Legally I Don’t Have To Prove Anything!
I Am Innocent Unless Proven Guilty By Washington State Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970) which requires the state to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington courts will determine whether one or more elements of the defense negate one or more elements of the offense. State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 494-96, 656 P.2d 1064 (1983) If the court so finds, the state bears the burden of proving the inapplicability of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (Id=same citation)

Alleged Charges:

1 Charge Under RCW 9A.44.083 Child molestation in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.

PD ALLEGATIONS:
PD alleges that I touched and penetrated her vagina with my hand!

2 Charges Under 9A.36.021 Assault in the second degree on a child by strangulation.
(1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first degree:
(g) Assaults another by strangulation or suffocation.

PD basically allege that I strangled her double handed on several occasions including picking her up by the neck and slamming her against the wall. She gave only one date Christmas Day 2016.

AD basically allege that I strangled him double handed “all the time” Including while his mother was watching and including picking him up by the neck and slamming him against the wall.

Reasonable Doubt: NO INJURY

PD ALLEGED STRANGULATION NEVER HAPPENED AS EVIDENCED BY NO REPORTED INJURIES

• School and Aide – PD is autistic which means that during school she not only had a teacher for part of the day she had a one on one aide. Yet during the time that PD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!
• Church Potlucks and Events – Deanna Drummond (DD) cooked for a potluck lunches at a local church in McCleary because it looked good to CPS. There were several mandatory reporters there including the pastor and his wife. I know PD attended some of those potlucks and events because I was there for a few of them! Yet during the time that PD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!
• Parent Child Assistance Program (PCAP) – PCAP is part of The Washington State Healthcare Authority Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery And all their social workers are mandatory reporters. Pecap was assigned to DD after the kids were removed from her due to her drinking and endangering them. I believe they came over to DD’s apartment weekly but it may have been biweekly. Yet during the time that PD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!
• Medical Nurse Practitioner – I believe the kids saw nurse practitioner Heather Latham in McCleary during the time that these alleged strangulations happened. Heather Latham was a mandatory reporter. Yet during the time that PD reported later alleged strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!
• Child Protective Services (CPS) – Child Protective Services was also involved with PD during the time that these alleged strangulations happened. They are certainly mandatory reporters and would have been required to report such abuse to the police. Yet during the time that PD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!
  • One thing that did happen was that PD during a interview that I believe CPS calls a SCARE report went on and on about how terrified she was of Mike which everyone assumed was me until PD slipped up at the end and admitted that she was basing what she said off of Mike in Monster’s Inc.
• Grays Harbor County Sheriff – There were two times that the Grays Harbor County Sheriff came over to DD’s Apartment because I had been falsely reported for committing crimes. Yet no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of PD saying she was strangled!

AD ALLEGED STRANGULATION NEVER HAPPENED AS EVIDENCED BY NO REPORTED INJURIES EXCEPT THE SCRATCH

• Pre-School and Babysitter – AD went to preschool in McCleary and also had a babysitter. Yet during the time that AD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying hhe was strangled!
• Church Potlucks and Events – Deanna Drummond (DD) cooked for a potluck lunches at a local church in McCleary because it looked good to CPS. There were several mandatory reporters there including the pastor and his wife. I know AD attended some of those potlucks and events because I was there for a few of them! Yet during the time that AD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying she was strangled!
• Parent Child Assistance Program (PCAP) – PCAP is part of The Washington State Healthcare Authority Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery And all their social workers are mandatory reporters. PCAP was assigned to DD after the kids were removed from her due to her drinking and endangering them. I believe they came over to DD’s apartment weekly but it may have been biweekly. Yet during the time that AD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying he was strangled!
• Medical Nurse Practitioner – I believe the kids saw nurse practitioner Heather Latham in McCleary during the time that these alleged strangulations happened. Heather Latham was a mandatory reporter. Yet during the time that AD reported later alleged strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying she was strangled!
• Child Protective Services (CPS) – Child Protective Services was also involved with AD during the time that these alleged strangulations happened. They are certainly mandatory reporters and would have been required to report such abuse to the police. Yet during the time that AD later alleged being strangled no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying she was strangled!
• Grays Harbor County Sheriff – There were two times that the Grays Harbor County Sheriff came over to DD’s Apartment because I had been falsely reported for committing crimes. Yet no one reported any physical injuries or any reports of AD saying she was strangled!

