Judge Orders Website Shutdown

By Guy Bini
October 2, 2017
Portland, OR

On Thursday, September 28, in a case of alleged medical child abuse, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Susan M. Svetkey ordered the website to be shut down by Monday, October 2, 2017. A coordinated social media page,, was also ordered to be taken down within 24 hours of her ruling.

[Note:  Find new site at ]

Judge Svetkey stated that the mother who is alleged of medical child abuse took steps to circumvent prior confidentiality orders by creating a website in order to obtain support for her cause, which is to publicize the injustice that the state of Oregon inflicted upon her family.

The website was developed by Trisha Delaurent of Vancouver, Washington. Delaurent has been accused of medical child abuse. She has publicized her family’s story and claims her innocence. The information published on the website has been highly critical of both Oregon CPS and law enforcement investigators who have been looking into the medical child abuse allegations.

Specifically, Delaurent has published a counter narrative with details that point to a lack of a genuine investigation which includes false reporting, false statements, failure to investigate and witness tampering all initiated by state investigators.

According to Judge Svetkey, the creation of the website and fb page flies in the face of state and federal laws designed to help protect the privacy and confidentiality of minor children who become caught up in the DHS/CPS system. However, DHS attorneys representing the children did not present any documentation during the 9/28 hearing that would suggest Delaurent was in violation of any state or federal privacy laws, nor were any specific laws referenced by code or by statute. Instead, state attorneys asked Delaurent if she posted medical information about the children which any parent has a right to do. Delaurent answered “Yes” which embolden Judge Svetkey to order the entire website to be shut down.

During questioning, Delaurent informed the court that she gave up control of the website to a group of anonymous online social justice activists. When asked if there was any reason why she could not take down the website, Delaurent said she no longer owns the rights to

Because she no longer has control of the website, Judge Svetkey modified the court order upon Delaurent to shut down the website and/or to make all possible efforts to contact the anonymous groups and request that it be taken down. If Delaurent is unable to get the groups to take down the website, then she is to provide such information to her attorney.

In addition, the DA was to make their own efforts with Anonymous to take down the website.

Delaurent, a mother of four, is currently embattled with both Oregon DHS and Washington DSHS over the custodial rights of her children.

In October of 2016, the three oldest children were taken into temporary protective custody by Oregon CPS and later placed with the children’s maternal grandmother. On the surface it seems like an optimal plan to place the three older children with their maternal grandmother, until one scratches the surface to dig into grandma’s background and discovers a long-term hostile relationship towards Delaurent.

In February 2017, Delaurent gave birth to her 4th child. Twelve days after the birth of her youngest son, Washington CPS took temporary custody of him as well based upon a ‘threat of harm’ due to the other 3 children being taken by Oregon CPS.

Delaurent’s motivation to develop a website was to publish her family’s story. It was born out of her frustration which stemmed from what she believed to be a biased investigation on the part of Oregon CPS investigator, Steve Jackson, and Gresham Police Officer, Detective Robert Harley who is assigned to the Portland Child Abuse Team known as CAT. Neither investigator interviewed friends or family members close to the Delaurent family. Instead, they sought the opinions of those who were adversarial to Delaurent, and that includes Delaurent’s mother.  

In April of 2017, Detective Harley interviewed Delaurent, six months after the decision was made by the state to take her children into temporary protective custody, and only after she had made numerous requests to be interviewed.

Medical abuse cases typically involve parents who fail or neglect to seek medical attention for their children, especially those children who have life threatening ailments. Delaurent has done the exact opposite. Delaurent has sought out medical treatment for her children and accepted the medical advice given by her doctors. She has made certain that doctor’s orders were followed. Then why has Delaurent been accused of medical child abuse?

The reporter of medical child abuse in this case was Delaurent’s mother, the same person who is now the state’s approved caregiver for the 3 oldest children. Delaurent has begged the state to find placement elsewhere for her children. She has made it well known that the children are not safe as the grandmother has already exposed the children to other family members in which she has a life time protection order against.

