The injunction specifically halts the enforcement of “Section 9” of the legislation. The provision would have granted the Criminal Justice Training Commission—a board appointed by the governor—the authority to decertify and remove duly elected county sheriffs from office for misconduct.

Under the law, the criteria for decertification could have included subjective factors, such as specific personal associations or social media posts.

The original lawsuit was spearheaded by four eastern Washington sheriffs: Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, Pend Oreille County Sheriff Glenn Blakeslee, Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber.

A related suit, also addressed in Wednesday’s proceedings, was filed by Kitsap County Sheriff candidate Rick Kuss and the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association.

During the hearing, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lamb argued that allowing an unelected, governor-appointed board to unseat a local, independently elected official represents a gross overreach of state executive power.

Judge Schaller agreed, stating in her oral ruling that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their case. Her legal reasoning highlighted constitutional issues with the new law. She emphasized that penalizing or removing sheriffs over subjective social media activity poses a direct threat to First Amendment protections.

Furthermore, Judge Schaller noted that SB 5974 holds sheriffs to a wholly unprecedented standard.

In addition to halting the CJTC’s decertification powers, the judge’s order also temporarily blocks new, stricter eligibility requirements for those seeking to run for sheriff.

The law would have required candidates to be at least 25 years old and possess five consecutive years of law enforcement experience.

The ruling, however, was not a total defeat for the legislation. The injunction does not block portions of the law that apply the same new standards to appointed city police chiefs, nor does it impact a provision that restricts the use of police volunteers.

With the preliminary injunction now in place, the bulk of the decertification law will remain paused as the case proceeds toward a full trial, where the court will make a final determination on the constitutionality of the measure.

The state plans to appeal the preliminary injunction.

Clallam County Sheriff Applauds Ruling

Clallam County Sheriff Brian King expressed strong approval of the judge’s decision, viewing it as a critical defense of the democratic process.

“Yesterday, the right of the people to elect their own representatives without supervision of Olympia, and to decertify sheriffs by a governor’s appointed board, was upheld,” Sheriff King told me.

He emphasized that while he supports strong accountability and meets all the requirements to hold office, the CJTC “was not designed to serve as the mechanism that removes someone chosen by the voters from elected office.”

Sheriff King pointed to recent history in Washington State—including the voter-led recall of a Benton County sheriff and the electoral defeats of sitting sheriffs in Snohomish and Thurston counties—as proof that existing democratic mechanisms are already effective.

“These are not failures of democratic accountability; they are proof that it functions,” he said.

“I believe this is a win for voter rights and a win for Clallam County and our office,” King added, noting that subjective administrative removals would strip law enforcement of the discretion necessary to set local priorities and serve their communities effectively.

The legal battle arrives as the Bainbridge Island School District is already grappling with a high-profile federal civil rights lawsuit alleging administrators ignored a toxic culture of abuse.

In this second federal lawsuit, filed March 10, 2026, former para-educator Jacob Freimark is seeking roughly $5 million in damages against the district, Superintendent Amii Thompson, Special Education Director Annalisa Sanchez, and several school board members.

Freimark claims his December 2025 termination was pretextual and that he was actually fired in retaliation for speaking out as a citizen on matters of student safety and policy compliance.

The district counters that he was dismissed for performance issues, including wandering, leaving a student unsupervised, and using a personal cell phone during instructional time. Freimark actively contests these claims.

Motion Denied

On April 28, U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle denied a motion by Freimark “to supplement the record and for consideration of additional evidence.”

In his order, Judge Settle chided Freimark for a series of procedural missteps, noting the plaintiff had filed “two memoranda in anticipation of and in opposition to motions to dismiss that have yet to be filed,” along with exhibits untethered to any pending motion.

“The Court does not peruse the docket looking for exhibits or briefs untethered to a pending motion,” Settle wrote, denying the request.

The reprimand follows Freimark’s April 1 memorandum formally disclosing his use of “artificial intelligence-assisted software tools” to format, organize, research, and draft “all portions” of his legal filings.

Addressing Freimark’s pro se status, Judge Settle provided a detailed explanation of the court’s expectations. “It is true that a pro se litigant is not held to the same standard as a licensed attorney,” Settle acknowledged, noting that a complaint should typically be “judged only by function, not form.”

However, Settle drew a hard line regarding motion practice. “But the rule of liberal construction does not apply to a pro se litigant’s own motions, and a pro se plaintiff is not immune from the rules of civil procedure,” the order stated.

Referencing Freimark’s technology disclosure directly, Judge Settle delivered a pointed caution: “Freimark is cautioned that his reliance on artificial intelligence does not excuse him following the rules and the Court’s Orders.”

Judge Settle clarified the appropriate venue for Freimark’s documents, stating, “He may offer evidence with a proper foundation, consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence, at trial.”

However, the judge issued a final warning that “it is improper and unproductive to simply file exhibits and evidence on the docket... unconnected to any pending motion. Future filings of this nature may be stricken.”

In an unpublished opinion authored by Chief Judge Cecily Hazelrigg and filed on April 20, 2026, the appellate court unanimously affirmed a contempt order originally issued by King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell.

Sean Patrick Kuhlmeyer Unpublished Opinion

164KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The order held Kuhlmeyer in contempt for failing to pay his child’s extracurricular expenses and for violating the strict terms of a domestic violence protection order.

The ruling is the latest chapter in what has been nearly a decade of bitter litigation stemming from the 2018 dissolution of his marriage to his former spouse.

As the Olympic Herald reported in February, Kuhlmeyer’s handling of his own divorce proceedings directly contributed to his professional downfall.

After a binding arbitration decision awarded custody of their child and the family home to his former spouse, Kuhlmeyer launched a relentless campaign that a trial judge explicitly categorized as an “ongoing and present pattern of abusive litigation.”

That legal crusade not only earned Kuhlmeyer a six-year ban on filing new cases without judicial approval but ultimately resulted in the Washington State Supreme Court suspending his license to practice law beginning in September 2025.

His suspension was tied to both the abusive litigation and severe financial mismanagement, including causing a deficit of over $83,000 in his client trust accounts and withdrawing $100,000 in client funds as a cashier’s check to allegedly protect the money from being garnished during his divorce.

Sean Patrick Kuhlmeyer Suspension

742KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Bad Faith

The recent Court of Appeals decision centers heavily on Kuhlmeyer’s failure to adhere to court mandates from his family law disputes.

In June 2023, his former spouse obtained a DVPO against Kuhlmeyer. When granting the order, the trial court found that Kuhlmeyer presented a “credible threat to the physical safety” of his former spouse and their son.

The ruling highlighted a deeply concerning pattern of behavior, stating: “From the outset of this case, [his former spouse] has presented credible evidence regarding Mr. Kuhlmeyer’s actions to coercively control her as well as verbal, physical, and emotional abuse directed toward her and her son.”

The trial court noted that Kuhlmeyer’s conduct “manifested itself as well in years of scorched earth, abusive litigation which has far exceeded the description of vigorous advocacy,” further observing that “any reasonable person experiencing this conduct would be in fear for their mental, emotional and physical safety.”

Kuhlmeyer’s attempts to object to the characterizations were dismissed by the court as “unpersuasive and unsupported by the evidence put before this court.”

A central condition of that DVPO required Kuhlmeyer to enroll and participate in a state-certified domestic violence perpetrator program. However, his former spouse brought a contempt motion against Kuhlmeyer in May 2024 after discovering his provider had “paused” his participation in the program.

During the contempt hearing before Judge O’Donnell, Kuhlmeyer attempted to argue that he was allowed to pause his domestic violence treatment because a related appeal was pending. Judge O’Donnell flatly rejected this defense, stating in the contempt order that “pausing therapy because of a pending appeal is nonsensical” and finding that Kuhlmeyer had “acted in bad faith by refusing to maintain compliance.”

The appellate court emphasized that under Washington law, attempting to condition the performance of a parenting plan upon another legal or procedural aspect “shall be deemed bad faith and shall be punished by the court by holding the party in contempt.”

Financial Defenses Rejected

Kuhlmeyer was also held in contempt for flouting his financial obligations under a 2018 child support order. He had repeatedly failed to pay his proportional share of his child’s extracurricular and educational expenses, which included private school tuition, work-related childcare, and other activities.

In his defense, Kuhlmeyer claimed an inability to pay, alleged he did not receive proper notice of the expenses, and argued the communication restrictions imposed by the DVPO hindered his ability to object.

Judge O’Donnell dismantled these arguments in the initial contempt order, noting that “Mr. Kuhlmeyer has been on notice of the expenses and has failed to assert any affirmative defense as to why a judgment should not issue.”