THE STATES POSITION – The state of Washington is going to claim that in 50% of strangulation no injury is immediately visible.

AD SCRATCH – SELF DEFENSE, SELF CAUSED, EVIDENSE TAMPERING AND PERJURY

While on our way to a Christmas event put on by SeaMar Were the kids were supposed to get toys for low income children. DD and AD got into an argument and it escalated until AD was tossing around and stomp kicking my seat and my disabled arm.

ADs tossing and turning had put him in an improper position in his booster seat and that was why he could reach my arm to kick it. Not only was it a legal assault on my person it was also highly distracting and it put me in violation of the law.

RCW 46.61.687 Child restraint system required… (1) Whenever a child who is less than sixteen years of age is being transported in a motor vehicle that is in operation and that is required by RCW 46.37.510 to be equipped with a safety belt system in a passenger seating position, or is being transported in a neighborhood electric vehicle or medium-speed electric vehicle that is in operation, the driver of the vehicle shall keep the child properly restrained as follows: …. (c) A child who is not properly secured in a child restraint system in accordance with (a) or (b) of this subsection and who is under four feet nine inches tall must be properly secured in a child booster seat. A child may continue to be properly secured in a child booster seat until the vehicle lap and shoulder seat belts fit properly, typically when the child is between the ages of eight and twelve years of age, as recommended by the American academy of pediatrics, or must be properly secured with the motor vehicle’s safety belt properly adjusted and fastened around the child’s body. …. (3) A person violating subsection (1) of this section may be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW. If the person to whom the notice was issued presents proof of acquisition of an approved child restraint system or a child booster seat, as appropriate, within seven days to the jurisdiction issuing the notice and the person has not previously had a violation of this section dismissed, the jurisdiction shall dismiss the notice of traffic infraction.

RCW 46.61.673 Dangerously distracted driving. (1)(a) It is a traffic infraction to drive dangerously distracted. Any driver who commits this infraction must be assessed a base penalty of thirty dollars. (c) For the purposes of this section, “dangerously distracted” means a person who engages in any activity not related to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of such motor vehicle on any highway.

Reasonable Doubt: DD Motive and More Backstory –

I asked DD why she was doing this And she told me point blank that she expected me to die within two years like AJ had and that she needed the security of owning a house! That was her real motive! In fact, we had moved from Kansas back to Washington where I was from so that we could buy a micro-farm with a house under a special program using PD’s disability! Unfortunately, DD lied about fixing her credit and we were unable to qualify for the program!

After Leo was taken by CPS the first time along with DD kids, DD Went to work, illegally under the table, helping to repair a property for Cliff and Sherri Feigelson. _{^{(Based on text messages from her phone he was also her sexual sugar daddy. I actually helped her load a massage table into her van and she showed me the $50 she got paid by Cliff! Having multiple partners was typical for DD DD also said that Cliff had multiple partners including a girfriend on Mercer Island. All of this could be prover with bank and DD’s phone records but my public defenders rufuse to go after them!)}}

Eventually Cliff and Sherri offered to sell DD the home she had been working on for $700 a month! I actually spent time on the phone with Cliff directly talking about buying it on contract or with lease option. Sherri was in the background pissed because they had purchased a brand new washer and dryer for DD based on her assurance that I would cooperate with her plan!

Her plan was that I would return Leo to her custody so she could get all the benefits that came with him and the money and stopped paying child support! Then I was supposed to live in an illegally remodeled storage building outback that DD would remodel with part of the money that she hid from the government by giving it to her parents to hide so she could get more benefits! I would pay $500 a month!

Only problem was, I refused and I did more than refuse I reported the unpermitted remodeling to the Building Inspector and he went out and made them get permits and inspections, so, I got banned from the property and DD was not about to piss off her new sugar daddy by backing me!

She moved into the property in December and I refused to take Leo all the way down to that property especially since I was persona non grata and ban from the property for reporting all the illegal happenings there! So she had to get people to drive her to Olympia so she could pick up Leo and drop him off! I actually lived in Federal Way, but she has advised me that we could maintain a relationship by going camping and stuff until I finished my college and could buy a house for her if Cliff’s deal fell through!

DD wouldn’t even back me enough to protect Leo by allowing me to install a fence around the property for when she got drunk and wasn’t supervising him so he wouldn’t get out to the street like AD and PD had done in Kansas! (I had extensive conversations with both CPS and Margaret “Miki” Cabell, Clinical Director of PCAP (Parent Child Assistance Program) concerning DD’s inability to supervise Leo ‘s safety, the need for a fense around the property and Leo’s safety in a home where the upstairs wiring had not been permitted or completed!