The state has taken a position to believe grandma, a known false reporter, and to ignore safety concerns. The state’s belief in the care provider, and disbelief in the accused, has placed the children at a greater risk of harm. Delaurent has been vocal and proactive to the point where she has written about the risk of harm to her children at DHS and CPS have failed to remedy the mother’s request to place the children with another suitable care provider.

Because Delaurent has been an outspoken advocate for her children and a critic of the state, the state wants to silence her. The ruling by Judge Svetkey has now prevented Delaurent from publishing her concerns on the internet, an apparent violation of Delaurent’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press.

Delaurent has the right to comment about a case of public controversy without fear of retaliation from the government.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime” ~ Miller v. US (5th Circuit) (1956)


15 KNOWN Complaints filed against VPD Detective Sandra Aldridge in 3 years...
According to an article published in the Columbian Newspaper regarding the 2016 overturned conviction of Clark County's Lester Juan Griffin, Jr.:

Policies in Doubt over Overturned Conviction
September 14, 2016

Prosecutors statewide are scratching their heads after the Washington Court of Appeals overturned a local criminal case, muddying the waters for what type of police misconduct can be brought up during a defendant's trial.

The court found last week that the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in 2009 did not provide evidence the defense could have used to potentially discredit a testifying police officer - known in the courts as a Brady violation.

Prokop, Jessica. "Policies in Doubt over Overturned Conviction." The Columbian (Vancouver, WA). McClatchyTribune Information Services. 2016. HighBeam Research. 24 Mar. 2017 <>.

In spite of the fact that the ruling in the Griffin case identified a requirement for disclosure of open Internal Affairs investigations regarding any officer who would be testifying in court REGARDLESS of the allegations, status or outcome of the IA investigation, the Clark County criminal justice system appears to be ignoring this precedent. 

In the Griffin ruling, it was noted that VPD Officer Jeffrey Wilken had three open IA investigations during the same time he testified against Mr. Griffin.  Further, Wilken's testimony was used by Prosecutor in the case, Tony Golik, to "rehabilitate" the testimony of other witnesses who were questionable. Wilken would later be removed from his position as a VPD officer as a result of proven misconduct.

Due to an absence of accountability within the VPD, Detective Sandra Aldridge is not on a law enforcement BRADY LIST in spite of the number of times allegations of her misconduct have warranted investigation (which far exceeds the three year listing above).  Detective Aldridge has, in the past three years, testified in countless trials.  Aldridge's conduct and testimony has been brought into question through allegations of fabrication of evidence, evidence tampering, witness intimidation & retaliation, perjury, false reporting, and other forms of official misconduct.  These allegations of misconduct have been formally brought before the Clark County Superior Court, Court of Appeals Division II, the WA Supreme Court, US Federal District Court of Western Washington, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Since March of 2017, this reporter has inquired on 4 separate occasions to the Vancouver City Attorney's Office and the Clark County Prosecutor's Office requesting information regarding the impact of the Griffin ruling on the existing BRADY POLICY. There has been no response.

According to the Griffin decision, Detective Sandra Aldridge SHOULD NOT BE TESTIFYING in court without full disclosure of her open Internal Affairs investigations.


When police officers are allowed to fabricate evidence to ensure a conviction, their Chain of Command MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for its lack of ensuring that its subordinates lawfully satisfy their responsibilities to the citizens of the community.   Bad police behavior occurs when there is no oversight by the following:          
1. Citizens; 2. Police Department’s Chain of Command; 3. Judiciary (Court); 4. Legislature; 5.  News Outlets: TV, Radio, Newspapers.  ~JML


Following his moving statements during a panel discussion in Enid, Oklahoma at a benefit for wrongfully convicted former police officer, Daniel Holtzclaw, former Vancouver WA Police Officer Ray Spencer is gaining even greater notoriety as an advocate for others whose lives have been impacted by wrongful conviction. 