The judge further ruled: “Neither has Mr. Kuhlmeyer provided any documentation regarding his financial situation, thus the court rejects his statement that he is unable to pay.”

The Court of Appeals firmly backed these findings, noting that the trial court had reviewed evidence showing his former spouse provided Kuhlmeyer with a Google Docs link to a shared document actively tracking the child’s ongoing expenses.

The appellate judges affirmed that Kuhlmeyer had proper notice and simply failed to provide any written objections or alternative proposals as explicitly required by their parenting plan.

Legal Representation

During the appellate proceedings, Kuhlmeyer was represented by Brian Christopher Zuanich of Zuanich Law, PLLC.

His former spouse was represented by a legal team consisting of Karma L. Zaike of Lawgate Family Law, alongside Adrian Urquhart Winder, Rylan Lee Scott Weythman, and Benjamin James Hodges of Foster Garvey PC.

In an order issued today, Judge Simon Barnhart ruled that the court administration cannot utilize a blanket exemption to withhold the emails.

Instead, the court is legally required to follow established administrative procedures to determine the context of the communications and the specific capacity in which Watts was operating.

The ruling follows a formal Request for Internal Review filed by myself, which argued that the court’s initial refusal to release the records explicitly violated General Rule 31.1 and Clallam County Superior Court Policy No. 27 by failing to conduct a mandatory search, failing to produce an exemption log, and misapplying the “chambers records” exception.

The Public’s Right to Know

The legal dispute centers on the fallout of the recent scandal involving Watts. Formerly the Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Coordinator under Judge Basden, Watts was arrested earlier this month following a standoff in Agnew.

Watts was later released on bail by visiting Kitsap County Judge Cadine Ferguson-Brown.

A subsequent raid uncovered a substantial local fentanyl and methamphetamine distribution network.

Recognizing the immense public interest in how a court employee with authority over vulnerable populations was vetted and managed, I submitted an administrative records request on March 23.

The request sought any emails between Judge Basden and Watts from 2018 to 2024 to provide necessary oversight.

On March 27, Superior Court Administrator and Public Records Officer Lacey Halberg summarily denied the request.

Halberg stated the emails were “categorically exempt under GR 31.1 as chambers records” and declared the matter “closed.” The court administration refused to clarify whether an actual search for the records had even been conducted.

Defending Public Access

Access to public records is a cornerstone of free speech and a free press, empowering journalists and citizens to hold government institutions accountable.

On April 2, I challenged the administration’s denial. My internal review raised three central arguments based on General Rule 31.1 and Clallam County Superior Court Policy No. 27:

1. Procedural Requirements: Agencies are required to search for and locate documents before claiming an exemption. Categorically denying a request without a search violates these mandates.

2. Mandatory Exemption Logs: The court failed to provide a redaction or exemption log detailing the specific legal basis for each withheld document—a requirement meant to ensure agencies do not arbitrarily hide records.

3. Application of GR 31.1: State rules and internal policies explicitly note that records do not become exempt “chambers records” merely because they are in the possession of a judge. If Judge Basden communicated with a court employee acting outside of strict chambers control, the exemption does not apply.

Barnhart’s Ruling

Judge Barnhart’s review validated the necessity of these transparency procedures, reinforcing the legal standards that govern judicial administrative records.

In his ruling, Judge Barnhart clarified that “chambers records” act as a specific exception rather than a blanket shield. He noted that “chambers staff” only includes administrative personnel “when that staff is providing support directly to the judicial officer at chambers.”

“In the present case, a determination must be made as to whether any emails between Judge Basden and Johnny Watts occurring between 2018 and 2024 exist,” Judge Barnhart wrote. If they do exist, the court must determine “whether Mr. Watts was acting in an administrative staff function, or in a chambers staff function.”

Judge Barnhart referred the request back to Halberg for “further action in accordance with the findings herein.”

Next Steps for Accountability

As Judge Basden faces a separate, formal investigation by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct, today’s ruling stands as a critical defense of press freedom and public accountability.

The administration is now legally bound to evaluate the emails individually. The Olympic Herald will continue to monitor the court’s compliance, ensuring that the principles of transparency and the public’s right to information are upheld.

At the Board of Education meeting last night, the district attempted to reinstate its standard playbook: silence the critics and shut down the conversation.

It spectacularly failed. The public comment period of Tuesday night’s meeting devolved into a blistering reckoning.

Community members stood before the board to expose glaring hypocrisies in moderation, bringing forth explosive allegations regarding buried security tapes, and the district’s horrifying defense of an alleged predator in open court.

Educational Defense

The reckoning began with Rod Larson, whose stinging rebuke exposed exactly how the district defended its negligence during the recent federal trial.

Drawing upon his 200-plus hours of professional USA Track and Field training, Larson tore into the district’s “Safe Sport” policy—a policy he noted nearly 70 other state districts have refused to adopt due to its obvious pitfalls.

According to Larson’s testimony, Superintendent Diana Reaume utilized this policy on the witness stand to defend veteran coach Brian Weekes.

Larson revealed to the stunned room that a video was introduced into evidence at the trial showing Mr. Weekes touching a female athlete in the weight room—first stretching her leg, and then kneeling on his knees at her left side with both hands on the small of her back, massaging her.

“Track shorts are typically well above mid-thigh or loose, blousy, and made from a light material,” Larson stated. “Elevate the leg of a supine female athlete...the blousy shorts obey gravity, slide to the crotch, reveal the outer form of the gluteus maximus, and expose intimate under apparel. Viola, a peep show.”

Despite the severe boundary violations captured on camera, Larson testified that Superintendent Reaume defended the touching on the stand, claiming it was acceptable “as long as it is for educational purposes.”

“In spite of over 200 hours of professional training, I cannot identify any legitimate or educational purpose,” Larson told the board, noting that official training identifies massage strictly as the province of a certified athletic trainer, not a coach. “Just assert it’s educational and hey presto, it’s A-okay.”

The Missing Security Tape

When Larson’s three minutes expired, Board Chair Bill Rohde attempted to cut him off, only for another community member to immediately yield her time so Larson could finish.

Later in the comment period, Pam Gale—a QVSD track coach of 30 seasons—took the microphone to detail her own run-ins with the administration over Brian Weekes.

Gale stated that in the Spring of 2018, she explicitly reported Weekes’s inappropriate behavior toward middle school girls to then-Athletic Director Kyle Weakley. By the Spring of 2019, she reported that Weekes was massaging 7th and 8th-grade female athletes to the point where she could not “see his hand underneath their shorts.”

But the most damning allegation of the night centered on a specific incident in April 2019. Pam stated that she and her assistant coach found Mr. Weekes alone in a dark weight room with a high school track athlete, massaging the girl’s legs.

Following the incident, Pam stated she explicitly asked Weakley to pull the security tape from the weight room.

“The tape was never produced,” she stated.

Pam Gale’s testimony is directly corroborated by the district’s own internal documents. As previously reported by The Olympic Herald, an internal email sent by Superintendent Diana Reaume on April 25, 2019, proves the administration was fully aware of this exact incident.

Reaume emailed the district’s risk management pool stating that coaches had reported Weekes was in the dark weight room massaging a female athlete’s shoulders.

Crucially, Reaume explicitly stated in the email: “We are going to pull video tapes at various locations to see if we have any of these captured.” Yet, according to Pam Gale, that tape was never produced.

This apparent cover-up strikes at the core of QVSD’s administrative philosophy: the district consistently prioritizes liability mitigation over actual student safety.

This aligns perfectly with Kyle Weakley’s own sworn deposition testimony, where he admitted advising Weekes to avoid “stretching” female athletes—not to protect the physical boundaries of the students, but for Weekes’s “own protection, so that false accusations couldn’t be made against them.”

The Double Standard of Silence

The glaring hypocrisy of the district’s moderation was on full display Tuesday night, spearheaded by Board Chair Bill Rohde.

Just moments before Pam Gale exposed the missing security tapes, her husband Rick Gale—a former QVSD school board member of 10 years—took the podium.

He sought to question the district’s leadership, specifically challenging the promotion of Kyle Weakley to Assistant Superintendent.

Before Gale could finish his thought, the bureaucratic shield was deployed. Board Chair Rohde abruptly interrupted him, repeatedly ordering him to stop and stating flatly: “You can’t talk about personnel here.”

But Rohde’s swift and aggressive censorship may be rooted in something far deeper than parliamentary procedure.

As recently uncovered by The Olympic Herald, Rohde and Weekes share deeply intertwined institutional loyalties. Both men belong to the local Forks Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Even more concerning, Weekes served as the Bishop of that ward—meaning the very educator the school board is tasked with holding publicly accountable has historically held direct, immense spiritual authority over the Board Chair himself.

