation ignored a unanimous Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment rights and was herself an incoming Bar Commissioner with a direct conflict of interest What should have happened: At minimum an investigation into Weeks' failure to investigate campaign finance violations and her refusal to address the First Amendment retaliation The Wesenberg Grievance What the Bar found: No clear and convincing evidence of ethical violations What the evidence shows: Wesenberg admitted to ex parte communication with a Community Advocate ruled on my motions while a grievance against her was pending before the Supreme Court and signed a dismissal order after she herself was under investigation What should have happened: Recusal a new hearing before an impartial committee and an investigation into the ex parte communication The Carlisle Conduct What the Bar found: No grievance was opened because Carlisle is not an attorney What the evidence shows: Carlisle threatened to delete grievances arbitrarily excluded evidence and participated in ex parte communications What should have happened: A formal investigation into her conduct and removal from her position The Chief Justice's Conflict What the Bar found: No conflict exists What the evidence shows: Chief Justice Bevan oversaw the Bar gave congratulatory remarks at its 100th Anniversary Gala sponsored by the Idaho Community Foundation which appointed Hannah Liedkie to its Board Bevan also signed his own denial of my motion to disqualify him What should have happened: Recusal The Chief Justice's Retirement In a development that raises further questions Chief Justice G Richard Bevan announced his retirement from the Idaho Supreme Court in April 2026 effective October 2026 Bevan made this announcement while visiting Lewiston Idaho the epicenter of the corruption allegations I had been reporting for years The announcement came immediately after the Geagley guilty plea which had confirmed my reports of embezzlement at Travelland RV While Bevan cited his desire to spend more time with family and pursue other interests the proximity of his retirement to the validation of my allegations and his visit to Lewiston creates an undeniable appearance of a system seeking to distance itself from a scandal it had helped to bury ^[1] **Conclusion: A System in Need of Federal Oversight** The Idaho State Bar has demonstrated that it is structurally incapable of self-correction when misconduct leads to the prosecutor's door Patty Weeks dismissed a campaign finance and First Amendment complaint without investigation and was protected by the Supreme Court Carole Wesenberg participated in ex parte communication ruled on my case while a grievance against her was pending and was protected by the same judge who had already ruled against me Karen Carlisle threatened to delete grievances and arbitrarily excluded evidence and was never investigated because she is not an attorney The embezzlement indictment proved I was right and the Bar dismissed it as irrelevant Chief Justice Bevan presided over a Bar gala sponsored by an organization connected to the very officials I accused then signed his own denial of my motion to disqualify him A RICO complaint is being prepared and will be filed with the Federal authorities The Washington State Superior court confirmed it will review Asotin County's use of public funds for Judge Brooke Burns' legal defense. The hearing is August 3rd, 2026. The state system has failed The federal courts remain the option remaining. This report is based on a review of over 1500 pages of supplemental records including emails court orders hearing transcripts and sworn declarations All documents are on file with the LCV Blotter