CR TV's Michelle Malkin speaks on air about Ray Spencer, and the 9th Circuit's reinstatement of Spencer's $9 million jury award (audio link) Malkin on Ray Spencer Case.  For full podcast of Michelle Malkin's interview about the recent screening of Part 3 of the documentary "RAILROADED", and about the Daniel Holtzclaw case:  Pat Campbell Podcast: News & Politics

For more about Daniel Holtzclaw's case:

For more about Ray Spencer's case: 

Prosecutors Caught with Hand in the Cookie Jar

Clark County, Vancouver, WA: 
The malicious prosecution & wrongful conviction of John Garrett Smith is riddled with unanswered questions the Prosecutor’s Office & Vancouver Police Department scramble to keep buried. Continuing discovery of hidden evidence, concealed witnesses, suppressed audio depositions, disregarded exculpatory DNA Crime Lab reports, crime scene spoliation, and proof of fabrication of evidence & perjury by State’s key witness & lead detective, Sandra Aldridge, creates mounting liability for Clark County. Like a 5 year old child with his hand caught in the cookie jar, the Prosecutor's Office clings to the lie rather than accept responsibility and begin to address a problem that has plagued Clark County and its citizens for decades.



Following is  a sampling of questions waiting for answers from the Prosecutor's Office and others involved:

  • Why were DNA Crime lab results never entered into evidence?
  • Why was DNA analyst Caron Pruitt, claimed by prosecution to be a key witness, never added to the witness list?
  • Why were 7 Medical Doctors on the State's witness list NOT sent subpoenas to testify at trial? 
  • Why was "extent of injury" testimony provided by physician's assistants and physical therapists?
  • Why did 14 of the State's 27 witnesses fail to testify without notice or explanation?
  • Why did only 1 of 6 responding VPD officers testify?
  • Why were conflicting statements made by State's witnesses ignored by defense attorney, Josephine Townsend?
  • Why were there no police reports, statements, depositions or testimony from the following responding officers?
  • Why was non-responding VPD Officer Matthew Bachelder deposed, but not called to testify?  
  • Why did Bachelder refuse to answer deposition questions, and state that 'I do not want to be involved in this'? 
  • Why did Officer Yong describe a different crime scene (wrong bedroom) than was depicted in the photos?
  • Why did Detectives fail to preserve the crime scene?
  • Why did Detectives wait nearly a week to go back to the crime scene to investigate, only to arrive while the "professional carpet cleaners" were "just finishing up" according to Detective Aldridge's deposition?
  • Why was there no explanation or investigation into WHO called the professional carpet cleaners, and WHY they were contacted to clean up a recent 'crime scene' that had not been preserved?
  • Why was the iPhone logged into evidence 38 minutes before the incident occurred?
  • Who had possession of the iPhone that Garrett Smith was attempting to locate?
  • Why did the missing iPhone make two incoming calls to the landline in Smith's hand?

The most important questions involve the failure to properly authenticate the voicemail recording used to convict John Garrett Smith. The "CD copy" made by Detective Sandra Aldridge and used during trial has since been forensically analyzed, and discovered to be a composite fake.  

Where is the iPhone now that was checked out of the Evidence Unit in July of 2013 to Detective Sandra Aldridge, and, according to the evidence log, was not returned?



WA Legislators Must Call for ACCOUNTABILITY in Clark County

Chapter 4.100 RCW



The legislature recognizes that persons convicted and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit have been uniquely victimized. Having suffered tremendous injustice by being stripped of their lives and liberty, they are forced to endure imprisonment and are later stigmatized as felons. A majority of those wrongly convicted in Washington state have no remedy available under the law for the destruction of their personal lives resulting from errors in our criminal justice system. The legislature intends to provide an avenue for those who have been wrongly convicted in Washington state to redress the lost years of their lives, and help to address the unique challenges faced by the wrongly convicted... 