This staggering ecclesiastical conflict of interest casts a dark shadow over Rohde’s aggressive attempts to silence critics. When the district’s failures are challenged at the podium, does the Board Chair act to protect the students of Clallam County, or does he act to protect his Bishop?

Immediately following his wife’s devastating testimony, Rick Gale stood back up, pointing directly at Rohde to challenge the board’s blatant double standard.

“I’d like to ask Bill, what is the difference?” Gale demanded. “You shut me down, but you didn’t shut my wife down. What’s the difference?”

Rohde’s tepid response—that he perceived Rick’s comments as “criticizing” while Pam was simply “giving information”—laid bare the erratic and defensive nature of a district in crisis.

For decades, the Quillayute Valley School District has managed the liability, shuffled the problems out the back door, and kept the community in the dark. But as Tuesday night proved, the community is no longer playing by the district’s rules.

“Evil persists when good people do nothing,” Pam Gale concluded before leaving the podium.

The resolution represents a dramatic culmination of months of scrutiny, and follows a trio of damning reports published by the Washington State Auditor’s Office.

The state auditor investigations allege that Burke, in his separate full-time role as Executive Director of the William Shore Memorial Pool District, personally benefitted from tens of thousands of dollars in public funds through questionable credit card purchases, improper tax refunds, and unsupported medical payouts.

According to the Port Commission’s resolution, Burke’s continued presence in a leadership role creates an untenable situation for the Port.

The resolution explicitly states that the Port “faces a reputational risk” directly tied to Burke’s actions at the Shore Aquatic Center.

While the Port Commission lacks the statutory authority to remove an independently elected commissioner from office, Burke’s fellow commissioners, President Connie L. Beauvais and Secretary Colleen M. McAleer formally requested his resignation.

According to the public record, Burke declined to step down.

“Community confidence in public institutions is of paramount importance, and leadership involves understanding when stepping aside is in the best interest of an organization,” the censure resolution states. “The Port’s mission and daily work should not be overshadowed by the conduct of one elected official.”

If passed, the resolution will serve as a public statement of disapproval and immediately rescind Burke’s position as Vice President of the Port Commission. It will also strip him of all attendant commission roles, committee assignments, and official Port representations.

Furthermore, the resolution restricts Burke from receiving travel reimbursements for anything other than Port Commission meetings and meetings with the Port’s Chief Executive Officer.

The special meeting to address the censure is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room on W. First Street, with virtual attendance options available to the public.

Office of the Washington State Auditor Investigation

The push for censure follows the release of three reports by the Office of the Washington State Auditor on November 3, 2025.

Following a regularly scheduled audit that flagged unusual payments to Burke, the state launched a comprehensive fraud investigation alongside its standard financial and accountability audits.

The resulting Fraud Investigation Report, which examined district records from February 21, 2019, through August 19, 2025, concluded that Burke personally benefitted from at least $41,148 in self-insurance medical benefits program payments, payroll tax refunds, and personal credit card purchases.

Auditors also identified an additional $25,980 in questionable expenses connected to Burke, meaning investigators could not determine if the expenditures had a legitimate business purpose.

The state auditor’s office determined that the William Shore Memorial Pool District entirely lacked adequate internal controls, leaving its essential functions—including disbursements, credit cards, and cash receipting—vulnerable to misappropriation.

The auditor’s findings are being reviewed by the Attorney General’s office for potential criminal charges.

Fallout

The fallout has reached the Port of Port Angeles. For Port Commissioners Connie Beauvais and Colleen McAleer, the allegations Burke is facing at his primary job represents a crisis of credibility for the Port.

When the Port Commission convenes on Friday, May 1, the public will see whether the board follows through on its pledge to formally distance itself from Burke’s conduct through censure.

“This issue relates to the conduct of one independently elected Port Commissioner, not the Port’s ongoing operations or the work it delivers in the community,” the censure resolution insists.

Despite King’s ties to the Dungeness Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the proceeding was surprisingly presided over by Judge Brent Basden.

Judge Basden is currently at the center of an ongoing investigation by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Multiple complaints allege that Basden operates a “closed-loop” justice system, weaponizing his courtroom to protect fellow LDS members from secular accountability.

Basden previously served as the Port Angeles Stake President, which maintains direct jurisdiction over the Dungeness Ward.

During today’s hearing, Judge Basden set King’s formal arraignment to be heard before Judge Elizabeth Stanley on Thursday at 1:00 PM.

Crucially, Basden made no changes to King’s conditions of release. King remains free on personal recognizance. Judge Stanley previously authorized that release during King’s initial appearance on April 24, outright denying the prosecution’s request that bail be set at $100,000 due to the severe nature of the charges.

Representation for the defendant remains in a state of transition.

Public defender Alex Stalker, who represented King during his preliminary appearance, noted to the court that he is unsure who will officially represent King on Thursday. However, Stalker confirmed that an attorney from the public defender’s office will be present for the formal arraignment.

With King remaining out of custody after a multi-year investigation involving dark web tracking and cryptocurrency tracing, and a judge with deep LDS ties briefly taking the reins of the proceeding, the trajectory of this case continues to be a critical test for judicial transparency in Clallam County.

But as the criminal case against 23-year-old Carl J. King begins in Clallam County Superior Court, preliminary background research by The Olympic Herald reveals the suspect is institutionally tied to a local community currently at the center of a massive judicial corruption probe.

Charges

On April 23, 2026, Clallam County Sheriff’s Deputies, assisted by the Sequim Police Department, arrested King at his Sequim residence at 303 Evening Star Way.

King was booked into the Clallam County Jail on four counts of possessing depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, along with one count of tampering with physical evidence.

According to a probable cause affidavit filed by Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Roberson, the investigation began over two years ago.

On November 3, 2023, detectives received a CyberTip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children indicating that an internet user had uploaded files containing illicit depictions of prepubescent children to a cloud server.

The investigation escalated on Christmas Eve of 2025, when detectives executed a search warrant at the Evening Star Way home.

According to the affidavit, Carl’s father, Clifford King, initially answered the door. When confronted by detectives, Carl King reportedly stated, “I’m just gunna plead the 5th here.”

During the raid, deputies observed Carl actively attempting to hide his cellphone under the home’s rear steps, according to court documents.

According to the affidavit, detectives located and seized the cellphone, and subsequent digital forensics revealed a highly sophisticated effort to conceal the abuse material. Investigators discovered that King used a Tor Browser to access the dark web, utilizing Bitcoin to purchase the illicit files.

The CSAM was then moved into a secret photo vault explicitly disguised as a calculator application on his phone, according to court documents.

A Test for a Compromised Court System

King made his preliminary appearance on April 24 before Judge Elizabeth Stanley. During this hearing, King was represented by public defender Alex Stalker.

While the prosecution requested bail be set at $100,000 citing the severe nature of the charges, Judge Elizabeth Stanley ultimately authorized King’s release on personal recognizance, according to court records.

Clallam County jail records confirm King walked free from custody that same afternoon at 2:33 p.m.

Furthermore, King’s travel was restricted to Washington State, he was ordered to maintain residence at his parents’ home, and he is restricted from contacting minor children under the age of 16 unless supervised.

King’s official arraignment is scheduled for this afternoon at 1:00 PM.

While Judge Stanley handled the initial appearance, the trajectory of this case in Clallam County Superior Court will be closely watched by citizens and advocates demanding judicial transparency.

According to records obtained from the Clallam County Assessor, the residence at 303 Evening Star Way belongs to Carl King’s parents, Clifford King and Jaime King, who The Olympic Herald verified are members of the Dungeness Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Dungeness Ward falls directly under the jurisdiction of the Port Angeles Stake.

As the Olympic Herald has extensively reported, the Port Angeles Stake is at the epicenter of an ongoing investigation by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct into Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden.

Judge Basden previously served as the Stake President. More recently, Basden served as a Counselor in an LDS Bishopric. Multiple CJC complaints accuse Judge Basden of operating a “closed-loop” justice system—weaponizing his courtroom to protect his fellow LDS members from secular accountability while punishing outsiders.

Complaints also allege that Basden has resurrected the 19th-century LDS practice of running “shadow courts,” utilizing his ecclesiastical authority to handle severe transgressions internally while using the civil bench to shield perpetrators from law enforcement.

This systemic protection of predators within the local LDS network is well-documented. It was most recently exposed during the Quillayute Valley School District scandal, where Tammy Leask, a para-educator with deep ties to the Port Angeles Stake, pled guilty to the rape of a 13-year-old student.

Following her arrest, prominent local LDS members actively praised Leask and sent letters of support to her in prison.

In another ongoing civil case, Basden allegedly shielded an LDS member accused of child sexual abuse, while the judge’s own ecclesiastical co-counselor acted as an aggressive surrogate for the accused.