Reasonable Doubt Reasoning – Think about this for a second, would an actual child molester refuse to move into a property where he would have full unsupervised access to the alleged victim while her mom played with her new sugar daddy and/or got drunk off her ass like DD told me she planned to do once CPS and PCAP was off her case?!? Which is exactly what she did resulting in the 2019 dependency for Leo, AD and PD!

DD tried to take Leo by filing a protection order against me! The Corrupt Court in Grays Harbor County wrote the protection order so badly that the cops in (Des Moines) King County couldn’t tell if I still had custody or if I was blocked from being near Leo! So I filed a voluntary dependency with CPS to try and protect Leo from DD and sexual molestation by his sister PD, who had already grabbed the genitals of both myself and her brother AD despite being talked to by both myself and DD together where we explained that that was not allowed on three separate occasions!

None of the charges were brought up until Leo’s foster mom let’s slip that Leo was going to be returned to me when we went to court on March 30th! I had told CPS and the ARC of King County what had actually happened all the way back in December. Which I reiterated to the Corrupt Grays Harbor County Court in the protection order hearings in March!

The Grays Harbor County cops arrested me on the night of March 29th in King County Without a Warrent to prevent me from going to a King County Court and telling the truth About both DD and PD!

I had already talked to an attorney for a free consultation, WILL and WILL; but, I could not afford their $25,000 fee. Hell, I had already told her sister back in the 2015 dependency exactly what would happen if her and her husband took the kids from DD – DD would get PD to say that the husband molested PD. Which is exactly what DD did to me!

Reasonable Doubt: Witness Tampering With PD – PD even says three times that her mother told her what to say and DD describes telling PD what happened rather than PD actually accusing me first!

Reasonable Doubt: Evidence Tampering With Scratch

Albert actually named Cliff as the person who caused his scratch at one point indicating potential evidence tampering. Unfortunately, my public defender, Karrie Young, is refusing to get the expert witnesses to testify as to what sort of evidence tampering would allow AD’s scratch could heal down to half an inch per CPS reports and then suddenly grow to fifty five millimeters?!?

DD

Provable Perjury By The Mother DD – Leo’s mother committed provable perjury multiple times (Perjury is a crime.):

• She signed a birth certificate under oath stating that AJ was the father of PD and AD. She told me that this was not true as he had erectile and fertility issues. (I don’t know that this one is true but a simple DNA test would show it.)
• She transferred $15,000 to her parents in order to hide the money, then signed several governmental benefits applications under oath indicating that her assets were substantially less than the allowed amount for the benefits she was seeking.
• She lied by working “under the table” for Cliff and Sherri Feigelson (while also obtaining governmental benefits and without reporting that income.
• In the first dependency in 2015 she signed a declaration underoath that I had lied about the violence in her BDSM relationships, then in court in 2018 she admitted in court that she was involved in BDSM but again she tried to downplay it as “slap and tickle”. DD went well beyond slap and tickle.

Legally, I should be able to use that perjury in court to cast doubt on her testimony unfortunately I don’t have effective assistance of counsel so as far as I know it isn’t being used!

Lying To The Cops And To CPS – In her original report against me in 2015 she called the cops and claimed that I was hitting and beating her. The cops came and she was drunk a common status for her. Plus, there were no bruises. So she changed her claim to I was strangling her. The same strangulation claim she would later have her children use against me to take Leo away and obtain his benefits. False reporting is a crime!

Financial Motive – We originally moved to Washington so that we could buy a small micro farm. Unfortunately, DD lied about her credit and we were unable to purchase property.
In 2016, the year these alleged crimes were supposed to have happened she sent me a text then told me that I was going to give Leo back to her and move into a garage and pay her $500 a month so she could buy the home she would be renting. I flipped an told her absolutely not.

Hiding Misconduct – To protect Leo from PDs sexual misconduct I had called the ARC of King County where I had formerly worked with the developmentally disabled And ask them what I should do about the sexual misconduct PD was exhibiting in grabbing both mine and her brother’s genitals. They had suggested that we apply for a caretaker for PD who could supervisor and protect AD and Leo. DD refused as she could not have someone there to observe either her BDSM lifestyle or her alcoholism which she fully admitted to me she planned to return to. (She began getting passed out drunk again in 2018 when she began abusing Leo, PD an AD again.)

