Scheidler says NO! Lawyers cannot lie, have no immunity for criminal conduct

UPDATE: Lawyer Kirsten Schimpff, for defendant lawyer Felice Congalton, has filed her 16-WSBA Reply in support of mtn to strike 3.20.14 to Scheidler’s Answer …

Schimpff says Scheidler chose to file his case in a WA court and therefore relinquishes his rights to the jurisdiction of the court. And that includes having the case heard by a judge who is disqualified under law.

Schimpff also claims that it is preposterous to suggest the “legal establishment” is corrupt…. and Scheidler’s claims are without merit.

Don't Ever Stop Fighting

Today, March 19, 2014, Scheidler filed his answer to defendants‘ — who are all lawyers — claims of “immunity”. Scheidler says lawyers MUST be held to the law! Scheidler says lawyers who serve as judges, must be held to the law. Scheidler says lawyers who serve in government office must be held to the law. And, Scheidler says a lawyer cannot sit as judge on a case against a lawyer due to conflict of interest.

Lawyers Kirsten Schimpff, WSBA #31299, Mary Tennyson, WSBA #11197, and Dionne Padilla-Huddleston, WSBA #38356 who represent lawyers Felice Congalton, WSBA #6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA #16546, claim that their clients, Congalton and Callner, are immune from all civil or criminal actions, that Scheidler has no right to sue these lawyers, that the Superior Court is without jurisdiction to hear Scheidler’s complaint against these lawyers, and that the law, RCW 7.56, doesn’t mean what the words say …. Scheidler says NO to each and every absurd and utterly and blatantly false claim!

From Scheidler’s Answer, he rebuts each and every lie these “lawyers” tell.

Ms Schimpff’s factual and legal version of Scheidler’s case is another gross distortion of the truth.In truth, when Scheidler has ‘official’ dealings with a lawyer either in the lawyers “judicial capacity,” or as an “officer of the court,” or with lawyers who serve in any other public office responsible for “individual protections,” these lawyers must deal with Scheidler lawfully, truthfully, ethically and specifically for Scheidler’s protection. When these lawyers fail to abide by their lawful, ethical and public duties and Scheidler is harmed specifically, he has a due process right to a fair and speedy remedy.

When a cadre of lawyers, i.e., named and non-named defendants, in their various official roles violate the law, cause Scheidler harm and then obstruct Scheidler’s due process right to a speedy remedy under ranging claims of civil and criminal immunities there can be no rational reason other than an abuse of power for the benefit of the legal establishment.

It is a fact Scheidler has a right of action, including an action filed under RCW 7.56, against all those who cause and are complicit in each and every harm suffered and crime committed. See RCW 9A.08, Principles of Liability. This includes an action against the ‘office, franchise or corporation’ – i.e., the WA State Bar and the Commission on Judicial Conduct – who intentionally neglect their duty to hold lawyers/judges to their ethical and legal obligations to “protect Scheidler’s rights”.

Court Presently Lacks Authority/JurisdictionThis Court does not have authority/jurisdiction to hear defendants’ motion to strike due to the following:

1. A WA State lawyer cannot sit as judge on this case due to being disqualified under law, RCW 2.28.030(1); RCW 4.12.050 (see affidavit of prejudice Dkt 2, page 1, and Dkt 42, page 2 incorporated by reference); and disqualified under CJC 2.11(A) because all lawyers are directly interested in their duties mandated by law that are the subject of Scheidler’s case.

a) All defendants, witnesses, judges are lawyers and all are members of the WSBA and all subscribe to the same oath of office – which is to obey the constitutions of the US and state of Washington. A lawyer cannot sit as judge when they are of the same “class” as defendants; bound by the same oath being violated by defendants; and susceptible to the same cause of action – RCW 7.56 – as defendants.
b) Defendants’ arguments to ‘strike’ are based in Court Rules of the Superior Courts. A Superior court judge is disqualified under RCW 2.28.030(1) in hearing this matter as all Superior Court judges have a direct interest and inherent prejudice in how Superior Court Rules are applied with respect to the subject matter of this case in which they are directly interested.
c) All WA State Judges are at professional and personal risk from defendant J. Reiko Callner, Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct. Callner claims absolute immunity from ‘civil or criminal’ conduct. Ms. Callner has the absolute power to criminally set-up any judge without consequence and that judge would have no legal recourse.

