Dayton Citizen’s Oversight Committee

02/15/2026

In the Temple of Justice, the mirrors are turned,
To show where the "Authority of Law" was burned.
The Heyoka walks backward to see where neutrality should have been,
Tracing the "void” where the executive was dark as sin
You "conditioned" the dirt and you "civilized" the suit,
While the "Minister of Justice" was strangled and mute.
You "clutch" at the privilege, you "shroud" every page,
But the Public Record is the key to the cage.
A “Zombie" is rummaging while the Prosecutor said "No,"
But the Judge is on email, saying "Go, Deputy, go."
"Fix the spelling of names, fix the date, fix the time,"
While the State Archives whisper: "There is no crime."
You "denied with prejudice" a merits-less plea,
Then used that same lie as a "Collateral" key.
But the Heyoka is dancing, the sword’s at your neck,
With a January 5th minute to prove every wreck.
The "Notice" was stolen, the "Ambush" was planned,
But the 54(f) clock is still in your hand.
You "warp-speeded" the panel to hide from the light,
But the Published Opinion has heard the Heyoka plight
Hoisted high by the Petard you built with your pen,
The "Temple" is empty. The mirrors won't bend.
The Structural Error is a hole in the floor,
And the Jurisdictional Ghost just walked out the door.

02/14/2026

In the halls where Justice weighs the truth,
Against a scheme of "civilian clothes" and youth,

The record shows a sentient, woven thread—
Not what was done, but what was left unsaid.
A partner’s voice, a digital command:

“Say you don't know where the Sheriff stands."
Though he was there, behind the heavy door,
The "judicial machinery" was promised more.
To "condition" the seeker, to "contest every inch,"

To make the witness falter, stall, and flinch.
Under Maddix, page two-fifty-two,
An "unconscionable scheme" comes into view.
The warrants sought to retroactively shield
The items seized and facts they would not yield.
If the Bench looked on and knew the veil was thin, The Appearance of Fairness dies within.
No nine-fold path of common fraud is required,
When the court's own truth is suppressed and mired.

Under CR Sixty, section (b)(4),
Misconduct knocks upon the appellate door

In the Heyoka world, the silence after the "Thunder" is when the "Mirror" does its heaviest work. ultimate Heyoka maneuver

02/10/2026

“Hoisting them by their own petard."

Truly poetic

02/08/2026

https://youtu.be/PGjXcALH26U

I Don’t Owe You S**t is about reflecting on those who’ve wronged you and walking away confident in your sincerity while they showed their true colors, and tr...

01/08/2026

12/26/2025

My favorite part LOL is the without prejudice yeah right you think I’m letting that slide - think again oh please daddy protect us from the malicious prosecution claim. Transparent - CR 60 b (5) so sorry - a couple of my favorite hot takes from my own CR 60 (b) 5 motion combined CrR 8.3 (b) arbitrary government misconduct with prejudice - for the Lolz and the irony.- my certificate of non service. lol

12/26/2025

Reviving this replevin is the cherry on top

12/26/2025

These CR 60 (b) 11 sure are fun. The corrupt Sheriff should probably apologize to the community for the cost. Fiscally conservative my as***le. Ready Helm: let’s see going on a year of denial - lmao clown. An investigation initiated to punish or chill protected speech violates the First Amendment and is outside lawful authority.
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000)
→ Investigations undertaken to punish are not a legitimate attempt to find a violation of the law

• Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019)
→ Retaliatory enforcement absent probable cause is unlawful.
• Reges v. Cauce, No. 24-3518 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025),
→ A prolonged investigation itself constitutes an injury when motivated by protected speech.- love the new case law-

An unconstitutional investigation cannot be “effective law enforcement

Buckle up as***le - case No. 25-2-00019-07 revisited - vacate motion to seal, vacate show cause, vacate dismissal- full transcription of your sorry ass making a violent convicted felon an agent of the state while allowing your dirty cop to try to bring charges because you can’t handle condemnation of your botched investigations fragile narcissist POS and you can explain legitimate process. Oh I think the Tyler Hensley declaration will pair well - guess what ultra vires investigations aren’t legitimate as***le. Neither are investigations that can never bring charges because of lack of specific intent and probable cause. I think this constitutes bad faith.

12/26/2025

The question of the day can an ultra vires investigation be considered legitimate? Concerning the Public records Act and withheld under a broad categorical exemption pursuant to RCW 42.56.240(1). Welp we are going to find out.

12/25/2025

C.C. S.O. Corrupt AF ratified by the County ideologue commissioners. SICK S**T

Was it worth it? You are a disgrace every single one of you- you destroyed the separation of powers placed the court in a vacuum full of void orders out of retaliation. Compromised the very integrity of the adversarial system. Absolutely horrifying. No shame. Dayton’s finest right here. Why dont you resign already Helm you corrupt POS and take your undiciplined dirty cops with you. Disturbing all of it. Dumb ideologue low IQ retaliatory morons - what a david lynch clown show it is arround here - vile snakes no authority of law merely actors what a joke - Pathetic - zero respect for any of you corrupt POS and thats a fact.