With Carl King now facing felony charges for the exploitation of children, the citizens of Clallam County are left to ask a familiar, chilling question: Will this defendant face impartial secular justice, or will the institutional shielding that has defined the Port Angeles Stake attempt to intervene once again?

At a recent school board meeting, families openly confronted district leadership, citing decades of alleged abuse and demanding an end to the administration’s long-standing culture of deflection.

Now, new videos provide firsthand accounts that the systemic failures at QVSD are deeply intertwined with the overlapping power structures of the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In two videos recently shared with The Olympic Herald, local mother Elizabeth Tolliver details her family’s harrowing experience.

Tolliver’s videos paint a disturbing picture of a tight-knit community where religious loyalty consistently overrides objective morality, and where predators are sheltered by the very institutions mandated to protect children.

Praising a Convicted Rapist

The catastrophic failure of student safety in Clallam County is perhaps best defined by Tammy Leask, a former QVSD para-educator who pled guilty to the severe and ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old student.

According to probable cause documents, Leask confessed to detectives that the abuse began directly inside a Forks Middle School classroom before moving off-campus.

Leask has deep, multi-generational ties to the Port Angeles Stake of the LDS Church. In her video testimony, Tolliver—who provides photographic proof of her own lifelong immersion in the local LDS Forks Ward—exposes exactly how the LDS community handled Leask’s crimes.

For residents of Washington State, the most chilling historical example of an institution blindly protecting a predator is the LDS church’s embrace of Ted Bundy.

In 1975, Bundy weaponized the church’s wholesome environment in Utah, undergoing an LDS baptism to mask his monstrosity behind the halo effect of the faith. When he was finally arrested, his LDS ward flatly refused to believe his crimes.

Instead of condemning him, ward members sent Bundy letters of support in his jail cell—including a “get well” style card explicitly signed by the young children of the congregation, according to the Netflix docuseries, Conversations with a Killer.

Today, history is tragically repeating itself in Clallam County.

Displaying screenshots of Facebook posts made by Leask’s mother, Tolliver reveals that prominent members of the local LDS church actively praised and supported Leask after Leask was locked up.

The comments featured local LDS members congratulating Leask on “doing so well” and telling her “awesome job.”

Among the commenters was the wife of a local LDS Bishop, who posted: “That is so wonderful. So excited for her.”

This blind ecclesiastical loyalty goes far beyond social media. Sources tells The Olympic Herald that LDS members are actively writing letters of support directly to Leask while she serves her 102-month prison sentence for child rape.

“People who rape children do not deserve ‘happy Thanksgiving’ or ‘great days,’” Tolliver stated in the video, condemning the church’s blind loyalty.

The Bureaucratic Shield

Tolliver’s outrage is rooted in her own family’s trauma inside QVSD facilities. In her first video, she details how her son was sexually harassed and assaulted by two male students at school in 2022.

She claims the boys shoved pencils up his backside, poked him, and directed “disgusting, disturbing fantasies” at him.

When Tolliver attempted to hold the alleged abusers accountable—gathering documentation, statements, and witnesses to bring to the Chief of Police—the district stepped in to run interference.

According to Tolliver, the middle school principal confiscated all of her paperwork and statements, claiming she was violating “student privacy.”

This reflects a widely documented, devastatingly consistent district tactic. A recently obtained Office for Civil Rights complaint filed by another local mother, shows the district routinely minimizes physical assault to manage its own liability.

When the mother reported that her son was sexually assaulted in the middle school locker room, Title IX Coordinator Kyle Weakley allegedly laughed off the report, characterizing the severe boundary invasions as “cherry picking” and “something that boys do to each other in fun.”

When the mother later escalated complaints regarding alleged retaliation by Coach Trevor Highfield, Superintendent Diana Reaume allegedly blackmailed the family, threatening a counter-investigation against the biracial student unless the mother dropped her complaints.

Recognizing that the administration would similarly weaponize its power to protect the alleged abusers instead of her child, Tolliver pulled her kids from the district altogether and began homeschooling them.

The Men at the Top

The rot, according to Tolliver, extends directly to the highest levels of local leadership. She explicitly names QVSD School Board Chair Bill Rohde—also a member of the Forks LDS Ward—asserting that he knew exactly how her son was being harassed and assaulted at school, yet did “nothing to help us.”

Tolliver also highlights the dual authority of veteran QVSD coach Brian Weekes.

Just weeks ago, a federal jury found the district liable for a hostile work environment, awarding $250,000 to former coach Kari Larson over allegations that Weekes spent years sexually harassing and stalking her.

At a recent board meeting, a community member openly alleged Weekes’s inappropriate behavior spans an astonishing 29 years.

In sworn deposition testimony, Title IX Coordinator Kyle Weakley admitted he had previously advised Weekes to avoid “stretching” female athletes—not to protect the physical boundaries of the students, but for Weekes’s “own protection, so that false accusations couldn’t be made against them.”

In her video, Tolliver confirms what many in the community have long suspected: Weekes wielded immense spiritual authority alongside his coaching whistle. Tolliver states that Weekes served as the Bishop for the LDS Forks Ward and he even officiated her wedding.

This chilling overlap is concerning. As an LDS Bishop, Weekes operated under the church’s highly centralized abuse reporting protocols, which are fundamentally designed to protect the institution.

According to Section 38.6.2.1 of the official LDS General Handbook, local leaders who learn of abuse are directed to “promptly call the help line”—a toll-free number that connects the local bishop not to child welfare advocates or local police, but to “legal and clinical professionals” at Church headquarters in Utah.

A blistering 2022 national investigation by the Associated Press exposed the grim reality of this policy, revealing how attorneys at Kirton McConkie—the powerful Salt Lake City law firm representing the church—have repeatedly advised bishops not to report child sexual abuse to civil authorities, citing state clergy privilege loopholes.

In Washington State, the LDS Church has actively lobbied to maintain this legal shield. In May 2025, the state enacted Senate Bill 5375, attempting to finally strip clergy of the exemption from mandatory reporting laws.

Within months, the LDS Church deployed its formidable legal weight to support federal lawsuits which argued the mandate violated the First Amendment.

The pressure campaign succeeded: in October 2025, Washington’s Attorney General signed a legal stipulation agreeing not to enforce the reporting requirements.

The preservation of this loophole leaves the Forks community with a horrifying question: Did Tammy Leask confess her abuse of a 13-year-old student to Bishop Weekes? And if so, were LDS attorneys using Washington’s clergy privilege laws to successfully hide an ongoing predator operation within a public school?

A County-Wide Crisis

Tolliver’s willingness to step forward and provide receipts adds a deeply personal, undeniably painful layer to the Olympic Herald’s ongoing investigation into Clallam County’s institutions.

Her testimony proves that the failures of the Quillayute Valley School District are part of a broader, systemic culture of concealment that stretches from the middle school principal’s office to the Clallam County Superior Court.

This is most evident in the courtroom of Judge Brent Basden, who is currently facing an investigation by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Basden, who previously served as Tammy Leask’s Stake President, did not recuse himself from Leask’s criminal proceedings.

More recently, he took over a court case involving an LDS member accused of child sexual abuse and wildlife crimes, according to a CJC complaint.

The CJC complaint alleges that Basden took testimony from the wife of his own LDS Bishopric co-counselor.

According to the complaint, when a non-LDS member attempted to involve law enforcement, Basden was caught on video threatening her in open court, stating that “law enforcement deepens the problem.”

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that fellow LDS Port Angeles stake members actively interfered with law enforcement investigations, retrieving and hiding children from the police to protect LDS members from criminal liability.

Normalization of Compliance

The systemic failures in Clallam County depend entirely on the quiet, sustained compliance of the broader community. In isolated towns where institutional power is concentrated in overlapping school, church, and judicial leadership, pushing back against the grain can carry immense social and personal risk.

Elizabeth’s husband, Jon Tolliver, shared his own reasons for speaking out. “I love this media coverage that breaks the silence because silence is compliance,” Jon told me.

He articulated the isolation and exhaustion that comes with challenging a closed-loop system, especially when the community’s response is overwhelmingly apathetic. “It is hard to sound the alarm and realize only so much people care, however, I’ll do my part to speak out,” he continued.

“I think the lack of concern is proof how much this has all been normalized.”

The apathy Jon describes for Indigenous communities is an extension of centuries of marginalization, jurisdictional black holes, and institutional neglect.

“The corruption here is so bad Forks QVSD is a puddle hop compared to Neah Bay and its injustice,” he stated. “Natives don’t have law and order, we have to suffer in silence or go missing. We have had several people gone ‘missing’ here.”

