[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Our next case for argument is Sloan Stanley versus King County or County of King.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
Reserved five minutes if I could.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
You might wait just one moment till we get all set up here.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
Usually that would be a pellet But I think he did you set up over here I just stepped up to the podium.

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
Okay fine We don't exactly have a seating chart we just have kind of tradition I suppose I figured I'd park it over there.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
Well, that's fine Ready you may proceed.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
I'm Represent.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
Mr. Stanley, of course.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
I'm here because of

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
A career thief and a professional liar, lifelong liar, said, my client said, felonious words in a prison cell in 2016, a couple hours southwest of here.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
And then the following year, this Detective Pelly, the same detective from a prior case, he took the legal nullity of what the briefing refers to as Burleson's tail,

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
transported it up to this region and told the four people on earth, Burleson's tale, the four people for whom it would cause absolute terror, the messenger being a senior detective, a heroic figure to them, an avuncular figure who had developed a rapport through a criminal case back in 2014 that put my client in that prison cell.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
The silver lining being that while he terrified these four prior victims from an old case with a legal nullity of Burleson's tail, he also created four perfect witnesses for a trial that would be built only on that, Burleson's tail, as the corpus delicti of the crime.

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
The trial would be bolstered by the subordination of perjury that Burleson, this font of what the district court calls information, Burleson is a prison expert on scariness.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
burleson who has never ever been anywhere near gary ridgeway the green river killer testified that he's walked the yard with the green river killer and that mr. stanley a terrific human being is scarier than the green river killer and on that basis they put my client away for five and a half years almost six the dismissal order said there was one sentence that was set off with the word critically that word

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
That sentence is quite loaded.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
It introduces the notion of contributory probable cause, stating that the complaint does not address the, quote, information in Berleson's tale that does contribute to probable cause.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
That's very problematic on multiple levels, one being there is no such thing as contributing to probable cause.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
You have it or you don't.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
Another being that my failure as a pro se level draftsman of a complaint, apparently, was based upon the failure to meet a burden of this Burleson's tale, which is to say that the district court gave it weight.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
and that it did not find that I carried the weight, the corollary counterweight.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
Well, this court in Hervey, with I think Judge Hawkins was on that panel, said there is no weight afforded Burleson's tail.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
Now, of course, we know that later they decided to, they admitted in the Judge Oishi's court down the street here, that they had no probable cause, but they needed it, and they couldn't even use a second

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
Burleson and the embodied in Billy Temple a second I hate to use the term informant because informant is a legal status.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
They cannot have but they attempted to corroborate It was really interesting the way they did it because obviously it is scientifically impossible to corroborate words spoken in 2016 in 2017 with that knowledge they got themselves a listening device and a second

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
groomed informant who was coached on how to bait my client Well, they got neither they got and they didn't even bother to listen to the audio before they falsified the certification of probable cause but the interview is is videotaped and it's transcribed and it says nothing about felony threats or harassment or any of this and

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
While I have listened to quite a bit of the 144 hours of audio, we don't really need to because they admitted in the trial court, in the criminal court, that there was nothing in there incriminating, not a word.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
There was kind of funny banter.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
And so what I did is trying to avoid being here in a 12b6 posture, I took what I knew and then added an appendix to the complaint.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
And I think nowadays, what we know now,

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
the appendix would look a lot more like this, a blank piece of paper with just, I am Detective Christianson.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
Now, we know a lot more, which obviously we're here on the record that exists, but this case does not, never had probable cause, and then they attempted to expand it to a realm in which they could say probable cause exists, and then they suppressed their own corroborative, supposedly corroborative,

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
witness and the audio, which my client had to then fight for, and it took him a couple tries to get it, it is a pulse graph of civil rights cases.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
And then the layers of deceit and duplicity began with the false probable cause, then you have the perjured testimony about the Green River killer,

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
And then you have a 402-month sentence imposed.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
And then here we are in this case, in the civil case, we have declarations that are under penalty of perjury that are false, that are factually incorrect.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
I guess I was looking forward to questions.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
I could probably talk all day.