This is why she had to get me out of the way; because, I would not put up with the drinking again or the high level of dangerous BDSM play agound the kids – especially Leo! (When I went to Kansas to help her out I found out she and another play partner were making a working electric chair to put in her basement using parts they obtained from removing and installing high energy equipment like X Ray And imaging machines. Plus, when she returned to drinking she placed the kids in the care of a convicted sex offender which is against the law in certain cases! (RCW 9A.42.110.)

Witness Tampering –

1. PD admitted that her mother, DD, told her what to say about me several times!
2. DD used PDs imense love of horses to get her to talk

Strangulation:

No Evidence Of Strangulation– According to the kids and DD – I was grabbing the kids double handed by the neck picking them up and slamming them against the wall and holding them there all the time.

According to Gemini AI and Co-pilot That pick up and slam should have resulted in about a 135 pounds of force. Now in the neck there are a few bones and multiple cartilages the hyoid bone, thyroid bone, thyroid cartilage, . The thyroid cartlege breaks at about 35 pounds of force the hyhoid bone breaks in about 30 to 42 lbs of force both of which were exceeded by the 135 pounds of force from the alleged wall slam.

Compression of the trachea requires significantly more force: 33 pounds of pressure for occlusion and 35 pounds to fracture tracheal cartilage.²

RCW 5.60.050

Who are incompetent.

The following persons shall not be competent to testify:

(1) Those who are of unsound mind, or intoxicated at the time of their production for examination, and

(2) Those who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.

You’re referring to the Allen factors, which are indeed important in determining a child’s competency to testify in Washington State. These factors come from the case of State v. Allen, a 1965 Washington Supreme Court decision.

Here are the Allen factors that courts consider when assessing a child’s competency:

1. Understanding the Obligation to Tell the Truth: Does the child understand the difference between truth and falsehood, and the importance of telling the truth in court?
2. Mental Capacity at the Time of the Event: Did the child have the mental capacity to accurately perceive and understand the events they are testifying about at the time they occurred?
3. Memory: Does the child have a sufficient memory to retain an independent recollection of those events?
4. Capacity to Understand Simple Questions: Can the child understand and answer simple questions about the events in question?

How Courts Apply the Allen Factors:

• No Fixed Age Limit: There’s no specific age at which a child is automatically considered competent or incompetent.  
• Case-by-Case Basis: Courts evaluate each child’s competency individually, taking into account their age, maturity, understanding, and ability to communicate.  
• Judge’s Discretion: The trial judge has considerable discretion in determining whether a child is competent to testify, and this decision is generally not overturned on appeal unless there’s a clear abuse of discretion.
• No Specific “Test”: While the Allen factors guide the assessment, there’s no single “test” that a child must pass. Judges may ask questions to gauge the child’s understanding and abilities related to these factors.

You’re asking about a crucial aspect of child testimony in Washington! The “Ryan factors” are a set of criteria used by courts to assess the reliability of out-of-court statements made by children, particularly in cases of alleged abuse or neglect. These factors come from the Washington State Supreme Court case State v. Ryan (1984).  

Here are the nine Ryan factors:

1. Whether the child had an apparent motive to lie: Did the child have any reason to make a false accusation?
2. The child’s general character: Is the child generally truthful?
3. Whether more than one person heard the statements: Were there multiple witnesses to the child’s statements?
4. The spontaneity of the statements: Were the statements made freely and immediately after the event, or were they elicited after a delay?
5. The timing of the declaration and the relationship between the child and the witness: Was there a close and trusting relationship between the child and the person they told? Was the statement made soon after the event?
6. Whether the statements contained express assertions of past fact: Did the child describe what actually happened, or were the statements more general?
7. Whether the child’s lack of knowledge could be established through cross-examination: Could cross-examination reveal that the child didn’t actually witness the events they described?
8. The remoteness of the possibility of the child’s recollection being faulty: How much time has passed since the event, and how likely is it that the child’s memory is accurate?
9. Whether the surrounding circumstances suggest the child misrepresented the defendant’s involvement: Do the circumstances indicate that the child might be mistaken or influenced in their accusations against the defendant?

