This correspondence is a formal demand for a public statement regarding your refusal to fulfill your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011 to make complaint of criminal violations that have come to your knowledge within your jurisdiction.
As you are aware, on August 12, 2025, I reported to you through your official Facebook page what the Washington Supreme Court and this Court have now confirmed: that Asotin County Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie and Asotin County Coroner Lisa Webber engaged in the unauthorized legal representation of Superior Court Judge Brooke Burns in Switzer v. Hon. Brooke Burns, Washington Supreme Court No. 104080-6. At the time I posted that comment on your official campaign page, you did not respond. Instead, you immediately disabled comments. You did not investigate. You did not refer the matter. You did not make complaint of the criminal violations that you now, indisputably, know.
Since that time, the following facts have been established beyond any reasonable dispute:
1. Your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011 is mandatory. In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it is the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law which shall come to their knowledge within their respective jurisdictions. RCW 36.28.011. This duty is not discretionary. It does not require a conviction. It does not require a preliminary investigation. It requires only that a violation of criminal law comes to your knowledge. That happened on August 12, 2025. You have not acted.
2. Curtis Liedkie engaged in the unauthorized private practice of law. Asotin County has a population of approximately 23,000, which exceeds 18,000. Under RCW 36.27.060(1), the prosecuting attorney, and deputy prosecuting attorneys, of each county with a population of eighteen thousand or more shall serve full time and except as otherwise provided for in this section shall not engage in the private practice of law. Liedkie appeared as counsel for Judge Brooke Burns in a personal capacity mandamus action. Asotin County was not a party. That is private practice. That is a violation of RCW 36.27.060.
3. Lisa Webber engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Under RCW 36.24.170, the coroner shall not appear or practice as attorney in any court, except in defense of himself or herself or his or her deputies. Webber acted as a “legal administrative assistant” to Prosecutor Liedkie in the same matter. Her conduct further violates RCW 2.48.200, which provides that no person shall practice law who holds a commission as coroner. RCW 2.48.200; RCW 36.24.170.
4. Liedkie and Webber also violated the official misconduct statute. Under RCW 42.20.010, a public officer who knowingly does an act in excess of his or her lawful authority commits a Class B felony. Liedkie signed a sham special deputy appointment for a nonexistent case caption, an act in excess of his lawful authority. Webber, as coroner, participated in the representation of a judge, an act in excess of her lawful authority.
5. You have known of these violations since August 12, 2025. You cannot credibly claim otherwise. I posted the identical report on your official Facebook page. You disabled comments immediately after. That is not the act of an official who did not see the report. That is the act of an official who saw the report and suppressed it.
6. Your failure to act has facilitated a pattern of obstruction. Since your refusal to act, the County has:
· Issued a deficient exemption log in violation of Sanders v. State;
· Charged an unlawful scanning fee for electronic records;
· Provided an 87‑day unreasonable estimate for PDR 26‑10;
· Produced 157 non‑responsive files in response to that request;
· Executed a sham special deputy appointment for a nonexistent case caption;
· Proposed a “retroactive retainer agreement” to conceal the expenditure of public funds;
· Made false statements to the State Auditor’s Office regarding the expenditure of public funds.
Your inaction was the first link in this chain of obstruction.
---
DEMAND FOR PUBLIC STATEMENT
By June 20, 2026, please issue a public statement (by email to this distribution list) answering the following questions under penalty of perjury:
1. Do you acknowledge that RCW 36.28.011 imposes a mandatory duty on you, as Undersheriff, to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law that come to your knowledge?
2. Do you acknowledge that the above‑described conduct by Prosecutor Liedkie (private practice in violation of RCW 36.27.060) and Coroner Webber (unauthorized practice of law in violation of RCW 36.24.170 and RCW 2.48.200) constitutes a violation of Washington criminal law?
3. If not, on what legal basis do you conclude that the conduct described does not constitute a criminal violation?
4. Do you acknowledge that the report of these violations came to your knowledge on August 12, 2025, when it was posted to your official Facebook page?
