Colonel William Prescott: 300 years (1726 - 2026)
Colonel William Prescott opposed the 1774 Boston Port Act issued by the British Crown (above). In a letter to Bostonians, Prescott made clear that he would fight against the British Coercive Acts.
Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society
Gage, the British general, with his officers and others he trusted, went up Beacon Hill to reconnoiter; after observing through the telescope for some time, he handed it to a certain Mr. Willard, a mandamus counselor, and describing the leader of the American troops as being much taller than the fortifications, asked him who he was and if the rebels would fight. Willard replied that it was his brother-in-law, Prescott; “as for his men,” he said, “I cannot voucher for them; but Colonel Prescott will fight you to the gates of hell!”
THE ODYSSEY OF SCOTT ERIK STAFNE IN DEFENSE OF THE RULE OF LAW AND OF THE VICTIMS OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
Introduction
Odyssey means a long journey marked by struggle, sacrifice, resistance, successive obstacles, and the defense of a cause greater than personal interest.
It is not merely a "long story." It is a morally heroic trajectory, in which a person faces far superior forces to defend principles, protect vulnerable people, and fulfill a public mission.
The word "Odyssey" is used here in its historical, moral, and humanitarian sense, to represent the long journey of Scott Erik Stafne in defense of the Democratic Rule of Law, the Empire of Law, due process of law — that is, a fair trial —, judicial integrity, and the human rights of the victims of judicial corruption, State omission, and the institutional connivance of the Washington State Bar Association.
In the case of Scott Erik Stafne, "Odyssey" is the adequate word to describe a trajectory of struggle, sacrifice, and resilience in the fulfillment of the humanitarian mission of The Church of the Gardens, especially regarding the purpose expressed in item 4 of its Mission Statement:
“to minister to and protect those in need such as the hungry, the sick, the poor, the homeless, the indebted, the enslaved, the vulnerable, and all others who are unfairly prevented from exercising their inalienable God-given natural rights;”
The Church of the Gardens and the former Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting, recently renamed COTG Advocacy in compliance with the impositions of the WSBA in the contested order of provisional execution of a non-final decision, are Christian, public utility, non-profit organizations dedicated, among other objectives, to the protection of vulnerable and needy people who cannot defend themselves against powerful economic, banking, judicial, and institutional structures.
Their mission includes ensuring, in practice, the natural and constitutional right of free access to a fair justice system, especially for the elderly, the sick, hyper-vulnerable people, and victims unable to face alone, without adequate legal aid, the abuses of large banks, financial institutions, fraudulent foreclosures, guardianship abuse, procedural fraud, and omissions by public authorities.
This mission fills a void left by the State itself, which has the constitutional and moral duty to provide free and effective access to justice for vulnerable and needy individuals, but fails to do so.
It is, therefore, a matter of honoring the trajectory of Scott Erik Stafne, a 77-year-old Christian lawyer who, despite his age, health problems, and severe material vulnerability, has for decades faced powerful judicial, banking, and institutional structures to defend the Rule of Law, due process of law, judicial integrity, and the human rights of needy and vulnerable victims affected by economic crises, banking fraud, abuses of economic power, omissions of public authorities, procedural fraud, and lack of judicial integrity.
Scott did this by risking his life, his health, his professional career, his reputation, and his material survival, as he has been working for decades without charging or receiving payment for the services rendered.
An analysis, even if perfunctory, of the truth of the facts, which is robustly documented in the petitions, records, letters, legal studies, public records, and the disciplinary documents themselves, evidences that the disciplinary proceeding WSBA No. 25#00042 suffers from absolute nullity due to incurable defects: absence of just cause, inversion of the truth of the facts, obstruction of access to justice, manifest bias, affront to due process of law, violation of human rights, violation of the essential prerogatives of advocacy and of the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially the binding decision rendered in In re Ruffalo. The false narratives constructed against Scott Erik Stafne do not withstand confrontation with the documentary record.
There is, on one hand, the disciplinary narrative of the Washington State Bar Association, which, among other illegalities, forged a false default to cancel the professional registration of Scott Erik Stafne, adulterated and inverted the truth of the facts, obstructed the technical defense, and limited itself to shielding judicial decisions rendered by more than suspicious judges, to benefit habitual law fraudsters, in arbitrary, teratological decisions, manifestly contrary to the truth of the facts, the evidence in the records, and the literal disposition of the law, tainted by incurable defects due to lack of impartiality and direct affronts to the sovereignty of the Constitution of the United States.