[00:07:23] Speaker 05:
Well, there was a, let me ask one, I'll accept the invitation.

[00:07:27] Speaker 05:
There, a county judge, was it Mason County?

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
Judge Cobb.

[00:07:33] Speaker 05:
Yeah, found probable cause to keep your client detained.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
He found no probable cause, he released him.

[00:07:44] Speaker 05:
Oh, okay.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
Yeah, it says right there, I mean it's handwritten, it's hard to see, but that was his release date.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
There's video of it, of him crying, of my client finally getting released.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
He made a little error, I think, you know, Judge Cobb, you know, a lot of times in trial court, it's just, it's a calendar.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
So he was like, well, I'm not going to do the whole dismissal of the, of the, of the case, but I'm letting you go because there's no probable cause to keep you.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's all in the transcript.

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
You know, let's go back, obviously 2023 is out because

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
That's after the fact of 2017, so we're not really considering that.

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
But lay out for me, if you would, that why Burleson's information was insufficient for probable cause.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
OK, Burleson is a lifelong professional liar with no track record and no knowledge base of anything except

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
we're in the same cell together we talk about our cases but even you know there's a there's a watching state published opinion on reversing the conviction that talks about how burleson didn't even know names of any of these people and there's some fancy footwork in that certification that insinuates he did name a bunch of these people which still wouldn't matter those are not details that would support probable cause you need something you know even if you're applying gates which

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
You know, Hervey didn't apply Gates, and there's no case that says you can apply state law of probable cause in a judicial deception case.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
So I mean, you're kind of going off on the tangents there.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
So really, we got the guy in the cell.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
So that's a basis that he's in the same cell, right?

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
Well, I mean, yeah.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
That's a basis.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
A very limited basis.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
I'm not saying it's probable cause.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
I'm saying it's a fact.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
It's a fact.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
It's a fact.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
He's in the cell.

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
The known liar.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
at the time of the probable cause determination.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
What's the basis for that?

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
theft, credit card, or what do you call those, gift card fraud, I guess.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
Stealing stuff, doing the, you know, street drugs.

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
I mean, we do have, you know, I think that you would do better if you looked at the facts rather than broad things, because I think the detective said that Burleson had

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
He suffered from a distinct lack of credibility, which is really not a good thing if you're trying to base probable cause.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
And wasn't that one of the bases for getting in this new person, Temple, and then putting another listening device in there?

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
Lack is zero.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
Zero credibility.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
So there is nothing.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
It's illegal nullity, the first guy.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
And they knew that.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
They knew that corroboration with another version of the first guy would still be zero.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
So they needed that wire, that bug.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
And they got the bug, 144 hours, and they got the second guy.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
And both the recording and the guy said, no, he never threatened anybody.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
And they just joked around for 144 hours as prison cell mates.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
There's three of them in there, though.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
And what is the state of the record?

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
There seems to be some contradiction with respect to whether Burleson had been possibly offered something in exchange for his testimony.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
The offer for burleson he had two felony he was in there because he was on the run from two felonies and the emails are in the record where he's asking his defense counsel for You know the code word is you know they did they say they want treatment really what that means is a different

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
I guess stream of imprisonment you go into a different tier a different level.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
You know I've been in there Representing clients.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
They're treated a little bit better You know it's it's what he was requesting, but there was also a in the record where The detective was trying to get payment for him.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
That's also in the record in his own notes Are you done?

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
I know.

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
It's just you seem to be walking away without suggesting you were reserving your time.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
Are you done with your main argument?

