Today, an email to Kim Wyman, Secretary of State, was informed by Bill Scheidler, Candidate for Representative, 26th District, Position 1, that Nathan Schlicher is ‘disqualified’ to seek a legislative position because he is a member of the Judicial Branch and is regulated by the Judicial Br. The content of the email to the SOS, Wyman, follows:
From: Bill Scheidler (email@example.com)
Sent: Thu 5/29/14 3:12 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com)
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com)
Dear Ms. Wyman,
I challenge the qualification of Nathan Schlicher, candidate for Representative, 26 District, Position 1, based upon the separations doctrine as expressed by the WA State Supreme Court in
SPOKANE COUNTY v. STATE 136 Wn.2d 663, 664 (1998) “  Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Test. An activity of one branch of government does not violate the separation of powers doctrine unless it threatens the independence or integrity, or invades the prerogatives, of another branch.”
Mr. Schlicher is a member of a state agency, the WA State Bar (WSBA). Mr. Schlicher’s membership number with the WSBA is #32795 and is on “active” status as of this writing. The WSBA is an agency under the Judicial Branch and is regulated by the Supreme Court. See RCW 2.48. Clearly Mr. Schlicher’s candidacy breaches the ‘separations doctrine’ as it would “invade” the prerogatives of the legislative br., and is unlawful. Please address this challenge to Mr. Schlicher’s candidacy as soon as possible.
Candidate, 26 District Representative, Position 1.
The Secretary of State responded with the following email reply: (NOTE: Katie Blinn is a lawyer, WSBA #27243)
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: FW: Objection to candidate Schlicher’s, Esq., quest for a legislative seat.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:51:56 +0000
Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State’s Office.
The manner for challenging a candidate’s name on the ballot is filing an election contest in Superior Court. The election contest statutes are in RCW 29A.68.
You may be aware that there are a number of attorneys licensed by the WSBA who are current legislators, such as Jamie Pedersen and Steve O’Ban.
Director of Legislative Policy and Governmental Relations
Office of the Secretary of State
The Scheidler responds to the SOS, in which is noted the futility in asking a judge – who is a lawyer, to rule on the issue of a lawyer occupying a legislative seat.
Bill Scheidler 6:59 AM
To: Blinn, Katie
Cc: Augino, Lori, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Ms. Blinn, Esq., WSBA #27243
With all due respect, the “remedy” to my grievance that a lawyer must not occupy two “offices” — one in the judicial br and one in the legislative br”– cannot be resolved by the procedures outlined in RCW 29A.68. You as a lawyer should know this. The reason being, the grievance, per RCW 29A.68 must be presented to and decided by the “judicial br – a judge”. However, by law, RCW 2.28.030(1), a judge may not sit on such a matter due to conflict of interest at the crux of the problem – the domination of our government by the “judicial br” by having their members occupy positions in the legislative br. The very “circumstance” by the “legal conflict” inherent in this issue is prima facia proof lawyers must NOT occupy positions in the legislative br.
Please due your duty as your oath demands to resolve this commandeering of our government by the legal profession that leaves NO FAIR or IMPARTIAL remedy by which to challenge this tidal wave of corruption.
Candidate for representative, 26 district, position 1.
chief activist at http://www.corrutpwa.com