5. What action, if any, have you taken since August 12, 2025, to fulfill your duty under RCW 36.28.011 with respect to these violations?
6. Have you made complaint to the Asotin County Prosecutor’s Office? If so, on what date? If not, why not, given that the prosecutor himself is a target of the complaint?
7. Have you referred this matter to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office or any other prosecuting authority for independent investigation? If so, on what date and to which office? If not, why not?
8. Do you maintain that your decision to immediately disable comments on your official Facebook page after I posted the report was unrelated to the content of the report? If so, please explain the reason.
9. Under Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), 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. Do you acknowledge that your conduct in disabling comments constituted viewpoint‑based retaliation? If not, please explain.
10. Do you intend to take any action now to fulfill your duty under RCW 36.28.011? If so, describe the specific action you will take and the timeline for doing so.
---
Legal Authority
· RCW 36.28.011 – Duty to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law that come to the sheriff’s knowledge.
· RCW 36.27.060(1) – Full‑time prosecuting attorney shall not engage in private practice.
· RCW 36.24.170 – Coroner shall not appear or practice as attorney in any court.
· RCW 2.48.200 – No person shall practice law who holds a commission as coroner.
· RCW 42.20.010 – Official misconduct.
· RCW 9A.80.010 – Official misconduct (alternative provision).
· RCW 9A.76.175 – Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant (relevant to the County’s false statements to the SAO).
· Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024) – Social media blocking or comment suppression based on viewpoint violates the First Amendment.
---
Failure to Respond
Failure to provide a complete, sworn response by June 20, 2026 will be treated as an admission that you have knowingly failed to fulfill your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011. I will present this failure to the Court in Switzer v. Asotin County, No. 26‑2‑00027‑07, as further evidence of the County’s coordinated obstruction, and will supplement the pending criminal referral to the Attorney General to include you as a target for official misconduct under RCW 9A.80.010 and RCW 42.20.010.
The public record is complete. Your refusal to act is now part of it.
To: Blake Richards
Undersheriff Richards,
This correspondence is a formal demand for a public statement regarding your refusal to fulfill your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011 to make complaint of criminal violations that have come to your knowledge within your jurisdiction.
As you are aware, on August 12, 2025, I reported to you through your official Facebook page what the Washington Supreme Court and this Court have now confirmed: that Asotin County Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie and Asotin County Coroner Lisa Webber engaged in the unauthorized legal representation of Superior Court Judge Brooke Burns in Switzer v. Hon. Brooke Burns, Washington Supreme Court No. 104080-6. At the time I posted that comment on your official campaign page, you did not respond. Instead, you immediately disabled comments. You did not investigate. You did not refer the matter. You did not make complaint of the criminal violations that you now, indisputably, know.
Since that time, the following facts have been established beyond any reasonable dispute:
1. Your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011 is mandatory. In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it is the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law which shall come to their knowledge within their respective jurisdictions. RCW 36.28.011. This duty is not discretionary. It does not require a conviction. It does not require a preliminary investigation. It requires only that a violation of criminal law comes to your knowledge. That happened on August 12, 2025. You have not acted.
2. Curtis Liedkie engaged in the unauthorized private practice of law. Asotin County has a population of approximately 23,000, which exceeds 18,000. Under RCW 36.27.060(1), the prosecuting attorney, and deputy prosecuting attorneys, of each county with a population of eighteen thousand or more shall serve full time and except as otherwise provided for in this section shall not engage in the private practice of law. Liedkie appeared as counsel for Judge Brooke Burns in a personal capacity mandamus action. Asotin County was not a party. That is private practice. That is a violation of RCW 36.27.060.
3. Lisa Webber engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Under RCW 36.24.170, the coroner shall not appear or practice as attorney in any court, except in defense of himself or herself or his or her deputies. Webber acted as a “legal administrative assistant” to Prosecutor Liedkie in the same matter. Her conduct further violates RCW 2.48.200, which provides that no person shall practice law who holds a commission as coroner. RCW 2.48.200; RCW 36.24.170.