[Excerpt of letter to John Garrett Smith's son]

...We will continue to advocate for your father's freedom. The evidence is overwhelming that Detective Aldridge tampered with his iPhone in order to obtain an unlawful arrest and wrongful conviction. It was based upon false allegations that he attempted to murder Sheryl [Cresap-Smith]. The iPhone voicemail recording was the key piece of evidence that enabled Clark County to obtain a wrongful conviction and sentence him to 12 years in prison for a crime that never occurred.  

The background has been investigated and the financial data has been gathered to prove that your father had been taken advantage of by his second wife and her handlers. Sheryl [Cresap-Smith] preyed upon Garrett in 2009 when he was most vulnerable.

In Aug of 2011, Garrett's business partners, Joshua Gotlieb and Charles Barker, swindled $660K from his Hawaii business ventures, Co-gentech Pacific and Poly-gentech. The proof has been compiled and archived.

In Sept 2012, Garrett was defrauded of $113K by Internet scammers when he paid this money for an up front loan fee. The proof has been compiled and archived. Evidence suggests that Cresap was part of this scheme to defraud your father. 

On June 5, 2013, 2 days after the alleged attack, Sheryl sent an email to Garrett's business partners with Imperial Dairy Company, LLC announcing that she would be 'stepping in' and 'taking over' in place of Garrett. At the time Garrett had $250K in escrow for the purchase of 2 dairies, 1 heifer farm and a cheese factory.

At this same time, Garrett had, conservatively, well over $250 million in various projects that had been his life's work; dozens of projects with locations all over the western United States, any ONE of which would have made your father a FORTUNE. Sheryl Cresap likely targeted your father before they met, and has been sabotaging his efforts and stealing from him throughout their relationship.

All told, $1,023,000 liquid cash assets were embezzled from Garrett. Sheryl was there beside him during this entire timeline.

It is sad that you and your brothers have been subjected to the lies about your father. All four of you have had to mature at a rapid rate while trying to cope with and understand the fraud and theft that has been beset upon your family.

6/3/2017 will mark the four year anniversary of your father's nightmare.

6/8/2017 is the date set for oral arguments before the Washington Supreme Court. We are holding out hope that your father's most recent motions will finally be the key to set him free.

I wanted you to know the historical significance of your father's saga as an added understanding as to why and how he was wrongfully convicted.

Sheryl Cresap is well connected to the Clark County criminal justice system. These thieves were behind the fraud and theft of over 1 million in cash that was stolen from Garrett. These thieves were acutely aware of the enormous present value of your father's current projects [work in progress], as well as the untold future value of his intellectual properties, the Stewardsmith System. In blunt terms, he was set up.

We were caught up in this mess because we spoke out against the injustices upon your father long before we knew about the depth of the fraud...

Clark County acts of fraud before the WA Supreme Court

Clark County Prosecutors' request for discretionary review of  the Court of Appeal's October 4th, 2016 unanimous reversal of the conviction of JOHN GARRETT SMITH comes before the state Supreme Court on Thursday, June 8th.  Meanwhile, Garrett Smith, with no unserved charges currently against him, is being held in a Washington State Prison on an Appeal Bond of 12 million dollars. 

This outrageous and vindictive bail amount was put in place by Clark County Judge Robert A. Lewis, the sole trier of fact in Garrett Smith's December 2014 bench trial. Post conviction discovery (brought before the Court of Appeals within Smith's 2015 "Statement of Additional Grounds") revealed that Judge Lewis was the presiding judge on two separate cases within 5 years of Garrett Smith's arrest in which Smith's accuser was a party . In each case Judge Lewis ruled in favor of Smith's accuser, Sheryl Cresap.  Both cases were ripe with controversy and their subsequent outcomes [per rulings by Judge Lewis] resulted in significant financial gain for Ms. Cresap. [See State v. Virginia Lee Martin, case # 07-1-00421-1, ruling in 2009, and the Last will and testament of Victor D. Cresap, case # 08-4-00322-2, ruling in 2012.]

