May 17, 2024

Clallam County Judge Brent Basden Not Fit For Bench

Judge Brent Basden has demonstrated that he is not fit to serve in a judicial capacity, he has demonstrated hostility, total ignorance of the issues at hand and wildly chastises litigants without the proper support of the record to substantiate his assertions and makes blunders and debacles that are consistently reversed and remanded by Appellant Courts including at The Federal Level.

Basden was elected as a Family Court Judge, served for years, then 'appointed' to Superior Court and has proven to be either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant on issues not within that narrow scope.

Voters have little choice here in Clallam County and like Rick Porter, whom was also regarded as inept, rude and hostile, was kept in office out of lack of choice and was in with The Chamber of Commerce crowd, the [clerks] in The Porter Court had also, however, hated working under [his] employ.

The court clerks in The Basden Court see how he loses his temper on the bench and during one of his breakdowns, a clerk had done a good imitation of Linda Blair after one of his outburst at The Plaintiff.

Basden had told a, ‘The’ Plaintiff he, Basden, was only going to allow an ‘amended complaint “once.”

A Plainttiff can amend once within a limited time period but thereafter must receive the court's consent, many litigants amend a dozen times althought that was not necessary here but clearly speaks to bias.

Basden was sitting in on a PRA case under RCW 42.56 and totally blew it, he did rule correctly on all procedural matters but only after chastising a Pro Se litigant for “insufficient service” yet absent any evidence to The Defense claims and then chastised The Plaintiff again for revealing the “perpetual” false inferences from The Defense Attorney yet when asked to apply the same standard to The Defense’s unsubstantiated smears, Basden referred to those as “facts” though it is admitted here, however, Basden did say [the record] will show the lack of evidence of any credible “allegations” against The “Plaintiff” toward any agency staff regarding records requests. The Seattle Attorney is well known for, assertions.

Basden had all of the pieces of evidence and elements needed to rule in favor of The Pro Se Plaintiff including exhibits, case law, jurisprudence and authority (or lack thereof) to rule against The Defendants whom had acted in a manner of which were clear violations of The PRA, RCW 42.56, on multiple levels but ruled in favor of The Defense in a Summary Judgment solely to railroad The Pro Se Plaintiff despite the evidence and, it seems, to protect the local agency so to stay in their good graces.

Whenever The Pro Se Plaintiff was explaining The PRA and lack of authority local employees had when they had acted to restrict access to records under The PRA, Basden, in a smartass manner, had then asked The Plaintiff well “what’s your authority” and when The plaintiff was explaining told The Plaintiff that he, Basden, was “not going to be manipulated” when The Plaintiff had rightly and clearly mentioned and explained The Statutes and case law of which litigants do to, “manipulate,” and convince.

The Defense had misled the court(s) on multiple occasions including a comment during a hearing that The Plaintiff was not entitled to relief simply because “he does not like” (the restrictions) on requests so Basden, favoring The Defense Attorney again, turns to The Plaintiff and said, “I know you don’t like it,” (when referring to the unlawful restrictions), “but what are your damages?”

The restrictions, "prior restraints," are mandating, compelling, forcing a requester to use a specific mode or form for records requests of which violates The PRA, specifically RCW 42.56.080 (2), on, it's, face.

The PRA does not require “damages” only that agencies or staff had violated The Statute(s) according to Statutes and case law, [damages] only apply when records have not been produced and then a court can apply a $100 per day penalty. Yousoufian v. Office of Sims, 168 Wn. 2d 444, 471 (Wash. 2010)

Zink v. City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328, 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

While the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the City would have treated other persons making a large number of public record requests the same as it treated Ms. Zink, such treatment nonetheless violated the PDA. The PDA does not allow an agency to justify its restriction of a citizen's access to records, after the fact, on the ground that it would have so restricted other citizens in similar circumstances.

The City restricted the Zinks' opportunity to view public records to one hour per day, from 10 to 11 AM. See CP at 31 This is not consistent with the specific requirement of the PDA. Former RCW 42.17.280 (1995)

O'Dea v. City of Tacoma, 493 P.3d 1245, 1252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021)

"No official format is required for making a records request; however, agencies may recommend that requestors submit requests using an agency provided form or web page." RCW 42.56.080(2). A requester need not expressly reference the PRA. Germeau , 166 Wash. App. at 806, 271 P.3d 932. Nor must a requester submit their request to a designated PRA coordinator. Id. at 806 n.17, 271 P.3d 932.

And, although the requests did not arrive through the City's online PRA submission form, agencies cannot mandate a particular mode of submission. RCW 42.56.080(2) ; Germeau , 166 Wash. App. at 806 n.17, 271 P.3d 932.

Germeau v. Mason Cnty., 271 P.3d 932, 941 n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012)

Division One did not articulate an exhaustive list of Department of Corrections employees to whom Parmalee could submit his public records request; instead, the court simply eliminated two particular employees from the list of acceptable PRA request recipients. See Parmelee,148 Wash. App. at 754–55, 201 P.3d 1022.

“As our Supreme Court has made clear, “[T]here is no official format for a valid P[R]A request.” Hangartner, 151 Wash.2d at 447, 90 P.3d 26; see also Beal, 150 Wash.App. at 874, 877, 209 P.3d 872.” Germeau v. Mason Cnty., 271 P.3d 932, 941 n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012.

Not only are agencies required to produce records in a timely manner, agencies and or staffs can not restrict a requesters’ access to those records in any way, shape or form absent a clear violation of Statute including some sort of actionable disorderly behavior while obtaining public records. Simple volume of requests by a single requester is not enough to restrict access with an administrative prior restraint.

May 17, 2024 5:02am