Jon’s words cut to the heart of a crisis that has long plagued Washington. According to data provided by the Washington State Patrol, 108 Indigenous individuals remain missing in the state as of April 21, 2026.

The Tollivers’ testimonies, alongside the staggering array of judicial and administrative complaints, outline the devastating human consequence of the systemic failures The Olympic Herald has spent weeks documenting.

The case centers on a mother’s request to revisit a 2019 parenting plan after her child’s autism-related needs allegedly evolved and worsened.

But the dispute extends far beyond one family. It raises complex questions about the threshold required to access the courts, the constitutional right to petition the government, and whether public school services can serve as a substitute for parental and judicial oversight.

The Origins of the Legal Battle

The conflict, detailed in a petition for review currently before the state’s highest court, stems from King County litigation dating back to 2015.

Parsons vs. Goodman Petition for Review Washington Supreme Court

1.05MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The parties, David Parsons and Tanya Goodman, are the parents of A.P., a minor child whose custody and care have been the subject of extensive court proceedings.

Court records show an initial 2016 trial established joint decision-making, with the mother retaining primary placement. However, following heavily litigated proceedings, a subsequent 2019 trial awarded the father sole decision-making authority over the child’s education and non-emergency medical care, as well as primary placement.

The petition notes that the court’s 2019 decision was heavily influenced by a finding that Goodman had engaged in an “abusive use of conflict” under state law.

At the recent adequate cause hearing, Parsons’s trial attorney, Philip Tsai, described this prior finding as the “500-pound gorilla in the room,” arguing that the mother’s current filings were simply an attempt to relitigate the same issues she lost on years ago.

At the time of that 2019 trial, the petition states, the five-year-old child’s early autism diagnosis was disputed by the father.

A court-appointed evaluator testified that the diagnosis was unreliable due to the child’s young age, and the trial court found that the child was meeting developmental targets and “not in need of special services.” The judge ultimately treated the diagnosis with skepticism, deferring the issue and ordering a post-trial reevaluation.

Following the entry of the 2019 parenting plan, an independent, court-ordered evaluation confirmed the child’s diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder alongside an Anxiety Disorder, with serious co-occurring needs.

Despite the confirmed diagnosis, court filings from the mother allege that Parsons, armed with sole educational decision-making power, unilaterally withdrew the child from his existing Individualized Education Program in the fall of 2020.

While Parsons’s attorneys maintained before the Court of Appeals that the school team decided unanimously to exit the child from special education services, the mother’s petition asserts that Parsons rejected the child’s worsening autism and failed to implement any of the recommended autism-specific clinical interventions outside the school system.

The petition contends that for nearly three years, the child went without IEP support.

The School Records

Years later, in 2024, Goodman filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that the child’s circumstances had materially changed and deteriorated since the 2019 ruling. According to court filings, the child—now 10 years old—began exhibiting escalating behaviors.

Goodman’s trial attorney, Alan Funk, emphasized at the hearing that these were not just the mother’s subjective observations. “The claim that nobody else sees these is just not true,” Funk argued to the court. “It’s the school that reported that Andrew was interacting with other children in an inappropriate manner.”

School records from 2022 and 2023, cited extensively in the petition, paint a picture of a child in distress. Baseline data from a school functional behavior assessment reportedly noted “physical aggression,” “threats of self-harm,” “threats to others,” and “risk-taking behavior.”

Filings indicate that the school intervened, convening a Guidance Team meeting, implementing a safety plan for the child, and ultimately reinstating an IEP for social and emotional support in 2023.

The petition further alleges that Parsons routinely diminished these behaviors. According to emails submitted to the court, when informed of the child’s self-harm expressions, Parsons reportedly told the school that the behavior was a form of manipulation or protest over having to do homework, allegedly instructing the child simply not to say things like wanting to harm himself.

The Adequate Cause Hurdle

Citing this documented deterioration, Goodman sought a full evidentiary hearing to revisit the custody arrangement. However, her request was dismissed at the adequate cause stage by King County Superior Court Commissioner Lindsey Goheen—a decision later affirmed by Division I of the Court of Appeals.

Under RCW 26.09.260, “adequate cause” is a threshold test. Before a court will hold a full evidentiary hearing to modify a parenting plan, the requesting parent must submit affidavits showing facts that, if true, would justify a change.

Commissioner Goheen ruled there was insufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a full hearing.

In her oral ruling, Goheen noted that the father was currently engaged with the school and that under the reinstated IEP, a progress report showed the child was making “at least some progress” on most of his goals.

Regarding allegations of medical neglect, such as a multi-year gap in dental care, the commissioner noted that many families fell behind during the pandemic and that the child was now “on track.”

Goodman’s petition to the Supreme Court, authored by appellate attorney Rasham Nassar, argues that this approach dangerously elevates the adequate cause standard. The petition asserts that the threshold is intended only as a gatekeeping mechanism to screen out frivolous lawsuits, not as a final determination on the merits of a case.

The petition contends the lower courts improperly placed a “merits burden” on the mother, requiring her to prove before an evidentiary hearing that specific autism services would have ameliorated the symptoms.

Furthermore, the petition points to a statutory flaw in the appellate court’s reasoning. The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from prior precedents favoring a hearing because Goodman sought a “minor” nonresidential modification under RCW 26.09.260(10), rather than a major residential change.

The petition argues this actually means Goodman’s burden to secure a hearing should have been lower, not higher, as subsection 10 expressly authorizes modifications without considering the heavier factors required for residential changes.

Normalizing Disability Deterioration

The petition also raises profound public policy concerns regarding how the legal system views disabled children.

It argues that the lower court’s approach essentially treats a disabled child’s post-parenting-plan deterioration as “legally insignificant” once the child is identified as disabled.

Under the lower courts’ reasoning, the petition warns, worsening and untreated disability-related behaviors—such as suicidal ideation, severe emotional dysregulation, and aggressive acts—are “normalized as expected expressions of autism, rather than recognized as legally meaningful changes requiring judicial evaluation.”

Prior Restraint vs. Chilling Effect

The case also forces profound constitutional concerns to the forefront, asking the Washington Supreme Court to weigh in on whether a prior label of “high-conflict” can unconstitutionally strip a parent of their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress.

At the hearing where the modification request was dismissed, the father’s attorney, Philip Tsai, forcefully argued that the mother should be sanctioned for attorney fees under the bad faith provisions of family law, requesting $5,076.25.

Tsai argued that Goodman’s filings were driven by a “distorted view” of the father and that she was merely attempting to re-litigate issues from 2019. “Mr. Parsons should not have to incur fees as a result of her decision to bring this action,” Tsai argued, characterizing the petition as bad faith and citing previous CR 11 sanctions against her in separate matters.

Goodman’s attorney, Alan Funk, countered that penalizing a mother for acting on school-generated records of her child’s distress would set a dangerous precedent.

“So the question then is when a mother finds out from the school that the child is suicidal and the child is aggressive to the mother... What can she do?” Funk asked the court. “She has very few options... If the Court sanctions the mother for that, it’s sending the wrong message.”

Funk argued the court had to evaluate the motion based on its own merits, “without treating the prior finding of abusive use of conflict as if it’s a burden shifting mechanism or if there’s a presumption that the Court should make.”

Ultimately, Commissioner Goheen declined to find that the mother had acted in “bad faith.” Drawing on the 2019 trial findings, the commissioner noted that the mother genuinely believed the symptoms existed and was not being deceptive. However, the commissioner issued a stark warning from the bench:

“I’m reluctant, or hesitant, in not making that finding of bad faith here. And I hope that the Respondent, sort of, can consider herself on notice that this is an issue that will be increasingly hard to give her the benefit of the doubt on if the same pattern repeats again in the future... And it’s certainly entirely possible that things would get to the point where the Court would not find it credible that she doesn’t actually understand that the case is not supported by the evidence.”

On appeal, Goodman argued this warning unconstitutionally infringed on her First Amendment rights.

Division I of the Court of Appeals dismissed the claim, framing the legal question strictly around the concept of a prior restraint. Citing the precedent set in In re Marriage of Suggs, the appellate panel ruled that a prior restraint is strictly an “administrative or judicial order forbidding certain communications in advance.”

Because Commissioner Goheen’s comments did not technically result in a formal order barring Goodman from filing future motions, the Court of Appeals concluded her rights were not restricted.

However, the Supreme Court petition challenges this narrow interpretation, arguing that the Court of Appeals focused on the wrong constitutional doctrine. The petition asserts the issue is not a formal prior restraint, but an unconstitutional “chilling effect.”

Citing cases like Walker v. Munro and In re Marriage of Meredith, the petition argues that a constitutional injury does not require a literal padlock on the courtroom door.