Post conviction discovery also indicates the likelihood that Judge Robert A. Lewis knew or should have known of the existence, and suppression, of exculpatory evidence, as well as the fabrication of key evidence used to wrongfully convict. 

The fraud that has permeated John Garrett Smith's case since his arrest in 2013 is now before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.  Below are links to documents exposing the fraud, submitted by the Respondent, for the June 8th review.

WA Court of Appeals Division II # 47205-8-II (submitted October 8, 2015)

Falsified Voicemail Evidence v. WA State Attorneys' "Privacy Act" Agenda

Washington is one of 10 states that still enforces an "all party consent" law when it comes to recording a private conversation.  With slim and vaguely defined exceptions, a recording in which all parties did not give permission to record, is not admissible in court.  Said "recorder" could be charged with having violated the law. RCW 9.73 is a hot button topic within WA state and local government. In the case against John Garrett Smith,  attorneys statewide have scrambled at the opportunity to affect Privacy Act case law.

On December 3rd, 2014, in a bench trial, John Garrett Smith was convicted of Attempted Murder II. On October 4th, 2016, in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals Division II reversed the decision based upon a violation of the State's Privacy Act. The ONLY piece of evidence used to convict Smith of Attempted Murder II was fabricated voicemail recording

On April 25, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court was made aware of this fraudulent recording. [NOTE:  The fraud was reported to Clark County Prosecutor, Tony Golik prior to Smith's original conviction.  No action was taken by the Prosecutor's office to check the veracity of the tainted evidence].  In it's Petition for Discretionary Review, the Supreme Court will be reviewing Clark County's appeal of a "NON-Privacy Act" violation.  Clark County has suppressed the fabrication of the voicemail recording and continues to participate in fraud upon the court, rendering the State's Privacy Act irrelevant.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT is a fraud "directed to the judicial machinery itself ."  It is further defined as fraud where "the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." 

Vancouver Police Department Detective Sandra Aldridge verified the voicemail was authentic.  It was Aldridge who testified that she downloaded the message directly from the iPhone. Aldridge also falsely stated, under oath, that she was Cellebrite Certified, thus qualified to extract the voicemail recording. 

A September 2015 VPD chain of custody report verifies that Aldridge checked Smith's iPhone out of the VPD evidence unit on July 15, 2013 and had not returned the iPhone back into the custody of the evidence unit 2.5 years later... even after Smith's conviction. The current status and location of the iPhone [and its original voicemail] is "undetermined".

Since 2008, Aldridge has been named in over 20 VPD Internal Affairs Investigations. Currently Aldridge is a named defendant in 2 Federal lawsuits, with 1 more pending filing... and likely several to follow.

Clark County, WA Superior Court Judge Robert A. Lewis holds man with NO PENDING CHARGES on $12 MILLION BAIL BOND

Fabrication of Evidence within Policy in Clark County, WA?

Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, Tony Golik:

I recently attended the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing involving the $9 million civil award owed to Ray Spencer for Clark County's fabrication of evidence that led to nearly 20 years of his wrongful incarceration.  Like the Honorable Judge Andrew Hurwitz, I was astonished that in Clark County, it is considered "acceptable practice" for law enforcement to fabricate evidence as long as the officer feels the accused is guilty.

My question for you, Mr. Golik Is this:  As Clark County's elected Prosecutor, is this still your position today?

Let's not mince words.  We have been at this since before the conviction of John Garrett Smith.  Prior to Smith's conviction, you received and ignored an email from a witness with information calling into question the voicemail recording used to convict Garrett Smith of 2nd Degree Attempted Murder.  According to the evidence log, VPD entered the iPhone into evidence 38 minutes prior to the incident. Additionally, while the phone was logged into evidence, "it" made two phone calls to Garrett Smith's landline, just prior to capturing the subject voicemail recording.