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
Yes, please.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:12:19] Speaker 05:
Other way.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
So just to be clear, you're splitting time.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
You're taking 10 minutes and then Mr. Zeldin-Rust will take the two minutes.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:12:38] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
Carolyn Cowart, I represent the city defendants, and Mr. Zeldin Rust and I have divided up the legal issues.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
If that pleases the court, I will address judicial deception claims, and I will address the failure to allege that defendants acted with a reckless disregard to the truth, and then Mr. Zeldin Rust will address prosecutorial immunity and the Monell claims.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
Council, are you planning to or would you please address whether or not probable cause existed in 2017 to support the whole arrest trial conviction of Mr. Stanley?

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, and that is one of the elements, required elements of the claims that rest on judicial deception.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
So judicial deception requires false statements or omissions that are material to the finding of probable cause.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
It also requires that those be made deliberately or with a reckless disregard to the truth.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
And so, according to, and the district court correctly ruled that the alleged false statements and omissions were not material to probable cause, according to the appellant's own allegations, the corrected, their version of the corrected certificate of probable cause accurately reported all of the following true facts.

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
that Randy Burleson, Mr. Stanley's former prison cellmate, came forward and told the detective defendants that he feared Mr. Stanley was going to kill four women when he was released from prison.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
Those were the victims from his earlier trial.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
And the certificate also says Burleson told the detective defendants that Mr. Stanley would at least three or more times daily give frightening outbursts with graphic detail about how he intended to kill the victims upon being released with a firearm by getting into a shooting stance in his cell.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
And then the second informant

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
Again, according to appellants own allegations the second informant Tim temple corroborated that mr Stanley said he did have access to a firearm and intended to access it and Obtain it after he was released.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
Yeah, that's that's pretty weak that last I mean temple is kind of a wash.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
Wouldn't you agree?

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
but council what troubles me is that I

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
The whole basis for inserting temple and the listening device was a representation that to the extent that Burleson provided me with useful evidence of the threat that Stanley poses, he suffers from a distinct lack of credibility.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
And then it details how Burleson on his own isn't sufficient, but then they didn't really get much of anything from inserting temple on the listening device.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
And the certificate of probable cause discloses to the magistrate that Temple did not corroborate Stanley making death threats.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
So that was disclosed to the magistrate.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
And there were other points that Temple corroborated, but not the death threats.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
They don't really help too much.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
There are other indicia of reliability, other corroboration.

[00:16:16] Speaker 02:
But we're not hanging our hat on Temple.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
And the statement about reliability is in the context of securing a conviction at trial and the standard that would be applied there of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
That's not the same standard that is applied for probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
Those are very different standards.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
So that's a very important distinction to make.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
And the certificate of probable cause, when read fairly, again, we're talking about the corrected version of the certificate that is part of appellant's own allegations.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
It does not vouch for or overstate Burleson's credibility.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
It does not minimize his criminal history.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
It indicates that he had multiple felony convictions.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
It says he was in and out of prison multiple times and shared a cell with essentially hardened criminals.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
So there's plainly no intent or deliberate action to hide facts.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
So one of the things that's troubling me is that is really this factual collision here on what happened.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
And we're now, we're not in the criminal world of the Frank's affidavit.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
We're not in the last case.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
We're in this 1983 case, right?

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
And so we're in a civil case at the 12b6 stage.

[00:17:49] Speaker 04:
where all of the allegations in the complaint are taken as true.

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
So what I'm concerned about is it may be all come out in the wash in your favor in the end, but at this stage, I'm wondering, what's the basis given the standard of review for dismissing this Fourth Amendment violation at this stage?

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
And that's why the, again, all of the facts

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
that I am discussing are appellants version of the facts.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
Our position is not to agree to any of these.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
Our position is not that there were no.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
So no, we do not agree to any of these.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
But they are saying that these were omissions and misstatements.

[00:18:39] Speaker 02:
And so the district court and the parties have looked at this corrected version of the certificate of probable cause that appellants put forth.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
And they are saying these are all the corrected versions of the facts.