4. Liedkie and Webber also violated the official misconduct statute. Under RCW 42.20.010, a public officer who knowingly does an act in excess of his or her lawful authority commits a Class B felony. Liedkie signed a sham special deputy appointment for a nonexistent case caption, an act in excess of his lawful authority. Webber, as coroner, participated in the representation of a judge, an act in excess of her lawful authority.
5. You have known of these violations since August 12, 2025. You cannot credibly claim otherwise. I posted the identical report on your official Facebook page. You disabled comments immediately after. That is not the act of an official who did not see the report. That is the act of an official who saw the report and suppressed it.
6. Your failure to act has facilitated a pattern of obstruction. Since your refusal to act, the County has:
· Issued a deficient exemption log in violation of Sanders v. State;
· Charged an unlawful scanning fee for electronic records;
· Provided an 87‑day unreasonable estimate for PDR 26‑10;
· Produced 157 non‑responsive files in response to that request;
· Executed a sham special deputy appointment for a nonexistent case caption;
· Proposed a “retroactive retainer agreement” to conceal the expenditure of public funds;
· Made false statements to the State Auditor’s Office regarding the expenditure of public funds.
Your inaction was the first link in this chain of obstruction.
---
DEMAND FOR PUBLIC STATEMENT
By June 20, 2026, please issue a public statement (by email to this distribution list) answering the following questions under penalty of perjury:
1. Do you acknowledge that RCW 36.28.011 imposes a mandatory duty on you, as Undersheriff, to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law that come to your knowledge?
2. Do you acknowledge that the above‑described conduct by Prosecutor Liedkie (private practice in violation of RCW 36.27.060) and Coroner Webber (unauthorized practice of law in violation of RCW 36.24.170 and RCW 2.48.200) constitutes a violation of Washington criminal law?
3. If not, on what legal basis do you conclude that the conduct described does not constitute a criminal violation?
4. Do you acknowledge that the report of these violations came to your knowledge on August 12, 2025, when it was posted to your official Facebook page?
5. What action, if any, have you taken since August 12, 2025, to fulfill your duty under RCW 36.28.011 with respect to these violations?
6. Have you made complaint to the Asotin County Prosecutor’s Office? If so, on what date? If not, why not, given that the prosecutor himself is a target of the complaint?
7. Have you referred this matter to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office or any other prosecuting authority for independent investigation? If so, on what date and to which office? If not, why not?
8. Do you maintain that your decision to immediately disable comments on your official Facebook page after I posted the report was unrelated to the content of the report? If so, please explain the reason.
9. Under Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), 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. Do you acknowledge that your conduct in disabling comments constituted viewpoint‑based retaliation? If not, please explain.
10. Do you intend to take any action now to fulfill your duty under RCW 36.28.011? If so, describe the specific action you will take and the timeline for doing so.
---
Legal Authority
· RCW 36.28.011 – Duty to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law that come to the sheriff’s knowledge.
· RCW 36.27.060(1) – Full‑time prosecuting attorney shall not engage in private practice.
· RCW 36.24.170 – Coroner shall not appear or practice as attorney in any court.
· RCW 2.48.200 – No person shall practice law who holds a commission as coroner.
· RCW 42.20.010 – Official misconduct.
· RCW 9A.80.010 – Official misconduct (alternative provision).
· RCW 9A.76.175 – Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant (relevant to the County’s false statements to the SAO).
· Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024) – Social media blocking or comment suppression based on viewpoint violates the First Amendment.
---
Failure to Respond
Failure to provide a complete, sworn response by June 20, 2026 will be treated as an admission that you have knowingly failed to fulfill your statutory duty under RCW 36.28.011. I will present this failure to the Court in Switzer v. Asotin County, No. 26‑2‑00027‑07, as further evidence of the County’s coordinated obstruction, and will supplement the pending criminal referral to the Attorney General to include you as a target for official misconduct under RCW 9A.80.010 and RCW 42.20.010.
The public record is complete. Your refusal to act is now part of it.
Respectfully,
Corey Michael Switzer