September 11, 2006
Brian Moran
1125 Washington Street SE
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
Dear Brian Moran:
I am in receipt of your September 7, 2006, letter. I have a number of concerns with the inaccurate accounts presented and your excuses for limiting the Attorney General’s duty to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of the over 1 million public school children. Ironically, you stress in your letter that the “Attorney General has a direct duty to the people of the State of Washington.” However, you dismiss the upholding of constitutional rights with the excuse that “this office does not have jurisdiction to investigate the alleged crimes and wrongdoings.” You further your defense of limited duties by citing that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) does not allow the Attorney General to investigate crimes without the request of the governor, county prosecuting attorney or committee charged with the oversight of the organized crime intelligence unit. Please be advised that RCW 43.10.232 does not forbid the Attorney General from referring the potential criminal activity within a public agency to the named entities.
According to the Washington State Bar Association, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.13 Organization as Client, you are obligated to make the referral. Rule 1.13 (b) clearly defines your obligation.
"(b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law."
Rule 1.13 also specifies, “The duty defined in this Rule applies to governmental organizations.” I am sure that you are well aware of the rules of professional conduct that define the legal profession. Therefore, your claim that “this office can do and will do nothing” goes against the rules of professional conduct. You are an officer of the courts and must abide by the rules of professional conduct. You must act in accordance with the rules of professional conduct and refer the actions of Terry Bergeson and other staff involved “to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.” I expect that you and the “multiple attorneys” reviewing the 2,500 pages of documents and copied correspondences will find reasonable cause to demonstrate that it is highly probable the activities of Bergeson et al. are in violation of both state and federal statutes governing public education.
Please note that you have stated in your letter that the Attorney General represents “state agencies, including the OSPI, the legislature, and the Governor.” However, you clearly define the Attorney General’s “direct duty [is] to the people of the State of Washington,” which includes 1 million public school children.
I believe we can both agree that you have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of public school children and teachers. Clearly, the Attorney General does have the lawful ability to act on our public school children’s behalf. This lawful ability is given to the Attorney General by the Supreme Court of Washington State.
At this point, I would like to address the misleading and inaccurate statements made throughout your letter. I expect you will correct these inaccuracies in writing to all parties with whom you have shared the September 7 correspondence. Each statement will be addressed separately.
Statement 1
“I am aware you met with my predecessor, Chief Deputy Craig Wright, on one occasion and corresponded regularly with him about your concerns over the past year and a half.”
I met with Craig Wright on two occasions (March 2005 and August 2005).
Statement 2
“He advised you that our office is legally unable to assist you with your concerns regarding the OSPI.”
In the March 2005 meeting, Craig Wright said he would review the documents and get back to me by June 2005; he did not. On June 14, 2005, I received an email correspondence from Craig Wright informing me that he needed more time. He apologized for the delay and thanked me for my patience.
Late July 2005, I began requesting to meet. In August 2005, I met with Craig Wright. Also present were Greg Overstreet, Judy Gaul, and Mr. Alton McDonald from National Action Network. The meeting was not productive, because the first question Craig Wright asked me was, “Who is Andrew Griffin?” This made it obvious that Craig Wright had not reviewed the documents I had presented. By the end of the meeting Craig Wright agreed to read the document entitled “The Unveiling...Part 2” and provide a written response. By November 2005, I had not received a written response, so I called Craig on his cellular telephone and spoke with him, briefly. He again stated he would be responding in writing. To date, I have never received a written response from Craig Wright nor do I view your letter as the response promised me over a year ago.
Statement 3
“I am also aware that your same concerns were shared with Mr. Wright’s predecessor, Chief Deputy Kathleen Mix.”
Kathleen Mix has never addressed the information presented in the document entitled “The Unveiling…Part 2” or the reports and public documents that have followed. These documents were not presented to the former Attorney General or Ms. Mix. In fact, several of the research reports presented to your office were produced during the McKenna administration and others were presented for the first time to the Attorney General under the McKenna administration. Ms. Mix’s response to my concerns were limited to the document entitled “The Unveiling…Part 1”, which is a document expressing the beginning stages of my research and investigation into the activities of the Bergeson Administration (see letter dated January 26, 2004 from Ms. Mix). The public documents discussing the building of a Temple and transformation to the fifth dimension were provided to the previous Attorney General. I received no response from the previous Attorney General with regard to the public documents discussing the temple.
Mr. Wright was given many documents and copies of pages from Robert Carkhuff publications produced or purchased under state contract. I provided Mr. Wright with a copy of Robert Carkhuff’s book entitled Human Possibilities, which discusses the labeling of people who are not able to higher-order think as “detractors.” This book and other Carkhuff publications were purchased by OSPI in mass quantity for public distribution.