2. A judge’s sole authority in dealing with Scheidler is derived from law, not a court rule. See RCW 2.08.080; RCW 2.28..050-060 (Judge distinguished from court and Judicial powers respectively); RCW 2.28.080, (Powers of Superior court judges). Court rules extend only to the ‘government of the superior courts’, NOT the government of the people of this state. See Article 1, Sec 1; Article 4, Sec 24; RCW 2.08.230

3. A judge may only issue a “lawful order.” See RCW 2.28.060(2). Judge Forbes’ orders, which are the only foundation of defendants’ motion, are VOID as they are unlawful. This is a matter for a ‘trial’ not a basis for another improper order. See RCW 4.36.070; See also RCW 4.72..020-030. See amended complaint Section III et seq.

4. A jury is not yet convened as demanded to decided issues of fact (See RCW 4.44.090). Therefore there is no due process at this point in the proceeding;

5. For argument sake, without waiving any substantive right or matters of jurisdiction, the “Complaint” was properly amended per court rules:

a) CR 10(a)(2). It names additional defendants that were originally noted as Jane Does. And notes additional factual matters of judicial and attorney misconduct occurring during the course of this case – including violations of law and civil rights – which are clearly violations of CR 11, RCW 2.48.210 and RPC 8.4.
b) Court Rule 15(a). This rule allows for an amended complaint as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Defendants’ never entered a “responsive pleading” as required by RCW 7.56.050 and therefore an amended complaint can be filed as a matter of course.

6. Defendants’ claim the Supreme Court, not Superior Court, has ‘exclusive responsibility for lawyer discipline’ … This statement by defendants’, regardless of its merit or implication in a ‘third party claim’, is completely irrelevant and constitutes yet another unlawful deceptive tactic. Scheidler’s case is against lawyers Felice Congalton and J. Reiko Callner concerning their unlawful conduct to conceal from the Supreme Court, by dismissing sua sponte, Scheidler’s grievances noting the perjury, false reporting, subornation of perjury, violations of privacy … committed by lawyers and lawyers serving as judicial officers as described in the Complaint (Dkt 2) and exhibits referenced therein and attached thereto. There is NO immunity from the unlawful conduct noted by an “information”, amended or otherwise, filed per RCW 7.56.010. See Art. 2, Sec 28(12, 17)

7. Defendants’ claimed remedies available to Scheidler as justification to strike the Amended Complaint are not “due process” remedies for the following reasons:

a) An “appeal” to the Court of Appeals is not a remedy as a “jury” is not available at the appellate level to apply law to fact. , Due process will be denied in such circumstance.

b) The appellate justices, particularly Joel Penoyar, Jill Johanson, of the COA are witnesses and “disqualified” under the same laws and circumstances that disqualify lawyers sitting as judge at the trial level. The Justices of the Supreme Court, as noted by lawyer Kristen Schimpff, Dkt 45, page 2, ln 19, are potential witnesses or ‘third parties’ and are therefore disqualified to make any ruling about this case.

c) Substantive Due Process Violation – When Harm Occurs. A plaintiff claiming a violation of substantive due process may commence suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first waiting for the State to deny an adequate post deprivation remedy; substantive due process is violated, and the applicable limitation period begins to run, the moment harm occurs.

d) The premise underlying defendants motion, a claim of authority provided by a court rule, would eviscerate Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec. 10, Sec 12, Sec 21, Sec 29; Article 4, Sec 28… and would require an “unlawful” act by a judge (already disqualified under law) who takes an oath to uphold WA constitution and not eviscerate it.

Defendants’ want the court to issue an unlawful order to close a case, direct the clerk not to file or accept pleadings unless by leave of the court. This is contrary to Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec 10, and in conflict with the duties imposed upon the Clerk by RCW 2.32.050(4) “To file all papers delivered to him or her for that purpose in any action or proceeding in the court as directed by court rule or statute.”

ConclusionA fair and impartial court has not been convened; there can be no due process at this point in the proceedings. Defendants’, by their unlawful conduct, WAIVE any defense that would exempt them or prolong the case due to their unlawful tactical choices. (Akin to the ‘invited error doctrine’ which bars a party from benefiting by their misconduct.)

Defendants’ motion must be denied and sanctions imposed upon defendants for ‘seeking to delay and mislead a judge by any of their false statements of fact and law.’

