She violated rules of professional conduct when she was a Kitsap County prosecutor; she stated publicly that she encountered incompetent judges in her law practice yet filed no grievances against these incompetent judges – a breach of her obligation to the integrity of the judicial system; and the lowest of all her unethical conduct was when she commented on her opponent by posting comments, under an alias, in the Kitsap Sun newspaper…. curiously…the Kitsap Sun newspaper was a supporter of Forbes. Hudathunkit? You can read more of what I said then in the Kitsap Sun.
When I learned the now Superior Court Judge Forbes was being asked to recuse herself from hearing a case that involved Natacha Sesko and a logging company, I wanted to attend the hearing to learn first-hand how Jennifer Forbes exercised her newly acquired judicial power.First of all, the reason Jennifer Forbes was being asked to recuse herself has to do with these facts. Natacha Sesko owns property that is within the recently designated Superfund site known as the Bremerton Gas Works site. Bremerton’s mayor, Patty Lent, may be involved as a responsible party in the pollution of that site and Natacha’s property too. Jennifer Forbes, according to Natacha, has a professional relatioship with Patty Lent and may have contributed in some way to Forbes campaign for Kitsap Superior Court. Now Natacha’s wooded property is being garnished (attached) by a logging company and Jennifer Forbes is presiding over the case. The Kitsap Superior court case docket is 13-2-00616-4.
Long story short…. Jennifer Forbes declined to recuse herself claiming no connections in the present case with those facts cited in Natacha’s declaration of prejudice that would impede her judgment.
About Natacha Sesko… she is an elderly widow born and raised in China now living in Bremerton. She speaks functional english but was granted an interpreter for the hearing in question. While Natacha struggles somewhat with english, she is fully competent in everyday matters. Nevertheless those that wish to make an issue of the language difficulties and her ability to navigate the arcane rules of court procedure could easily claim that Natacha is incompetent and needs a guardian ad litem. This is exactly the issue the attorney for the logging company raised. That issue was ultimately resolved against assigning a guardian ad litem. In deciding against a guardian ad litem Judge Forbes stated that Natacha’s courtroom character was on par with all the other unrepresented litigants. You can just read into Judge Forbes’ comment as saying that Natacha is no different then all the other pathetic, uneducated, pieces of crap who think they know the law and come into a courtroom without representation. Of course my immediate thought in reaction was that Judge Jennifer Forbes is no different than all the other egotistical, god-complex-lawyers who rate in the Gallop poll near the bottom of all professions in honesty and ethics.
In testimony before Judge Forbes, Natacha admitted to signing a contract with the logger and receiving upfront money (stump fees) for the right to log the property. Natacha said candidly that she intends to uphold her obligations but claimed her failure to uphold her end of the contract was due to a lawsuit filed against her that centered on an injunction in using an easement to the property to be logged. Natacha said the logging company knew of the “access” issue yet entered into the contract anyway. Natacha said there is nothing she can do until the court resolves the issue of “access” that would allow the logger to harvest the trees. With respect to the “access road” to Natacha’s property, the court granted an injunction prohibiting the logging company from using the easement because there is a claim such use would cause “irreparable harm” to the easement by the logging trucks. Mr. Kenn Lassiter, who holds a Juris Doctor degree and other advanced academic degrees, has reviewed the record and told me that the injunction is simply a way to extort Natacha out of her property. He says that the access road has been used before as logging access and the Superior Court’s “injunction” is an injustice and is without merit. Furthermore, according to Ken, the contract Natacha signed with the logging company carries terms that would “repair” damage, if any, to the access road. However that hasn’t stopped the logging company for suing and filing a writ of attachment on Natacha’s property and seeking to have the property auctioned off by the Sheriff so as to satisfy their claim.
This “injunction” preventing the use of an easement has put Natacha’s contract with the logging company at risk. If Natacha can’t get the court to issue an order to allow the logging company to enter the property and log it, everyone will likely be filing claims in court for decades — it is a decision by the courts that leave only “attorneys” the winner!