Important Points about the Ryan Factors:

• No single factor is decisive: A court will consider all of these factors together to determine the overall reliability of the child’s statements.
• Not all factors need to be met: The statements don’t have to perfectly align with every factor. The key is whether the factors, taken as a whole, “substantially” establish the reliability of the child’s out-of-court statements.
• Used in Child Hearsay Cases: The Ryan factors are particularly important when a child’s out-of-court statements are being offered as evidence under the child hearsay statute (RCW 9A.44.120).

Relevant RCW’s and WAC’s

RCW 9A.44.083 Child molestation in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.
(2) Child molestation in the first degree is a class A felony.

• RCW 9A.44.010 Definitions (13) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.
• RCW 9A.08.010 General requirements of culpability.
  (b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
  • (i) He or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or
  • (ii) He or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

USA TODAY “When can kids stay home alone? Find out the law in your state.” Oct. 21, 2024, 8:33 AM PDT By Elise Solé

“Washington: No specific age (but 10 as an informal guideline)
“Washington State does not have any laws or rules that say at what age a child can be left home alone,” a spokesperson from the Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families tells TODAY.com. “Guidance we have previously shared is that in general, children under 10 should not be left on their own.”’

RCW 9A.36.130 Assault of a child in the second degree.
(1) A person eighteen years of age or older is guilty of the crime of assault of a child in the second degree if the child is under the age of thirteen and the person:
(a) Commits the crime of assault in the second degree, as defined in RCW 9A.36.021, against a child; or
(b) Intentionally assaults the child and causes bodily harm that is greater than transient physical pain or minor temporary marks, and the person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice either of (i) assaulting the child which has resulted in bodily harm that is greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks, or (ii) causing the child physical pain or agony that is equivalent to that produced by torture.

RCW 9A.16.110 Defending against violent crime
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

RCW 9.94A.030 Definitions.

(58) “Violent offense” means:
(a) Any of the following felonies:
(i) Any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or an attempt to commit a class A felony;
(viii) Assault in the second degree;

RCW 26.50.010(3) defines domestic violence as including “sexual assault” when committed by one intimate partner against another, or by one family or household member against another.

WAC 478-121-610
This WAC, particularly subsection (3), is very relevant. It addresses the definition of consent and what constitutes “incapacity.” It states that “incapacity means an individual lacks the ability to understand the facts, nature, extent, or implications of the sexual contact for any reason including, but not limited to, being asleep, unconscious, unaware that the sexual contact is occurring, mentally or physically impaired.”   Therefore, this WAC specifically lists “being asleep” as a condition that renders someone incapable of consent.

Assault By Kicking

To accurately address whether “kicking” constitutes assault under Washington state law, it’s necessary to examine relevant RCWs and WACs. Here’s a breakdown:

• RCW 9A.36.011 – Assault in the fourth degree:
  • This RCW is fundamental to understanding assault in Washington.
  • Assault is generally defined as an intentional touching or striking or intentional creation of apprehension or fear of imminent bodily harm.
  • Kicking someone clearly falls within the definition of “intentional touching or striking.”
  • Therefore, kicking someone is considered assult.
• RCW 9A.16.100 – Use of force on children—Policy—Actions presumed unreasonable:
  • This RCW, while focused on the use of force on children, provides examples of actions considered unreasonable, including “kicking.”
  • This reinforces that kicking is considered a form of physical force that can cause harm.
• WAC 388-107-0001:
  • This WAC, when defining physical abuse, explicitly lists “kicking” as an example of physical abuse.
  • This further supports that kicking is considered an act of physical violence.
• RCW 7.105.010:
  • This RCW when defining domestic violence, includes “Physical harm, bodily injury, assault” as part of the definition. This means that kicking, when done in a domestic violence situation, is considered assult, and therefore domestic violence.
• RCW 49.95.010:
  • This RCW, when discussing workplace violence, specifies that workplace violence includes “physical assault, such as hitting or kicking.”

Key takeaway:

• Under Washington law, “kicking” is considered a form of physical force that constitutes assault.

I hope this provides a clear and accurate legal understanding.

RCW 46.61.673: Dangerously distracted driving.
This RCW addresses broader forms of distracted driving.
It makes it a traffic infraction to drive “dangerously distracted,” meaning engaging in any activity not related to driving that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle.
Enforcement of this infraction typically occurs as a secondary action when a driver is pulled over for another traffic violation.RCW 46.61.687: Child restraint system required—Conditions—Exceptions—Penalty for violation—Dismissal—Noncompliance not negligence—Immunity.1