Absence of a Lawful Adversarial Posture (Jurisdictional Defect)
Jurisdiction requires the presence of two proper parties. A disabled or conflicted
prosecutor lacks lawful authority to represent the State. Where no prosecutor has been
validly appointed by judicial order, there is no lawful plaintiff or petitioner before the
court. Absent a valid, non-conflicted prosecuting authority, the court lacks an adversarial
posture upon which to proceed, rendering any actions taken void or voidable for lack of
jurisdiction. Jurisdictional defects of this nature may be raised at any time and cannot be
waived. State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d 535, 545–46, 919 P.2d 69 (1996):
The record reflects a state of statutory disability regarding the prosecuting authority
under RCW 36.27.030. The current purported prosecution is marred by a documented
Conflict of interest and/or physical disability that renders the office incapable of fulfilling
its constitutional and statutory duties.

Washington law requires a judicial order to bridge this gap. Because no such order
exists, the appearing party lacks the status of a 'qualified person' under the law. Per State
v. Nickels, the personal disqualification of the lead prosecutor is imputed to all
subordinates, and any attempt by the office to 'screen' itself without judicial oversight and
a formal appointment order is a violation of due process and the Appearance of Fairness
doctrine
Absent a judicial order establishing a non-conflicted, qualified prosecutor, this Court sits
in a vacuum, lacking the adversarial posture necessary to exercise jurisdiction. Any
resulting orders are void ab initio."

DATED this 18th day of December

12/25/2025

The record confirms that the "State" (the Prosecutor) was not the party invoking the court's jurisdiction instead,the party invoking the court's jurisdiction instead, it was a rogue
agency acting in defiance of the State's own legal representative see ( Because the May 30 mandate from the Special Deputy Prosecutor legally disqualified the CCSO and
required a "neutral Outside Agency," Deputy Boudrieau was no longer a “peace officer" authorized to represent the State in this
specific Investigation see (App. Ex. B, F)
By bypassing the mandated outside agency and the prosecutor,Boudrieau exercised "unilateral control" over judicial power.
Under Article I, § 7, a warrant obtained by an official who has been legally divested of authority lacks the "authority of law"
and is void. The warrants are not merely "voidable" but void ab initio because the applicant (Boudrieau) lacked the legal status
to invoke the court's power under the specific constraints of the May 28 Special Appointment and the May 30 Mandate.see
(App. Ex. B, C, D) Once a prosecuting authority is disqualified and a special prosecutor is appointed, law enforcement has no
legal standing declare a case “open and active” for prosecutorial purposes or to control its disposition. That authority rests exclusively with the prosecutor as a constitutional officer exercising independent judgment.
Discovery obligations underscore this division of power. CrR 4.7 places the continuing duty to
disclose squarely on the prosecutor, not law enforcement. The prosecutor must ensure disclosure of all material and information within the possession or control of the prosecutor’s
staff and of others who participated in the investigation. Bradyv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Under Kyles v. Whitley, 514
U.S. 419, 437–38 (1995), the prosecutor is personally responsible for the integrity of the entire evidence pool; if law enforcement is permitted to act as a "gatekeeper" to the
prosecutor, a due process violation is inevitable.
See (App. Ex. I, J, K).
While law enforcement may gather evidence, it may not curate discovery, determine the scope of disclosure, or act as the final arbiter of information once a prosecuting authority is in
place.Discovery obligations underscore this
division of power. When law enforcement controls evidence custody, dictates discovery dissemination, and asserts primary
authority over case status, it usurps core prosecutorial functions reserved by statute and constitutional structure.
See (App. Ex. G, H, I, J, K)
The record here establishes a structural violation of separation of powers. Although a special prosecutor was nominally appointed, CCSO investigators retained effective control overevidence, discovery flow, and case direction. Investigators declared the cases “open and active,” directed that all communications be routed to themselves, curated discovery through law-enforcement platforms, and determined what
materials would be transmitted. Deputy Prosecutor acknowledged and ratified this arrangement by forwarding communications rather than exercising independent judgment
or supervisory control.
Because charging decisions and discovery management are core prosecutorial functions, their assumption by law enforcement

constitutes an ultra vires usurpation of executive authority. This defect is structural, not procedural. It infects the proceedings in
their entirety, compromises the integrity of the adversarial process, and cannot be cured by after-the-fact ratification.
Dismissal is therefore required as a matter of law

12/01/2025

https://youtu.be/ybwbyMn8nb0

TRUSTFALL (Tour Deluxe Edition) is out now! Listen here: https://pink.lnk.to/TrustfallDeluxe Shop brand new TRUSTFALL (Tour Deluxe Edition) vinyl, CDs, and ...