Let me summarize…. Natacha’s property is accessible via an easement. There is a court injunction in using this easement by the logging company due to potential damage. The logging company knew of this when they entered into the contract with Natacha and the contract provides for repair of any road damage. Nevertheless the access to the property is tied up in court with an injunction issued against access. The logging company sued Natacha and filed a writ of attachment on Natacha’s property, which the court granted. Now Natacha’s property is in danger of being auctioned by the sheriff and the logging company may be the only bidder. If so the logging company will reap a windfall; Natacha will lose every thing… all because of a failure to provide access to a piece of property, which by law must be resolved to allow access.
Let me say this in still simpler language…. the Court has failed to resolve the “access” issue that would have eliminated the need for a lawsuit by the logger. In failing to resolve the access issue the logger sued Natacha and the court granted the logger his damages, including attorney fees, and issued a writ of attachment against Natacha’s property. All because the courts are preventing access to the property for fear of damage to the road which the logger has agreed to repair. Is any of this making sense????
Now Natacha’s property is going to auction and the logger may be able to purchase this property at the sheriff’s sale at a fraction of its true value.
Unless this case is appealed and better minds are engaged in looking rationally at all the facts in a “big picture” sense; or Judge Jennifer Forbes recognizes that the COURTS are the cause of all this controversy, Natacha’s meager life savings that are tied to this property will be sold at a sheriff’s sale to pay the logger for his loss in not being able to gain access to the property because the courts are preventing the loggers access.
Doesn’t this case just reek of moral and ethical decay of the judicial branch. How can Jennifer Forbes NOT recognize that it is the COURTS that instigate the problems we face as citizens. Isn’t it clear that Jennifer Forbes has NO concept of equity, justice, common sense. And what about the logging company? They should have asked to be added as an indispensable party when the owner of the easement sued for an injunction. An “injunction” to use an easement prevents Natacha Sesko’s actual use of her property. More significantly, Jennifer Forbes should sanction the logger for not naming the entity who has refused to grant access as a co-defendant along with Natacha. Afterall, this entire matter is a consequence of “access”, which by right, should be resolved in Natacha’s favor.
Why, Why, Why has access to property and the right to use that property been denied. Why must Judge Forbes destroy an elderly widowed Chinese woman’s life when the logging company agreed to repair damage to the road? Natacha tried to explain the delemma of being squeezed by court orders that leave her in an impossible position. However Judge Jennifer Forbes ruled that Natacha’s explanation wasn’t presented in accordance with “court rules” and Forbes disregarded Natacha’s argument. Apparently Judge Forbes isn’t familiar with the WA Court of Appeals in their holding stating,
When a court rule and a statutory provision conflict with regard to a substantive right, the statute prevails. 93 Wn. App. 382, STATE v. WALKER
Clearly Natacha’s property- her land, her right of access, her right to enjoy her land – are all substantive rights and enshrined in both the US and WA Constitution. For Judge Jennifer Forbes to pull a “court rule” as reason to ignore Natacha’s right to be heard, with respect to her property and what is preventing the logger access, is beyond the pale.
The simply reason Natacha Sesko is being screwed by Kitsap Courts is because she is an elderly widowed woman who doesn’t speak english as well as she speaks Chinese, has almost no disposable income; and in that regard is an easy target!!
Is THIS our Society? Clearly this represents who Judge Jennifer Forbes truly is — she is ill-suited for the position of Judge. And this vindicates my view that Jennifer Forbes has NO concept of fairness or the ethical conduct required of attorneys. There is NO QUESTION that the logging company is entitled to their investment. But it is also without question that Natacha Sesko is being held hostage by the courts in preventing the very access to the property the loggers want to log. THIS IS A DELIBERATE SCAM ORCHESTRATED BY THE COURTS TO TAKE PROPERTY UNDER THE GUISE OF JUSTICE. ……………….. IT IS PURE BULL!!!!!!
Please revisit this story as new developments arise.