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
And so all of the facts in there are ones that they are ascribing to.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
And when we look at the facts that are in that corrected version of the certificate of probable cause, they do amount to probable cause.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
So appellants allege, again in their own pleadings, their own version of the certificate, it accurately describes Mr. Stanley's own criminal history, which adds to the basis for probable cause.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
At the time he was serving a prison sentence,

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
for cyber-stalking involving death threats against those same four women.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
He deserved part of his sentence was released and then sent back to prison because he violated his conditions of release by contacting and threatening a fifth woman who'd worked with the original four victims.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
This accurate information about him being unable to abide by the conditions of his release added to the basis for probable cause that's in their version of the certificate, which they say illuminates the true facts.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
What do we do about this credibility issue at this stage?

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
At this stage, the question at this stage is whether any of the material, any of the alleged false statements were material to probable cause.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
The real question is whether the plaintiff has stated

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
That's the ultimate question in his 1983 suit.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
And that then goes back to the affidavit of probable cause, of course.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
I believe he is stating claims based on judicial deception.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
To the extent he is saying there was no probable cause, to the extent he is saying someone like Burleson never could have formed a basis for probable cause,

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
irrespective of any deception, that doesn't provide him relief here.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
Well, if he alleges a Fourth Amendment violation and the Fourth Amendment violation, that would support a judicial deception, seizure, and all the other related claims.

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
It's a foundational question, isn't it, the Fourth Amendment violation?

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor, but it has to be deception that leads to the violation.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
So some of the appellants' arguments prove too much.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
They're saying that someone like Burleson never could have provided PC.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
They suggest that perhaps the court in 2017 made an error irrespective of any deception.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
That question isn't before this court.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
That's all I'm saying on that ground.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
If the court has questions about Monell or prosecutorial immunity should I yes time to mr.. Zeldin rust.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you Good morning your honors.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
I'm John Zeldin rust.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
I'm here on behalf of King County and senior deputy prosecuting attorney Gary Ernst or I

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
King County and Mr. Ernst have asked this court to affirm the district court's dismissal of the 1983 claims against them under rule 12 B 6 without prejudice and with leave to amend.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
The district court properly dismissed the Monell claim because in effect he did not allege any policy in his complaint and he also didn't name any policy maker in his complaint.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
He failed to allege any long-standing custom or policy in accordance with that senior deputy prosecuting attorney Ernstorf acted in accordance with.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
Finally, again, he did not identify any policymaker who allegedly ratified the conduct of the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of Mr. Ernstorf.

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
Now, that is, of course, a requirement.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
It's not sufficient to simply say the municipal entity ratified conduct.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
Now, as to Mr. Ernstorf, he failed to allege or plead any specific nonconclusory relevant facts such as dates,

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
supporting the conclusion that Mr. Ernstdorf engaged in unconstitutional or allegedly unconstitutional activity that would fall outside the prosecutorial immunity shield.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
Now, looking at page 19 of his brief, he essentially admits this.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
He states that, you know, with limited, heavily redacted public records available prior to litigation, Mr. Stanley was only able to plausibly infer that Mr. Ernstdorf had been involved in several months before the case was filed.

[00:23:46] Speaker 00:
Thus, it is highly plausible and inferable that given the absence of litigation during this period, Mr. Ernstdorf was acting as an investigator

[00:23:56] Speaker 00:
and not an immune advocate.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
And he says this is a plausible inference that will be verified by discovery, which of course at the pleading stage, it's the obligation of the appellant to allege sufficient facts even absent any discovery.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
But I want to emphasize in this case that it is abundantly clear from his briefing below at the district court, as well as his briefing before this court,

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
that he has ample evidence, he has ample access to a universe of facts from which he might be able to cobble together some kind of timeline or some kind of dates that might suggest, you know, what occurred, when it occurred, not even, there's no even allegation in there as when Mr. Ernstorf became involved in the case.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
Now, there's very few specific dates at all mentioned in the complaint.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
You know, we have fast forward to 2016, and then we don't have anything in 2017.