Rather, “judicial rulings that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from seeking relief may constitute an impermissible chill on the right to petition.”

The petition contends that the commissioner’s warning functions as a “scarlet letter,” essentially transforming the mother’s statutory right to seek modification under family law into a presumptively suspect act that carries the risk of sanctions.

By tying the warning explicitly to the mother’s past litigation history, the petition argues the courts are signaling that any future petitions concerning her disabled child will be viewed through a presumption of “bad faith.”

“Parents do not forfeit the constitutional right to seek judicial redress absent the procedural safeguards required for vexatious-litigant or abusive-litigation,” the petition concludes, arguing that the threat of sanctions for presenting third-party evidence of a child’s suffering creates an impermissible barrier to the courts.

Amicus Warning

A central and controversial theme in the appellate battle is the weight the courts gave to the child’s school-based services.

The trial court’s decision to deny a hearing relied heavily on the fact that the school was managing the child’s needs through an IEP and a safety plan, noting that he was making “some progress” under their care.

This reliance prompted the nonprofit Informed Choice Washington to file an amicus curiae brief supporting the petition for review. The organization warns of a deep structural problem in the lower courts’ reasoning.

While acknowledging that public schools play a critical role, ICWA and Goodman’s attorneys argue that deferring to a school system allows administrative actors to occupy a role that legally belongs to parents and judges.

Furthermore, they argue that autism treatment does not end at the classroom door. Relying solely on the school’s intervention excuses the lack of specialized, outpatient clinical support that the father, as the sole medical decision-maker, allegedly failed to implement.

The petition for review warns that making school services a reason to block an evidentiary hearing effectively transfers parental decision-making from a parent to the State without a trial.

It argues this displaces the mother’s constitutional rights and allows the father to evade judicial review of whether he is fulfilling his court-ordered responsibilities.

What’s Next

The Washington Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will accept the petition for review.

If the justices take up the case, their ruling could establish vital precedents for how Washington courts evaluate post-order changes in children with disabilities.

They will have to balance two profound competing interests: the desire to protect children and courts from the exhausting toll of relentless litigation, and the imperative to ensure that vulnerable children do not become trapped in outdated legal frameworks as their conditions deteriorate.

According to the state’s disciplinary findings, the suspension stems from an incident where Hill was found heavily intoxicated on an elementary school campus—an event that occurred nearly four years ago in another state.

An Out-of-State Incident

State records indicate that during the 2022-2023 school year, Hill was employed in a classified position at Canyon Breeze Elementary School in Avondale, Arizona.

At the time, she also held an active Washington Residency Teacher Certificate—a credential she obtained in August 2013.

According to the OSPI order, on August 19, 2022, Hill was observed under the influence and in possession of an intoxicating beverage on the school’s premises.

While the document notes that Hill initially denied consuming alcohol on campus to school administrators, she subsequently submitted breath samples that revealed a staggering .245 blood alcohol level—more than three times the legal driving limit.

Following an investigation by the Arizona Board of Education, Hill signed a settlement agreement on November 8, 2023.

Per the agreement, she admitted to the consumption of alcohol on school grounds and accepted a two-year suspension of her teaching certificate in that state, along with mandated substance abuse treatment.

Washington Response

It is the timeline of Washington State’s response, however, that may alarm local families relying on the state to vet the adults in their children’s schools.

Despite the severe nature of the August 2022 incident, OSPI documents reveal that Washington authorities were not notified of the Arizona disciplinary action until January 18, 2024, receiving an alert through a national database known as NASDTEC.

Even after receiving this formal notice, the state’s bureaucratic wheels turned slowly. OSPI’s Office of Professional Practices did not interview Hill until August 28, 2025.

During that interview, she reportedly admitted to consuming alcohol on the Arizona campus, stated she “did not feel intoxicated at all,” and noted she had resigned from the Arizona district in lieu of termination. She also admitted she had not completed an out-patient treatment program.

Ultimately, it took until April 20, 2026—nearly four years after the initial incident and more than two years after the state was formally notified—for Washington to issue a Final Order suspending Hill’s active credential.

Reinstatement Conditions

According to the OSPI order, Hill’s Washington education certificate has now been suspended for at least one year.

To have her credential reinstated, state officials have required her to undergo an approved substance abuse evaluation, complete any recommended treatment, and pass a fingerprint-based criminal background check through both the FBI and the Washington State Patrol.

State records indicate that as of February 2026, Hill had failed to provide proof of successful completion of a required treatment program to either Arizona or Washington authorities.

The newest complaint, filed on March 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, was brought by Jacob Freimark, a former classified para-educator representing himself.

Freimark is suing the district, Superintendent Amii Thompson, Special Education Director Annalisa Sanchez, and several school board members, seeking roughly $5 million in damages.

Allegations of Retaliation

In his filings, Freimark alleges that his December 2025 termination was pretextual and that he was actually fired in retaliation for speaking out as a citizen on matters of student safety and policy compliance.

He claims that following a supervisory change in September 2025, the district imposed strict communication restrictions on him—specifically a Letter of Direction banning him from using a personal cell phone during work hours.

Freimark argues these restrictions hindered his ability to document student incidents and contact emergency services while supervising students off-campus, creating an “engineered impossibility” to perform his duties.

District Cites Performance Concerns

Court documents and internal district communications attached to Freimark’s complaint outline a differing narrative regarding his dismissal.

According to a November 2025 termination letter from Director of Student Services Annalisa Sanchez, Freimark was fired for “actions and inactions related to the performance of your job duties.”

The letter stated that the district had documented “multiple issues... that repeated and were fundamental to your position, such as providing consistent support to the students assigned to you.”

Exhibits in the lawsuit indicate that district supervisors raised concerns about Freimark wandering, appearing unfocused, and leaving a student unsupervised, which required another adult to intervene.

He was also cited for disciplinary action regarding the “use of a personal cell phone during instructional time.”

Disputed Policies and Practices

Freimark’s lawsuit actively contests these disciplinary grounds.

Regarding the allegations of wandering or leaving students, he asserts that his duties included “educating students on social cues” and that his approach was intended to foster student independence rather than neglect.

Furthermore, Freimark argues the district misapplied its own electronic device policy to discipline him, claiming the cell phone he used did not technically meet the definition of a “personal” device because it was legally owned and billed under his parents’ family plan, rather than in his own name.

Freimark also alleges that the district selectively enforced this policy, claiming other para-educators used their devices without facing similar discipline.

Case Status

The case, assigned to District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is currently in its early stages.

State documents reveal that Stuart Soderquist, whose teaching credentials date back to 1987, was suspended for a minimum of 30 days.

However, a close look at the state’s timeline may leave Whatcom County parents wondering why it took nearly three years—and multiple official warnings—for the educator to finally leave the district.

A History of Warnings

According to the OSPI Final Order of Suspension, the Bellingham School District was first alerted to concerning behavior regarding Soderquist in August 2020.

State records indicate that parents reported the educator had commented on the physical appearance and personality of a female student, “likened that student to his spouse,” and made a racially based comment to a student of color.

Furthermore, parents alleged he touched students on their legs when it was not necessary for the safety of vehicle occupants during Traffic Safety drives.

Following an investigation into the improper touching, the district’s disciplinary action at the time was limited.

On September 28, 2020, the district issued Soderquist a “Letter of Direction,” instructing him to “cease touching students during drives as a means to gain attention,” according to the state document.

The warnings continued into the next school year.

In March 2022, Soderquist was issued a letter from the Bellingham High School Principal following an investigation into improper conduct toward a colleague.

The state order notes he was instructed to “refrain from continued unwanted behavior, including hugging and touching, towards the staff member.”

Escalation and Administrative Leave

Despite multiple official directives to stop touching students and staff, Soderquist’s employment continued until a severe incident in the spring of 2023.

According to the disciplinary findings, on May 8, 2023, Soderquist approached three male students inside the school building. The state document reports that he placed his leg or foot on one student’s leg, “kneaded the shoulders” of a second student, and made inappropriate comments to all three that “included sexual connotations.”

It was only after this incident that Soderquist was placed on administrative leave on May 12, 2023.

Shortly after, the district issued a Notice of Probable Cause for Discharge, which Soderquist appealed. Rather than facing a direct termination by the district, state records show he signed a Separation Agreement, resigning his employment effective November 2023.

A Startling Admission and a 30-Day Penalty

Bellingham Superintendent Greg Baker filed a formal complaint with OSPI in May 2023 regarding the inappropriate communications.

Nearly two years later, in a September 2025 interview with the state’s Office of Professional Practices, Soderquist denied making sexually connotative comments.

However, in an admission detailed in the order, Soderquist reportedly “stated that he believed touching students on their thigh was an appropriate area to make physical contact.”