Since Smith's conviction, you have been provided with expert analysis demonstrating that the voicemail recording was manufactured.

RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct) 3.8(g) requires a prosecutor to make prompt disclosure to an appropriate court or authority when he or she “knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant is innocent of the offense of which the defendant was convicted.” 

Is it still your position as the elected Prosecutor for Clark County that it is acceptable for police officers to manufacture evidence as long as they believe the accused is quilty?   The citizens of Clark County look forward to your reply.


Traci Eccles

CC: Senate Law and Justice Committee, House Judiciary Committee

VPD Detective Sandra Aldridge: Where There's Smoke, There's an Inferno

Does the City of Vancouver have specific attorneys on the payroll just to handle litigation resulting from violations of civil rights by Detective Sandra Aldridge?

VPD Officer Sandra Aldridge continues to compound liability for the City of Vancouver, Vancouver Police Department and the citizens of our community. Her misconduct remains UNCHECKED, while City leaders pour taxpayer dollars into full time legal defense to cover liability associated with the pattern and practice of violation of civil rights that Aldridge leaves in her path.  In addition to the 20+ internal affairs complaints filed against Aldridge with the Vancouver Police Department, complaints of misconduct under "Color of Law"  SPECIFICALLY NAMING DETECTIVE SANDRA ALDRIDGE have been brought forth in each of the civil and criminal cases listed below over the past four years:

List of alleged violations include:  False arrest, falsification of evidence, manufacturing of evidence, falsifying police reports, perjury, subornation of perjury, making sexual advances to an alleged DV victim, unlawful search and seizure, due process violations, false statements on search warrants, mishandling evidence, false statements regarding certifications, violations of state and federal Privacy Act, unlawful tampering with Criminal History Database (ACCESS) records, unlawful extradition and interstate fraud.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
**Civil Appeals specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Bini V. City of Vancouver, Et Al No. 17-35517

Federal US District Court of Western Washington
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Bini V. City of Vancouver, Et Al No. 3:16-CV-05460-BHS
Osborne V. Vancouver Police, Et Al No. 3:15-CV-05877-BHS-KLS

Tort Claim Filed with intent to sue in Federal US District  Court of Western WA
**Tort claim specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Ilya Petrenko & Stephanie Salyers V. City of Vancouver, Et Al (to be filed in Federal District Court)

Federal US District Court of Oregon
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Smith V. Sandra Aldridge No. 3:17-CV-01485-HZ

Clark County Superior Court (Civil Action)
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Hall V. City of Vancouver, Et Al No. 16-2-05712-1

Washington State Court of Appeals Division II
**Clark County conviction appeals in which Detective Aldridge is specifically named regarding alleged misconduct leading to conviction

State v. Deron Parks 45348-7-II (reverse and remand)
State v. Sandra Weller 44726-6
State v. John Garrett Smith 47205-8-II (reverse and remand)
State v. Lawrence Diese  47432-8-II
State v. Derek Hall No. 48733-1-II
State v. Derek Mark Loughrey No. 47339-9-II
State v. Nicholas Andrew Oxford No. 47291-1-II

Clark County Superior Court
**Clark County Superior Court convictions reached per plea deal in which Detective Sandra Aldridge has been identified regarding alleged misconduct increasing risk of wrongful conviction, therefore influencing decision to accept a plea deal:

State v. Derek Hall (plea deal) No. 13-1-02211-7
State v. Charles Shelly (plea deal) No. 15-1-01277-1
State v. Dominique Massey (plea deal) No. 14-1-02060-1
State v. Lucas Osborne (plea deal)  No. 15-1-01915-5
State v. Tara Wills-Chaney (plea deal) No. 13-1-01760-1

Note:  This is a preliminary list and will likely be expanding as more information comes forward, and as more civil lawsuits are filed.


Does VPD allow sexual misconduct if it doesn't involve a local Prosecutor?

