Scheidler refuses to endorse either Marty McClendon or Emily Randall, and continues to campaign as write-in candidate

While Bill Scheidler received only 4% of the votes cast for 26 district state senator, that 4% can turn this election for or against the other two candidates – Marty McClendon and Emily Randall. As of this writing Marty McClendon trails Emily Randall by 4%. Marty McClendon met with Scheidler to ask him for his endorsement. However Scheidler made it clear that any endorsement of either candidate requires an express and public statement that “government corruption is the number one enemy facing a civilized society”. In addition Scheidler is demanding each candidate publicly express their condemnation of the ‘blind-eye’ to government corruption by Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel while in their “legislative roles”.

Those who voted for me, expect — and TRUST — that I will not abandon their (and my) cause, nor leave it to another without firm assurances that — Jan Angel’s conduct is denounced; the denial of a jury trial by a judge who then “comments on the facts (prohibited by WA constitution Article 4, section 16″) and imposes a $130,000 sanction is denounced; the scam to strip me of my legal representation by a county prosecutor is denounced; and is willing to confess that “government corruption” is the number one enemy of a civilized society, I will withhold any endorsement and continue as a “write-in” candidate.

Until either Emily or you (Marty) officially and publicly condemn the conduct, summarized below, and for which you have evidence, it would be an unforgivable betrayal of my supporters to endorse either you or Emily.

Scheidler is asking Emily Randall to address the same set of facts as presented to Marty McClendon as a way to measure her moral and ethical backbone and to lean what she means when she says “we must all work together to make government accountable”. The facts given to each candidate concern a scheme concocted by the Department of Revenue and implemented by county assessors. The scheme is designed to deny retired/disabled homeowners their constitutional right (Article 7, section 10) to a reduction in property taxes. The scheme is based upon county assessor’s “altering” the qualifications as the means to artificially increase income and thereby deny the property tax reduction. The scheme can be easily discovered IF you compare, verbatim, the words both the county and the DOR claim as the law to the actual law passed by the legislature. The documents that show this unlawful scheme are the County’s Senior/disabled application (2008 version), and a DOR one-page handout that instructs county assessors how to respond if an applicant questions the county’s application wording.

In an email to Emily Randall, Scheidler presents these two documents that prove Kitsap and DoR’s fraud upon retired/disabled homeowners to see if she can understand the implication of the facts presented to her and what she would do about it.

From: Bill Scheidler billscheidler
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:40 PM
Subject: Congratulations on moving to the general election

I’d like to publish how you and Marty see your role in addressing government “unaccountability concerning their unauthorized or invalid acts”.

Here are the facts.

A citizen finds that a county assessor is altering the words of a law that a citizen must follow for the WA State Article 7, section 10 tax exemption. The evidence is Exhibit A – Kitsap County’s application [2008app_1_.pdf] that on page 3 purports to cite RCW 84.36.383(5). ​

Because, by comparing, verbatim, the words on the county’s application you will see that it is not the words of the law. Please notice that the application — page 3, first paragraph — which says, “if your return included…”, while the law says “to the extent not included” — it is an instruction that is 180 degrees divergent from the law.

Additionally,​ Representative Jan Angel was alerted to the assessor’s false instructions, who then provided Exhibit B [a memo from the DOR to assessors 20090317151032.pdf]. Here too, please compare, verbatim, the words of Exhibit B, specifically, paragraph 5 and the words, “to the extent they were included in“, when the law says “to the extent they were not included“.

    Do you see how the Assessor’s and DOR’s VERSION of the law changes the meaning of the law?
    What would you do?
    If you do nothing, what other avenues are available to this citizen who found “government lying” to its citizens”
    What if this citizen was ultimately penalized $130,000 by a judge for finding government corruption and trying to make government honest?

This isn’t a hypothetical event. It is the Gods honest truth and I am the one who found the assessor fraud and have been penalized $130000 for trying to expose it.

Scheidler says that his endorsement carries all the promises he made to his supporters and he won’t betray their TRUST by endorsing a candidate that doesn’t recognize their most serious concerns.

If either Marty McClendon or Emily Randall make a public statement that “government corruption is the number 1 enemy facing a civilized society”, and “condemn” the blind-eye to corruption from Jesse Young, Michelle Caldier and Jan Angel, we will update this story as appropriate. Until them, Please demand these candidates answers specific question about how they, seeking an office of public TRUST, will deal with evidence our government is our enemy.

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