On April 21, 2026, the state concluded there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Soderquist committed acts of unprofessional conduct.

Yet, for a documented pattern of inappropriate physical contact spanning from 2020 to 2023, OSPI ordered a suspension of just 30 days.

To reinstate his certificate Soderquist will be required to complete a pre-approved “Maintaining Boundaries” course and pass a background check.

As we detailed in our previous investigative report on the Sequim School District’s decades-long cover-up, the truth is frequently buried beneath bureaucratic deflection and taxpayer-funded legal settlements. We believe the community deserves to see the raw facts without an administrative filter.

This deposition was taken under oath on October 18, 2022, as part of the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by former student support specialist Hanna McAndie against the Sequim School District and former Superintendent Robert Clark.

It offers a first-hand look into the inner workings of the district’s leadership and the entrenched “Six Pack” administrative faction.

You will read Stoffer’s own admissions regarding clandestine executive board meetings held in a local veterinary clinic, the intense monitoring of staff social media accounts, and the administration’s failure to act on mandatory reporting requirements regarding sexual harassment claims.

To protect basic privacy, we have only redacted Mr. Stoffer’s personal home address and cell phone number from the transcript.

Every other word, objection, and admission remains exactly as it was recorded by the federal court reporter. We are giving you the primary source documents so you can read the testimony yourself and decide exactly who the Sequim School District was truly serving.

You can download the deposition using the button below or view it here.

Jim Stoffer Deposition

34.7MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

According to the state’s disciplinary findings, the suspension stems from incidents during Jacob Young’s employment as a half-time Computer Science teacher at Mount Vernon High School during the 2023-2024 school year.

Classroom Question Sessions

State documents indicate that Young held classroom events where students were permitted to ask questions.

During these sessions, Young “commented on personal topics concerning his previous sexual history and controlled substance use” in front of the classroom, according to the agreed order on suspension.

While state disciplinary reports often rely on allegations, the OSPI order notes that Young explicitly admitted to making the inappropriate comments during a meeting with Mount Vernon School District administrators on April 10, 2024.

A Timeline Raising Questions

Despite this admission, the district’s subsequent handling of the situation may raise concerns for Skagit County parents expecting swift accountability for staff members who engage in explicit conversations with minors.

Instead of immediate termination following the April 10 meeting, state records reveal that Young was permitted to submit a resignation more than two months later, on June 14, 2024.

Furthermore, his resignation was not slated to take effect until August 27 of that year—allowing him to depart the district on his own terms.

It was only after Young submitted his resignation that Mount Vernon Superintendent Ismael Vivanco filed a formal complaint with OSPI’s Office of Professional Practices on June 17, 2024.

A 30-Day Penalty

Nearly two years later, in a March 24, 2026 Agreed Order of Suspension, the state concluded there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Young committed acts of “unprofessional conduct.”

To reach its conclusion, the state noted it applied standards outlined in the Washington Administrative Code, which requires officials to weigh eleven factors when determining educator discipline. These factors include the seriousness of the act and the age and maturity level of the participating students.

Yet, despite the severe nature of the admitted conduct involving high school students, OSPI ordered a minimal 30-day suspension of Young’s teaching credentials.

According to state records, his teaching certificate will be automatically reinstated after 30 days and remains valid until 2030.

OSPI officials concluded in the document that the brief suspension serves the interest of Washington State by deterring subsequent unprofessional conduct and “protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of students, colleagues, and other affected persons.”

According to the state’s disciplinary findings, the suspension stems from incidents during Frazier’s employment as a 5th-grade classroom teacher at Lydia Hawk Elementary School during the 2023-2024 school year.

Prior to the disciplinary incident, the document notes that Frazier had submitted her resignation from the district on January 30, 2024, which was to take effect at the end of August.

The OSPI order states that on February 12, 2024, the educator consumed alcoholic beverages during the school day on the elementary school campus.

According to the document, Frazier was placed on administrative leave two days later.

In April 2024, the district issued a “Cause for Termination” letter. However, due to her prior resignation, the state order notes that the termination was stayed, and she was kept on administrative leave for the remainder of the school year.

The state’s order indicates that during a subsequent interview with the Office of Professional Practices, Frazier stated that February 12 was the first day she came to the school intoxicated, and the only time she consumed alcohol on the campus.

However, the document also notes the educator reportedly admitted that it was her habit to bring a bag of wine to school and fill a tumbler when students were out of the room.

Acting as the administrator of state education regulations, OSPI moved to suspend Frazier’s Washington certificate after receiving a formal complaint from the superintendent of North Thurston Public Schools.

In the April 23, 2026 order, the state concluded there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Frazier committed acts of “unprofessional conduct” pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 181-87-055, which governs the consumption of alcohol upon school grounds.

To reach its conclusion, the state noted it applied the standards outlined in WAC 181-86-080.

This code requires the state to weigh at least eleven factors when determining the appropriate level of educator discipline, including the seriousness of the act, proximity of time in which the acts occurred, and indicators of a behavioral problem or lack of fitness.

OSPI officials concluded in the document that the suspension serves the interest of Washington State by deterring subsequent unprofessional conduct and “protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of students, colleagues, and other affected persons.”

According to the order, Frazier’s credential will be suspended for at least three months.

The civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, centers on the harrowing ordeal of a former Bainbridge High School student, identified in court documents as A.A.

The lawsuit claims A.A. was targeted, groomed, and sexually abused by her former chemistry teacher, Steve Hohl. According to the Bainbridge Island Review, Hohl retired from the school district in 2005. He also coached wrestling.

The complaint alleges the sexual contact began during A.A.’s junior year, when she was just 16 years old.

A Culture of Abuse

While the allegations against the former teacher are chilling, the lawsuit directs its sharpest criticism at the school district itself, which is the sole named defendant in the case.

The complaint asserts that district administrators “knew or should have known” that Hohl was a “pervasive pedophile” who preyed upon younger female students.

Instead of intervening and protecting the students in their care, the district allegedly allowed the teacher to maintain his position of power, fostering what the complaint describes as a “toxic and misogynistic culture of abuse.”

For parents, the concept of in loco parentis—the legal responsibility of a school to act in the place of a parent while a child is in its custody—is the bedrock of the educational system.

The lawsuit argues that the Bainbridge Island School District catastrophically breached this duty.

By allegedly ignoring open and obvious alarming behavior, the district, the lawsuit claims, enabled an environment where abuse could flourish unchecked.

Potential for Additional Victims

Perhaps most troubling is the lawsuit’s claim that A.A. may not be the only victim. Court documents state that Steve Hohl is alleged to have sexually abused several other students who attended Bainbridge High School.

A joint status report filed by the attorneys explicitly references two other parallel cases currently proceeding in Kitsap County Superior Court involving the district and the same former teacher.

Furthermore, the complaint states that when deposed under oath in related proceedings, Hohl invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked if he had sexual contact with A.A..

The District’s Defense

The Bainbridge Island School District, for its part, has flatly denied the allegations of wrongdoing.

In its formal answer to the complaint, the district argues that even if Hohl’s alleged conduct occurred, it fell outside the course and scope of his employment, suggesting the district itself should not be held liable.

The district also asserts standard affirmative defenses, including claims that the lawsuit is barred by the statute of limitations.

Looking Ahead to Trial

As the case marches toward a scheduled 15-day jury trial set for March 16, 2027, the community is left grappling with unsettling questions.

Late last month, the court entered a protective order to ensure sensitive student and personnel records remain confidential during the ongoing discovery process.

The outcome of this lawsuit may ultimately yield financial compensation for A.A., who is seeking damages for severe emotional distress and the deprivation of her educational opportunities.

According to the state’s disciplinary findings, the suspension in Washington stems from incidents during Baer’s out-of-state employment as a history teacher at Lakeside Junior High School in Idaho during the 2022-2023 school year.

The OSPI order states that in February 2023, the Benewah County Sheriff’s Office in Idaho was asked by the local school district to perform a forensic search of Baer’s district-issued computer.

This request came after a student reportedly saw an internet tab open to the website “OnlyFans” on the device, according to the document.

Additionally, the order notes that PWSD IT personnel informed law enforcement they had discovered multiple searches conducted by the educator for pornographic material.

While the forensic examination by authorities found no images involving minors, the state’s order indicates that investigators did locate a “large amount of pornographic material” on the school equipment, according to the order.

Based on these findings, the Idaho Professional Standards Commission issued a Final Order in December 2023, suspending Baer’s Idaho education certificate for a period of two years with reinstatement conditions.

Washington educational authorities were subsequently alerted to the Idaho incident via a report from the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, an organization that helps facilitate the interstate sharing of educator disciplinary actions.