Statement 4
“Finally, I believe you have personally met with then Attorney General Christine Gregoire on more than one occasion.”
Again, you lead the reader into believing that I met with Christine Gregoire while she was the Attorney General and discussed the same information presented to the McKenna Administration. The information presented to Ms. Mix is the same information presented to Christine Gregoire while she was the Attorney General. My first meeting with Christine Gregoire was in November of 2001, which was before I uncovered the Carkhuff contracts and public documents that define the state’s education reform. The last meeting discussion was more or less limited to the Superintendent’s office denying and concealing public documents. Katie Dolan an advocate for children with disabilities accompanied me. In addition, then Attorney General shared that if she witnessed someone being murdered outside her office there was nothing she could do; this was her analogy to explain to me her limited duties as the Attorney General.
Statement 5
“Despite the fact that Chief Deputies Kathleen Mix and Craig Wright both reviewed your complaints and advised you that our office simply had no jurisdiction to act on them, I felt it my obligation to conduct a final review of your concerns.”
Again, you attempt to mislead the reader into believing that meetings with agency staff fulfill the duties of the Attorney General. For specifics relating to the meetings, please refer to explanations provided for statement 2, 3 and 4.
You refer to my complaints and your jurisdiction in the past tense. Does this mean you have determined that my complaints are in the past and no longer exist? If so, please be advised my complaints still exist and as demonstrated in the language presented regarding your rules of professional conduct, you are still obligated to act upon my complaints and supporting documents.
Another point of concern relates to your stressing, final review, which implies that you will no longer address my concerns, or more precise, the concerns relating to the well-being of 1 million public school children and their constitutional rights.
Based on the numerous statements that are inaccurate, misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts, I must conclude that your final review is seriously flawed and most likely done in haste.
Statement 6
“The executive branch is obligated to carry out those laws passed by the legislature.”
This leads the reader to believe that the executive branch leaders have acted accordingly. This statement does not reflect the actions of the executive branch leaders. The Governor has not presented you with a request to investigate Bergeson and others involved with the Carkhuff contracts and allegations expressed and documented throughout the 2,500 pages of public documents and research. In your letter, you claim “we have not received (and accepted) such a request…”
Clearly, Bergeson has abused the privileges afforded her as an elected official by using the police authority of the state to implement Carkhuff’s unproven science religion (psychotherapy) in order to develop scientifically researched based pedagogy. She also is using the police authority of the state to investigate and evaluate Carkhuff’s psychotherapy theory of teaching higher-order thinking skills. The state must stop using public school children and teachers as its human subjects to conduct educational research in a manner forbidden by federal law (see CFR Title 45, Part 46).
Other Branches of Government
The following explanations will discuss the other branches of government that have failed to fulfill on legislative duties. These agencies are the Executive Ethics Board, which is an arm of the Attorney General, and the State Auditor. Conveniently, you misrepresent the facts that relate to the Executive Ethics Board and State Auditor. Is this done in order to defend the state’s limited oversight of OSPI while under the leadership of Terry Bergeson?
Statement 7
“In the course of reviewing your allegations, I received a copy of the final report of the Board finding your complaints to be unfounded and ordering your case dismissed.”
The Executive Ethics Board has never investigated the complaints 04-048 (Terry Bergeson), 04-049 (Shirley McCune) and 04-050 (Andrew Griffin). The Board staff conducted a preliminary investigation and the Executive Director dismissed the case based on the receipt of letters from Andrew Griffin and Shirley McCune claiming they had not received a financial gain in authoring books with Robert Carkhuff while he was a contractor with OSPI. In addition, you do not mention the fact that you were provided with a copy of my July 24, 2006, appeal to the Executive Ethics Board, which was hand delivered to your office on July 24, 2006 along with the supporting documents. In the appeal letter, I note numerous discrepancies with the Executive Director’s dismissal and numerous relevant facts that were not reviewed or considered in the Board staff preliminary investigation.
One major fact that is disturbing about the preliminary investigation is that the Director limited her inquiries of McCune and Griffin financial gain to the accused. Terry Bergeson was not required to offer an explanation. This type of inquiry does not support an unbiased investigative procedure. If investigations are limited to asking the accused whether they committed a crime, then I guess the accused would be inclined to deny the allegations to secure his or her innocence. Perhaps the State of Washington could propose this type of investigation to authorities wishing to reduce prison population.
Statement 8
“I note that your case before the Executive Ethics Board mirrored the allegations you have lodged with our office over the past three years.”
