April 29, 2025

Could Five City Employees Face Federal Indictment

The Five Named Defendants, in The Collins v Chief Brian Smith et al suit regarding all of the violations of The PRA, RCW 42.56 and The Washington State Constitution, could now also be guilty of violating a Federal Statute, The Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), as also known simply as The Wiretap Act Titles I II and III and possibly RCW 9.73 Intercepting Communications.

18 US Code 2511

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—

(a)intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

There are differences in definition, emails are considered “electronic communications.”

Emails, just as a telephone call, can not be “intercepted,” “in transit,” nor as RCW 9.73 mandates and defines, be “opened” without clear, prior consent while “storage” has a different definition.

Prosecuting under RCW 9.73 would be a heavier lift however, that statute requires a more defined and stricter definition of privacy, meaning if there is absolutely no violation then charges under RCW 9.73 can not be brought or won.

If you recall, The Records Clerk, Defendant Kari Martinez-Bailey, acted unilaterally with The I T Dept to add an email address(s) to some sort of Rule “filter” in Microsoft Outlook so to block, then redirect all of the emails, regardless of whom the emails were intended, to her and The Legal Dept. The City Manager, Defendant Nathan West, then gave the final order to Todd Weeks in I T to place “The Rule “filter” on all of the designated sender’s email addresses to block, then redirect all incoming emails.

Another distinction of fact is that if the emails are not copied, meaning one to the intended recipient and one to The Defendants, but actually blocks all emails from reaching the intended recipient(s) until and unless the email is viewed, then forwarded to the intended recipient, then that is an easier case to win.

Some cases litigated throughout history have that distinction, depending on The Microsoft Outlook rule setup, some intended recipients receive a copy and if so, then the violation can be moot.

Also, however, if a person uses an alias or anonymous name, account, then that might actually invoke even The RCW 9.73 because a person has a right to remain anonymous.

Plaintiff Collins made clear that any person can use as many email addresses as he pleases, using a false name or information is only unlawful in certain, legal situations.

This was, as claimed and asserted, by The New Sheriff in town, Defendant Martinez-Bailey, because of, get this, the crime of, “disrespect.” Apparently, the taxpayer, Collins, wasn’t bringing City Staff warm milk and cookies and, while the taxpayer was on his hands and knees upon delivery and, wasn’t heaping praise upon The Staff as morons do at when addressing The Liberal Lunatic City Council Members.

There was never any contact initiated by law enforcement during the relevant time frame or ever nor is there evidence of, well, much of anything but even if true, they would have still needed a warrant to “intercept” electronic communications.

The FBI and Justice Department have investigated and indicted others under this scenario with, albeit, mixed success depending on the situation on if the emails were in Storage, or Transit etc.

Messages of all types can be accessed more lawfully if in Storage as opposed to, “in “Transit.”

Collins did in fact file a more recent report to The FBI...

Stay tuned, more to come.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/petitions/1034504%20Petition%20for%20Review.pdf#search=scott%20t%20collins

April 29, 2025 5:09am