The report was received by the Washington Office of Professional Practices on December 16, 2024.

Acting as the administrator of state education regulations, OSPI moved to suspend Baer’s Washington certificate.

In the April 23, 2026 order, the state concluded there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Baer committed acts of “unprofessional conduct” pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 181-87-060, which governs the misuse of school district computer equipment to access and view images of a sexual nature.

To reach its conclusion, the state noted it applied the standards outlined in WAC 181-86-080.

This code requires the state to weigh at least eleven factors when determining the appropriate level of educator discipline, including the seriousness of the act, proximity of time in which the acts occurred, indicators of a behavioral problem or lack of fitness, and any discipline imposed by other governmental entities.

OSPI officials concluded in the document that the suspension serves the interest of Washington State by deterring subsequent unprofessional conduct and “protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of students, colleagues, and other affected persons.”

According to the order, Baer’s credential will be suspended for at least 12 months.

According to the stipulations, King County District Court Judge Fa’amomoi Masaniai and Kitsap County Superior Court Commissioner Lynn K. Fleischbein were sanctioned for actions that betray the core responsibilities of their offices.

The underlying facts, as agreed to by the judicial officers themselves, reveal alarming abuses of power, profound neglect of duty, and a disturbing disregard for the people they serve.

The Dark Chambers of King County District Court

In King County, according to the stipulated facts, Judge Fa’amomoi Masaniai engaged in deeply inappropriate personal conduct and initiated unwanted physical contact with a female court clerk, grossly exploiting the stark power differential between a judge and subordinate staff.

The CJC document details that the clerk, who started her position in January 2023, originally approached the judge to discuss a case involving a litigant’s suicide.

The stipulation notes that Masaniai used the opportunity to obtain her cell phone number. He subsequently began contacting her after hours, prying into her personal life, and asking for her “craziest story” upon learning she was formerly a bikini barista. Masaniai also shared that he used to work as a bouncer at a strip club.

According to the disciplinary agreement, this predatory behavior escalated. On May 5, 2023, Masaniai offered the clerk a massage in his chambers. The document states she politely declined, but he then offered again via text message, which she again declined.

Three days later, under the guise of discussing a case, Masaniai invited the clerk into his chambers.

According to the clerk’s account formalized in the stipulation, she arrived to find the lights off and the blinds closed, making the room “quite dark.”

The agreed facts note he told her to “sit down and get comfortable” before standing over her, asking about her tattoos, and complimenting her “special spirit” while complaining about his marital problems.

When the clearly uncomfortable clerk attempted to leave, the document states Masaniai asked for a hug. Feeling unable to say no to her effective boss, she agreed, resulting in a “full body embrace” where Masaniai placed his hand so low on her back that it touched her rear.

The stipulation describes the embrace lasting five to ten seconds. The clerk noted he was smiling and looked as though he was going to kiss her.

According to the report, she jumped back, fled the room, and threw up.

The disciplinary order describes the devastating impact of Masaniai’s actions on this public servant.

The document outlines that she suffered from panic attacks, threw up at work upwards of ten times, and was forced to hide in the courthouse bathrooms to avoid the judge.

Based on the facts outlined in the stipulation, Masaniai’s actions represent a gross exploitation of his judicial status.

By weaponizing his authority to cultivate a deeply inappropriate relationship with a subordinate—someone who felt powerless to refuse him—he shattered the norms of a safe workplace and tainted the integrity of the bench.

Although the agreement notes he cited personal tragedies as mitigation, the deliberate creation of an intimidating, predatory environment described in the document is a chilling abuse of his position.

For these actions, the CJC formally Reprimanded him and ordered him to take remedial training on sexual harassment.

Justice Delayed, Justice Denied in Kitsap County

Meanwhile, in Kitsap County, a separate stipulation reveals that Commissioner Lynn K. Fleischbein severely delayed issuing decisions in two child support modification cases, directly threatening the welfare of the children involved.

Rendering decisions is a core, basic function for any judicial officer. Under RCW 2.08.240 and the Washington State Constitution, a judge is required to issue a decision within 90 days of a final submission.

According to the CJC’s findings, Fleischbein violated these constitutional boundaries.

The stipulation shows that in Cause No. 21-3-00360-18, litigants waited 168 days for a final order, child support order, and worksheets. In Cause No. 21-3-00484-18, the documented delay stretched to an astonishing 301 days—roughly ten months.

The CJC document further notes that during these massive delays, litigants inquired with the court about the status of their cases, left to twist in the wind by a judicial officer who demanded prompt compliance from citizens but failed to deliver it herself.

As outlined in the agreement, decisional delay in child support modifications is uniquely harmful, as it directly impacts the financial stability and welfare of vulnerable families.

As acknowledged in the stipulation, Commissioner Fleischbein attributed the delays to an adjustment period as a newly appointed part-time commissioner and personal hardships involving caring for her mother.

However, based on the agreed facts, her failure to perform the most basic function of her office effectively denied justice to the families relying on her.

In cases involving the welfare of children, a ten-month delay is a profound dereliction of judicial duty. For this stipulated misconduct, she received an Admonishment from the CJC.

The Bottom Line

The public places immense trust in its judicial officers to uphold the law, maintain ethical workplaces, and dispense timely justice.

The disturbing conduct of Judge Masaniai and Commissioner Fleischbein, as detailed in their own signed stipulations, stands as a stark reminder of the human cost when those in robes forget their profound responsibilities.

Whether it is a judge leveraging his power to harass staff in darkened chambers or a commissioner forcing families to wait nearly a year for critical child support rulings, these documented failures erode the very foundation of our legal system.

Accountability starts at the bench, and Washington residents deserve far better from their courts.

In a 14-page reply filed earlier today, the plaintiff—identified as “Julie Doe”—urges the federal court to reject the Church’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The filing accuses the institution of misconstruing case law and minimizing the alleged active role its clergy played in isolating her with a known abuser.

While the perpetrator, Craig Ford, was convicted of incest and rape in 2021 and 2022, the civil lawsuit centers on the alleged negligence of LDS Church leaders.

The LDS Church’s April 3 defense argued that because the abuse occurred in the victim’s home and was perpetrated by her adoptive father, the institution is legally absolved of responsibility. The plaintiff’s latest filing vigorously challenges that premise.

A Dispute Over Statutory Duty

A central pillar of the LDS Church’s defense was its interpretation of the recent Oregon Supreme Court case, E.J.T. v. Jefferson County.

The LDS Church argued this ruling definitively established that Oregon’s mandatory abuse-reporting statute—by which Oregon clergy are bound—is strictly criminal and “does not create civil liability” for failure to report.

The plaintiff’s attorneys contend the Church is misrepresenting the ruling.

According to the reply brief, the E.J.T. decision only shielded law enforcement agencies from civil suits regarding their own investigations, and it explicitly left open the possibility of common-law negligence claims against mandatory reporters—like clergy—who fail to act.

Protected Speech or Created Risk?

A major point of contention involves a Washington State LDS bishop’s alleged instruction to the victim’s mother not to report her suspicions to the police.

The Church previously characterized this as mere “bad advice,” arguing it did not create a new risk of harm and is protected by the First Amendment.

The plaintiff’s legal team forcefully disputes this characterization. The lawsuit alleges the bishop actively “discouraged” the mother from contacting civil authorities and minimized the severity of the sexual contact.

The plaintiff argues this was not passive “bad advice,” but an affirmative action that “created an additional risk of harm” by allowing the teenager to be moved across state lines to Oregon, completely isolated with her abuser.

Furthermore, the attorneys argue that advising a parent not to report child rape directly violates the Church’s own written anti-abuse policies, stripping the alleged action of First Amendment protection as a religious practice.

The Policy Paradox

The filing also highlights a stark contrast between the Church’s public anti-abuse policies and its legal defense.

While the Church argued that its internal rules directing leaders to report abuse do not legally obligate them to do so, the plaintiff reveals that Church headquarters did take specific administrative actions regarding her case.

After receiving a subsequent report of abuse in December 2016, Church headquarters allegedly placed a restrictive “annotation” on the father’s membership record and specifically notified a local bishop in Albany, Oregon, that the teenager was living alone with him.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that by taking these targeted administrative steps, the Church voluntarily assumed a duty to protect her—but then allegedly abandoned that duty by delaying discipline, failing to notify Oregon authorities, and offering no support or warning to the victim.

“These facts taken together are sufficient special circumstances to give rise to a duty for Defendant toward Plaintiff,” the filing states.

The federal court in Eugene will now weigh the competing briefs to determine whether the lawsuit will proceed, or if the LDS Church’s “no duty” defense will secure a dismissal.