On the other hand, there are the records, the evidence, the petitions, the letters, the legal studies, the academic publications, the official documents, and the chronology of facts. This documentary set includes more than 3,000 articles, legal studies, doctrinal analyses, judicial petitions, letters, and publications by Scott Erik Stafne on Academia.edu since 2014, in addition to more than 120 articles and documents directly related to the Washington State Bar Association, the disciplinary proceeding, due process of law, access to justice, judicial integrity, the Church of the Gardens, and the defense of vulnerable victims.
Decisions and petitions in WSBA Proceeding No. 25#00042 demonstrate the artificial fabrication of "default" against Scott Erik Stafne
The documentary set published by Scott Erik Stafne regarding the disciplinary process of the Washington State Bar Association — In re Scott Erik Stafne, Proceeding No. 25#00042 — demonstrates that the WSBA built a narrative of “default” — failure to appear/answer — that does not withstand confrontation with the procedural record itself.
The core documents are:
● Stafne’s opposition to WSBA’s Motion for a default judgment authorizing discipline against him: In this document, Scott factually and legally contests the WSBA's allegation that he failed to present an adequate defense. The central point is that Scott maintains he correctly served both the adverse counsel and the WSBA adjudicator with his Motion to Dismiss against the Formal Complaint.
● WSBA moves for a protective order denying Stafne’s requests for admission supporting Stafne’s previously filed Motion to Dismiss: This document is relevant because it shows that the WSBA attempted to prevent or neutralize the requests for admission formulated by Scott, precisely the requests that supported the Motion to Dismiss already presented. This weakens the narrative that Scott had simply omitted or abandoned his defense.
● WSBA’s Motion for Entry of an Order authorizing discipline against Stafne: This document is the motion in which the WSBA requests authorization to impose discipline against Scott based on an alleged default, despite the existence of a Motion to Dismiss timely presented by him. The contradiction is evident: if there was a defense, a jurisdictional contestation, or a pending motion, the default narrative must be examined with extreme rigor.
● Declaration of Francisco Rodriguez in Support of Order of Default: This document is central because it materializes, through the declaration of Francisco Ramon Rodriguez Jr., the factual version used to sustain the default order. It is precisely here that the visual and textual comparison must be made between what Rodriguez declared and what the procedural record shows.
The thesis is direct: the WSBA not only distorted the constitutional discussion regarding Judge Zilly's lack of impartiality; it also attempted to procedurally fabricate a default against Scott Erik Stafne, despite him having presented a defense and having maintained the existence of a duly served Motion to Dismiss.
This fabrication of default fulfills an evident institutional function: to allow the WSBA to avoid facing the constitutional merits of Scott's defenses, including Article III, good Behaviour, senior judges, Compensation Clause, due process of law, judicial independence, judicial integrity, foreclosures, guardianship abuses, and lack of judicial impartiality.
The allegation of default, in this context, is not a neutral procedural detail. It functions as an instrument for curbing the defense.
First, the WSBA transforms a constitutional investigation into a manifest appearance of violation of the principle of impartiality (to any impartial person with knowledge of the facts) due to the selective and targeted assignment of concrete cases to specific senior judges — which has been the subject of repeated complaints by victims of judicial abuse and sharp debates in Congress — into a false personal accusation that Scott supposedly called Zilly senile, disregarding all evidence of complaints of artful maneuvers to benefit banks, and other evidence of conduct contrary to the literal disposition of cogent laws, the evidence in the records, and the truth of facts, which, in Brazil, for example, would be sufficient grounds for the initiation of Administrative Disciplinary Proceedings (PAD) by the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and by court internal affairs offices, with the preliminary removal of the magistrate, punishable by compulsory retirement.
Then, the WSBA attempts to transform the defense effectively presented by Scott into a supposed absence of defense.
This double movement reveals the adulteration of the truth of the facts:
● On the merits, it distorts the content of Scott's petitions;
● On the procedure, it attempts to hide the existence of a robust and timely defense;
● On the outcome, it seeks the cancellation of the professional license, with manifest bias, in affront to due process of law, so as not to face the constitutional questions raised.