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
So there isn't, the whole purpose here is to put Mr. Ernstdorf on notice before he is

[00:25:00] Speaker 00:
you know, drag through the litigation process on a 1983 claim that, you know, hey, this is plausibly alleging something that I've done.

[00:25:08] Speaker 00:
I can kind of piece it together.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
And what Mr. – what appellant has done here effectively is say, well, here's a box puzzle.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
It's got 100 pieces.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
I'm going to dump it on the table.

[00:25:19] Speaker 00:
And it's incumbent upon you, Mr. Earnstorf, to put together and try to come up with what I'm alleging here.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
And by the way, the court just take judicial notice of everything.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Okay?

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
And that's not sufficient under Iqbal and some of the recent Supreme Court decisions.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
There has to be some sort of sufficient facts alleged, nonconclusory, that plausibly support a cognizable legal theory.

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
And that is the difficulty in this case.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
Now, the allegations here, they're very conclusory.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
Fraud, falsification of evidence.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
fabrication of PC, conspiracy, lies, labels and formulaic conclusions is what these are.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
Something that is this serious really does require some specific allegations to support it.

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
We're not asking for a dissertation here.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
We're just asking for some basic things.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
When did he become involved?

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
Was there some plan?

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
When was it hatched?

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
What was any contribution to the plan?

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
You know, just a basic chronology.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
And in that respect... Isn't all of that knowledge within... Doesn't all that knowledge lie within the lines of the defendants?

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
I mean, how can he possibly allege when a conspiracy was formed to frame him?

[00:26:55] Speaker 00:
Well, I think what he can plausibly allege under that, and it does require some specificity in the pleading, Your Honor, in order to allege conspiracy, but he has to allege, okay, well,

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
just a conclusion of a conspiracy is insufficient.

[00:27:10] Speaker 00:
There has to be some, you know, well, he met, you know, they came up with something.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
And I think that the, you know, the important point here is he has all this information.

[00:27:20] Speaker 00:
He just didn't take the time for whatever reason or find it necessary to plead it.

[00:27:26] Speaker 00:
And you know this case is is there's no prejudice to him in affirming the district court and saying just go ahead and plead it You've got the information go ahead and plead it a basic chronology and so forth now Let me ask you a question does the complaint say

[00:27:48] Speaker 05:
that say or allege that Mr. Stanley never made the statements to Bertelsen.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, no, I did not see that in the complaint.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
All right, I reviewed the complaint a number of times, and I didn't see anything in there to that effect.

[00:28:10] Speaker 05:
So what the system was faced with was a cellmate.

[00:28:17] Speaker 05:
They established that Bertelsen was a cellmate, that Stanley said these things to him.

[00:28:23] Speaker 05:
That was the basis for probable cause.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
Yeah, in my understanding, and that kind of goes to the city of Seattle, but my understanding is indeed that that was the primary basis for the probable cause, the stance, the I'm going to get these people, I'm going to take care of them, all these other things.

[00:28:41] Speaker 00:
And so, yes.

[00:28:42] Speaker 05:
You would think, and I can ask your friend on the other side about this, you'd think if that were the case, that in his complaint, Mr. Stanley would say that, I never said this.

[00:28:55] Speaker 00:
Correct and I did not see any allegation that he never said it.

[00:28:58] Speaker 00:
I think that the allegation is just he's not credible.

[00:29:01] Speaker 00:
Okay, he's some kind of a recidivist felon, he's got no accurate history, so disbelieve it, it's not really or something to that effect.

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
I did not see an outright denial of him saying that.

[00:29:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
We ask the court to affirm the 12b6 dismissal of Gary Ernst Dauphin King County.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:21] Speaker 01:
The complaint

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
Is rife with statements and restatements that it is a fantasy threat that was never uttered it even says the very last part in the facts it says that

[00:29:36] Speaker 01:
They were false statements.

[00:29:38] Speaker 01:
Nobody corroborated the false statements, and nobody ever could in the future, given that they were false.