Again, you demonstrate your limited review of the 2,500 pages of documents and copied correspondences. The Executive Ethics Board is not authorized to investigate Robert Carkhuff teachings, OSPI implementation of psychotherapy (science religion) and the Carkhuff conceptual framework, which is the structure of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning and aligned education reform. In the EEB case numbers mentioned, the Executive Ethics Board is only obligated to investigate the conflict of interest between state employees and contractors. Perhaps you should review the laws governing the Executive Ethics Board before making statements regarding the concerns I have brought to the Attorney General.
Statement 9
“Similarly, the Auditor informed you in August 2004 that he found ’no significant reporting issues’ after reviewing the contracts between the OSPI and Robert Carkhuff.”
Wrong again, the Auditor has never reviewed the contracts between OSPI and Robert Carkhuff. The Auditor has never claimed he has done so in a letter to me. The August 2004 letter informs me that the auditor
"reviewed accounting records and determined that no contracts were entered into with Carkhuff and related entities during the current audit period. Through review of payment information, we also determined that no payments of any kind were made on behalf of Robert Carkhuff or related entities during the same period of time. Further, these and other contracts were thoroughly reviewed during the previous audit, resulting in no significant reporting issues."
The Carkhuff contracts in question are dated July 1997 through December 2001. The auditor did not review the contracts between OSPI and Robert Carkhuff. No Carkhuff contracts existed in the auditing periods mentioned. Furthermore, I believe you have misinterpreted the word these to mean Carkhuff contracts. The word these references “accounting records” and “payment information” for the previous audit period. The contracts between OSPI and Carkhuff have never been reviewed by the State Auditor’s office, at least not at the time of the August 30, 2004 letter. Your claim that such review has taken place is an assumption on your part—nothing more.
Paragraph 11
In paragraph 11 of your letter, you painstakingly attempt to create some sort of defense that alludes to the fact that your agency has completed a thorough review of the documents. You also make claims about other agencies that are not accurate and are misrepresented. You have failed to support your defense with facts. You claim that approximately 2,500 pages of documents have been “reviewed multiple times, by multiple attorneys, over multiple months.” If this is true, why does your letter contain inaccurate statements and misrepresentations of the facts?
Concluding Remarks
Throughout your letter, you change facts, misrepresent facts and mislead the reader. Please be advised of the Washington State Court’s Rules: Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.1, Truthfulness in Statements to Others. This rule forbids a lawyer from knowingly making false statements of material fact or law to a third person; or failing to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client. Did you follow the rules of professional conduct pertaining to truthfulness in statements to others or have you provided a response that was written in haste with no intent to misrepresent facts and mislead the reader?
Expectations
Now that I have clearly stated my position, I believe I can more precisely define my expectations of the Attorney General. First, I expect the Attorney General to act upon the laws and rules that govern the agency and the legal profession. Second, I expect the Attorney General to protect the constitutional rights of the people of Washington State, which includes public school children. You have dutifully noted in your letter, “…the Attorney General has a direct duty to the people of Washington State.” However, the inaction of the Attorney General does not support your statement. You emphasize this inaction by stressing the Attorney General “can do and will do nothing.”
While the law does not provide you with the authority to investigate the State Superintendent without a request from named entities, the rules governing the legal profession require that you refer the matter to the Governor (the highest authority) and perhaps the legislature. Again, I stress, Washington state law does not forbid you from making such referral.
Please do not hide behind the law in an attempt to wash your hands of the crimes and civil violations resulting from the implementation and promotion of an educational framework that has been conspired by state officials to oppress certain groups of minority populations from the free exercise or enjoyment of their rights or privileges secured to them by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Also, do not allow government officials to subject, under color of the law, people of minority race (African American and Hispanic) to deprivation of their rights and privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Maintaining the use of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning and its related education reform oppresses certain minority populations and deprives them of their constitutional rights.
To make known the atrocities of the state and to ensure that the Attorney General has been informed of the criminal civil rights offenses being enforced by the state through legislation and governmental organizations, I will continue to write letters and present evidence of these offenses. When the Attorney General acts upon his duties as provided in the rules and laws governing the legal profession, I will then focus my energy on the organization or individual given the referral, which I believe will be the Governor.
Please inform me in writing of the action your office will be taking regarding the issues I have brought to the Attorney General’s attention. Please make note of the referral, so that I can be assured the Attorney General has acted upon his duties as the head of the Attorney General’s Office, and a Washington State licensed lawyer.
Very truly yours,
Nancy Vernon
cc: U.S. Chief Attorney General Jeff Sullivan
Rob McKenna, Attorney General
Governor Christine Gregoire