In April of 2014, a citizen complaint was filed against Detective Sandra Aldridge for making sexual advances toward the complainant. Following an Internal Affairs investigation, a "Notice of Findings" was issued and included the following reprimand to Detective Aldridge from superior officer, Lt. Doug Luse:

[Note: The excerpt below is taken directly from the decision in IA investigation #2014-0097 involving allegations of sexual misconduct against Detective Sandra Aldridge]

"In your interview, you acknowledged encouraging Randi to watch the Melissa Ferrick "Drive" video. The transcript of your interview describes the video as "two women that are naked in bed." You yourself describe the video as "sensual."  Further, you stated that the reason you complemented Randi (via text) on her looks and suggested that she watch the video, was in order to help her with her self-esteem and make her realize that her partner should treat her better.

While the evidence in this investigation does not support the allegations, a critique of the complaint is in order. Your efforts to build up Randi's self-esteem through the recommendation of  a [sexual] music video and complementing her looks does not fall within the parameters of your duties as a law enforcement officer.  That is better left to the DV Advocates and not the investigating detective.

While your actions in this case did not amount to a sustained policy violation, they were inappropriate, and I must caution you that further similar actions could result in a sustained policy violation and possible discipline." 

An August 2016 complaint filed by a separate injured party alleges additional violations by Detective Sandra Aldridge.  Internal Affairs Complaint #2016-0077 includes new allegations and significant evidence of sexual misconduct by Detective Sandra Aldridge. This information currently is being considered in the final stages of what VPD Professional Standards Unit has deemed a "MAJOR" complaint. 

An email exchange [below] between Professional Standards Unit's Sgt. Barbara Kipp and the complainant may leave some question as to whether the investigation's focus is on violations of policy by Detective Sandra Aldridge, or instead, on protecting the reputations of VPD, the City of Vancouver, and the Prosecutor's office.  The question of concern in Sgt. Kipp's email  is whether Detective Aldridge's 2014 lover, "Amanda LaRue," who originally sent the sexual video link to Detective Aldridge through VPD work email, is, in fact, a Clark County Deputy Prosecutor.

Clark County & VPD: Wake up and smell the 30-year-old coffee!

[Link]   The Columbian: Ruling Stands in Spencer Case
Different player, same game...

A July 3, 2017 Columbian article [link above] reports Clark County's latest failure in its attempt to avoid payment of the $9 million jury award to Ray Spencer and his family.  In reviewing Clark County's original refusal to pay the award back in 2014, journalist Jessica Prokop states, "...the Clark County Commissioners unanimously voted to not pay the $9 million.  Then-Commissioners Tom Mielke, David Madore and Steve Stuart voted to no longer protect Krause and Davidson by paying the award. County Prosecutors argued that since Krause was found to have fabricated evidence, she was outside the scope of her duties as a county employee."

Detective Sandra Aldridge of the Vancouver Police Department has been, over the past several years and currently, at the center of over 20 VPD internal affairs investigations, multiple federal and state civil rights actions, and at least two overturned convictions.  In each of these instances, Aldridge is alleged to have fabricated evidence, lied under oath, and/or engaged in a plethora of civil rights violations, yet Detective Aldridge continues to escape formal reprimand or consequence. 

It is no wonder that VPD command staff, local government officials and prosecutors are trying to ratify past and present misconduct and deny all liability. The premise that has been clung to in Ray Spencer's civil case, and other current cases, is: 

If a detective believes someone is guilty,  she/he is free to lie, fabricate evidence and disregard civil rights in general, in order to secure a conviction. 

The Honorable Judge Andrew Hurwitz of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals called this premise "Astonishing"... and he was absolutely right.   

Is Lying on a Search Warrant Permitted in Clark County, WA?

Recent litigation in Federal Courts has revealed that attorneys representing Clark County believe it is acceptable for a detective to fabricate evidence for a wrongful conviction as long as she "believes" the defendant is guilty at the time the evidence is fabricated (Spencer v. Krause). 