[00:29:44] Speaker 05:
That's not my question.

[00:29:45] Speaker 05:
My question is, anywhere in the complaint, does it say, Mr. Stanley never said this stuff?

[00:29:55] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that's the complaint.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
I was reading from the complaint.

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
The false statements are attributed to Stanley.

[00:30:01] Speaker 05:
He's saying these are false statements, but does he say, I never said these things?

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
Well, it doesn't say it like that, because that's in the first person in a complaint.

[00:30:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, it doesn't make any sense to speak in the first person in a complaint.

[00:30:14] Speaker 01:
It says that the statements of Burleson attributed to Stanley were false, which means he never said these things.

[00:30:21] Speaker 01:
Not that it matters, because Burleson could, if that were the standard,

[00:30:26] Speaker 01:
Lifelong criminal could just say that prisoner 142 said something and send them for 402 months We would have a real problem with backlog here and everything else But no, there's other places in the complaint where it says they are false.

[00:30:41] Speaker 01:
It's a fantasy threats I call them fantasy threats at some point.

[00:30:45] Speaker 04:
So Judge Ward, I have a question.

[00:30:47] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry Why why don't you amend the complaint to state that more clearly and

[00:30:55] Speaker 03:
and provide more details.

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
You were given the opportunity to amend your complaint.

[00:31:01] Speaker 01:
Well, the complaint is extremely sufficient.

[00:31:05] Speaker 01:
It is in reverse engineering of all the jury instructions, with all the facts cut and pasted into them from summary judgment briefing and elements tables.

[00:31:17] Speaker 01:
And the dates are all right here.

[00:31:19] Speaker 01:
I mean, you want dates?

[00:31:20] Speaker 01:
There's like 10 different dates in here.

[00:31:22] Speaker 01:
I mean, the whole thing started in 2016, and then there's

[00:31:26] Speaker 01:
You know August 1st detectives with King County prosecutors Decided they were going to get and have an operation whereby they would implant a second informant.

[00:31:35] Speaker 01:
This is these are There these are our opponents own words Under penalty of perjury and those in all the dates are right there.

[00:31:43] Speaker 01:
The thing was signed on

[00:31:45] Speaker 01:
In August 10, 2017, I mean, the entire chronology exists in here and in the body, that's the appendix, but in the body it says 2016 is when the Burleson's tail was first told, 2017 is where the, and my client's on the other side of the mountains at this point, 2017 is where

[00:32:07] Speaker 01:
Detective Christiansen goes to Mason County and hangs on every word of Berlison.

[00:32:13] Speaker 01:
And rather than asking, it says also in the appendix that my client's fantasy threats were yelled.

[00:32:21] Speaker 01:
Well, WCC, you know, I mean, they're prisoners everywhere.

[00:32:25] Speaker 01:
You don't yell without somebody hearing you, and there's no...

[00:32:29] Speaker 01:
There's no indicator that anybody asked any other inmates or counselors or anybody.

[00:32:35] Speaker 01:
And that's pleaded in the complaint.

[00:32:37] Speaker 01:
And in fact, this court has recognized in Brom v. Bogan, it's also a basis for Brady against a prosecutor, where if you're telling people not to interview exculpatory witnesses, you don't have immunity if it's pre-filing.

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
And that's what we have here.

[00:32:51] Speaker 01:
I would urge rereading of the complaint.

[00:32:57] Speaker 01:
This is my 10th year of drafting complaints, and I think that I've been refining it every year, and I've never had this situation.

[00:33:04] Speaker 01:
The appendix was intended to offer a preliminary version of the Hervey exercise in order to avoid this situation, and Branch v. Tunnel, which preceded the Hervey,

[00:33:19] Speaker 04:
case made it clear that the heightened plea standard is just barely heightened you know it's it's anyway that's all I got five seconds so thank you thank you thank all counsel for your argument today the case just argued of Stanley versus King County is submitted