Any order by a WA state judge, under the present circumstances would be void to the same extent as the orders by Judge Forbes similarly complicit in defendants’ crimes as Judge Forbes.


  1. Ted Bundy was a WSBA member. How many more women would be dead now if he had been able to leverage his friendship with Gov. Evans into gaining a position where he had so-called “immunity”.

    Laws are intended to apply to everyone. To claim otherwise is not only patently absurd but outright contemptuous of the general public.


  2. Are folks who, as it is being argued, possess “immunity” entitled to commit murder and/or other crimes generally considered to be heinous in the course of executing their offices. Where is the line? Which crimes are ok to commit under cover of such offices. Note that if there is a “line” then there is no “immunity” per se.



      Members and employees of the commission, including any lawyers or special masters temporarily employed by the commission, are absolutely privileged from suit in any action, civil or criminal, based upon any disciplinary proceedings or upon other official acts as members or employees of the commission. Statements made to the commission or its investigators or other employees are absolutely privileged in actions for defamation. This absolute privilege does not apply to statements made in any other forum.

      However the WA State Constitution, Article 2, Sec 29(12 and 17) states the opposite…

      SECTION 28 SPECIAL LEGISLATION. The legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases:
      1. For changing the names of persons, or constituting one person the heir at law of another.
      2. For laying out, opening or altering highways, except in cases of state roads extending into more than one county, and military roads to aid in the construction of which lands shall have been or may be granted by congress.
      3. For authorizing persons to keep ferries wholly within this state.
      4. For authorizing the sale or mortgage of real or personal property of minors, or others under disability.
      5. For assessment or collection of taxes, or for extending the time for collection thereof.
      6. For granting corporate powers or privileges.
      7. For authorizing the apportionment of any part of the school fund.
      8. For incorporating any town or village or to amend the charter thereof.
      9. From giving effect to invalid deeds, wills or other instruments.
      10. Releasing or extinguishing in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability or other obligation, of any person, or corporation to this state, or to any municipal corporation therein.
      11. Declaring any person of age or authorizing any minor to sell, lease, or encumber his or her property.
      12. Legalizing, except as against the state, the unauthorized or invalid act of any officer.
      13. Regulating the rates of interest on money.
      14. Remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures.
      15. Providing for the management of common schools.
      16. Authorizing the adoption of children.
      17. For limitation of civil or criminal actions.
      18. Changing county lines, locating or changing county seats, provided, this shall not be construed to apply to the creation of new counties.


  3. I see, so the Commission could convene, vote to execute by lethal injection an individual who had filed a complaint and it would be perfectly legal and nobody would have any right to complain This cannot be allowed to stand. It violates every set of human rights conventions ever acceded to and/or codified by the United States and Washington State.


    1. It won’t stand… it is unconstitutional on its face and of no force. What is curious is that it pertains to the “justice” system. So to whom do you go to ‘strike’ an unconstitutional law?

      Art 4 Sec 31 Establishes the commission… it says NOTHING about absolute immunity. Rather states clearly to “comply with laws”…

      This case is bringing to light, as best I can, the utter disrespect and contempt public servants have for the people they work for.

      It is perverse to learn that our “justice system” can operate contrary to law. There must be a quid pro quo agreement somewhere in the legislature granting immunity to a 3rd Br agency!


      1. I keep getting this nagging feeling that the reference I made to Ted Bundy MAY NOT BE PARTICULARLY HYPOTHETICAL in this question. For example, if there is an individual with some “influence” on the Committee who has indeed committed some rather heinous crime under color of some state office, then I would find it logical that such a sociopath would argue so forcefully in favor them having “immunity” that they would have absolutely no qualms about introducing such an obviously self-contradictory concept into the very heart of the legal system that it collapses like a house of cards – and making accessories in fact out of all the other defendants who support this individual’s argumentation.


      2. Wow… imagine the liability the state would have when these judges and lawyers are implicated in the way you describe… Every “convict” who is now behind bars will ask for a new trial.

        Clearly the anger with lawyers and judges that people across this country are expressing bodes ill for our “justice system”. Grassroots groups from the “peaceful” as in trying to re-establish ‘common law grand juries’ to the more militia are gaining broader support… ONLY because of these ill-conceived notions of “immunity”.

        Thanks Hugh for your contribution to this site… you have always presented a well reasoned argument and that has helped me in what I do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s