Similarly, in Bini v. Aldridge, Vancouver City Attorneys argue that as long as the detective "believed" she had probable cause at the time of arrest, that the wrongful arrest was excusable. This is in spite of the fact that the detective falsified information on a police report, and then stated in a supplemental report that she misunderstood the RCW.

Recent discovery through public records disclosure revealed that the same VPD Detective, Sandra Aldridge, has included false statements in at least three search warrants, submitted for command staff approval and judge's signatures (State v. Shelly, State v. Smith, and State v. Karsner). Command staff was made aware of these falsifications in May 2017. 

The alleged violations are currently under Internal Affairs review.  Will Aldridge's supervisors AGAIN give her a pass on this criminal behavior? 

Shame on You Clark County...Let the Spencer Family Heal!

Earlier this week, an appeal was submitted by attorneys representing Clark County to the 9th Circuit Court disputing the reinstatement of a $9 million jury award owed to Ray Spencer and his family.  It is the request of the County that the unanimous decision by three esteemed Justices of the 9th Circuit be disregarded, and that ALL NINE 9th Circuit Judges rule as to whether it is acceptable for a law enforcement officer to "hoke up" evidence for a wrongful conviction.

Ray Spencer posted the following after receiving the news: "Kathleen Zellner, my attorney, has already been contacted by other attorneys across the nation.  It is everyone's consensus that this will be the biggest civil rights case in the nation involving fabricated evidence.  Sgt. Michael Davidson's attorney has already testified that it is his client's practice to fabricate evidence if there is not enough there to convict."

How far will our local leaders go to avoid accountability for their horrendous acts against an innocent man?  Perhaps more terrifying... why are they fighting so hard to preserve and justify a pattern that is actively utilized today of securing wrongful convictions through false testimony and fabrication of evidence by a VPD law enforcement officer?
Detectives Sharon Krause (1984)
and Sandra Aldridge (2005-current)  
manufacture evidence to secure convictions 
when the facts in the case fail to match their theories of guilt.

CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT: A Solution for Clark County, WA

King County Prosecutor, Daniel Satterberg, who spoke at the 2015 Summit on Wrongful Conviction at Brooklyn Law School, asked and answered his own question:  "What's an acceptable error rate in our system of justice?  5%? Is it 1%?  If it's 1%, that means there's about 220,000 innocent people sitting in prison.  That seems too high"

In a Columbian news article entitled "Deal or no deal for suspects?" by Jessica Prokop (September 13, 2015) she writes, "In some cases, defendants elect to take a plea deal, despite being innocent, because they fear they could end up with more time after going to trial."  Clark County Prosecutor, Tony Golik agreed "this scenario has happened in Clark County at some point but said he thinks 'it's a very small percentage.' "

In Clark County, WA, wrongful conviction is epidemic.  According to WA Court records, there were 6 convictions reversed and remanded back to Clark County in 2016 by the Court of Appeals Division II. 

Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the issues that led to a wrongful conviction, the Clark County Prosecutor's Office continues to put hurdles to justice in the way of the wrongfully convicted through appeals, drawn out court battles, excuses, denials of responsibility, and even slanderous commentary on record in some cases. 

The 2010 video below shows the still-raw pain as Ray Spencer's family is forced to jump over one of many hurdles, in their efforts to clear up the wreckage of horrific acts against an innocent man as a result of outrageous police misconduct in Clark County, WA decades earlier. 

Seven years later, (and 38 years after the wrongful conviction) the Spencer family continues to face Clark County opposition in court as attorneys representing the County make "astonishing" and absurd statements about the acceptability of fabricating evidence for a wrongful conviction. 

The PROBLEM of wrongful conviction in Clark County has been exposed, it is time to start talking about SOLUTIONS. One promising movement originates from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity.
Multnomah County has 1 of 30 Conviction Integrity Units currently in operation in the United States.  It is time for Clark County to follow the lead of our neighbors to the South.