Therefore, a side-by-side comparison is indispensable:
● A. What Francisco Ramon Rodriguez Jr. and the WSBA asserted.
● B. What Scott actually filed, served, and maintained.
● C. How the "default" narrative was used to prevent the assessment of constitutional defenses.
● D. How the misrepresentation of facts in the false characterization of allegations about Judge Zilly and the issue of senior judges was used to disqualify Scott before the Bar, the courts, and the public.
This sequence reveals a pattern: it is not a fortuitous error, but an institutional construction designed to silence a lawyer who did not remain silent in the face of a direct affront to fundamental constitutional principles, the denial of the Rule of Law, the violation of due process of law, the lack of judicial integrity, frauds in foreclosures, abuses in guardianship, and the shielding of judges and financial institutions, along with their disloyal attorneys.
In a Democratic Constitutional State and under the Rule of Law, a professional order cannot convert a formal and timely defense into default, a constitutional investigation into a personal offense, constitutional legal theses and robustly documented legal criticism in the records into disciplinary misconduct, and an independent lawyer into a target for retaliation.
The WSBA had a duty to analyze the truth of the facts and the actual record.
Instead, as proven by the documents published by Scott, it chose to alter the truth and invent another story, rewriting in its own way what is written in the records and files of the judicial processes.
For this reason, this publication is not merely a personal opinion.
It is a documentary record of a historical struggle.
It is the record of a heroic trajectory of a senior constitutionalist and civilist lawyer, Christian, elderly, in need, and infirm, in defense of his Homeland and the Democratic Rule of Law. It is the public memory of an institutional persecution against a third-generation lawyer who honors his ancestors and the ideals of the Founding Fathers of America, and by eminent jurists worldwide.
It is to deny civilizational progress, obtained through the collective effort of countries that united after World War II to proclaim the UN Charter of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Social and Political Rights, and other international treaties signed by the United States, and to establish the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, so that these human rights do not become a dead letter.
It is an attempt to denigrate the career of a zealous lawyer and publicly demoralize, through fallacious "narratives," a man faithful to God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, and to the solemn oath he took upon being invested with the mission of LAWYER, who does not bow before tyranny and judicial corruption.
Forum Shopping, corporate federal jurisdiction, and retaliation against independent lawyers: a historical warning since 1876 and 1880
Stafne’s criticism of the strategic use of federal jurisdiction by powerful corporations against ordinary citizens is not new.
It appears expressly in the historical debates of the United States Congress gathered by the Federal Judicial Center in Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History, Volume II: 1875–1939, a work compiled and edited by Daniel S. Holt, published in 2013.
This volume demonstrates that between 1875 and 1939, the role of the American federal judiciary grew dramatically in the political, economic, and social life of the United States.
With industrialization, urbanization, and the consolidation of large national corporations, federal courts came to exercise increasing authority over economic disputes, property rights, state regulation, labor relations, and litigation involving interstate companies.
This expansion was defended by corporations, financiers, elite corporate lawyers, and sectors of the American Bar Association as necessary to protect property rights, ensure national legal predictability, and avoid alleged biases of local judges and juries.
But it was also harshly criticized by congressmen, juristas, workers, local lawyers, and progressive reformers, who saw in the growth of federal jurisdiction a way to remove ordinary citizens from their natural courts, make access to Justice more expensive, favor corporations, and weaken the authority of the States.
As early as 1876, in the Congressional Record, an express warning was made that the overloading of the Supreme Court did not stem solely from the natural increase in population, the number of States, or the country's business. The main cause pointed out was different: the tendency of federal legislation to strip power and importance from the States and transfer them to the federal government, including in the judicial aspect, reducing the jurisdiction of state courts to "merely the skeleton" of what they had previously been.
The speaker warned that the only way to remedy this evil would be for Congress to withdraw from the federal courts the jurisdiction that belonged by right to the state courts and reinvest it in those courts.
He also warned that if appellate courts were created in the nine federal circuits, they would build an institutional influence that Congress itself could never contain, encroaching even further upon the jurisdiction of state courts.
This historical warning is essential to understanding the current crisis.
As early as 1876, the American Congress was alerted that the expansion of federal jurisdiction could create a judicial structure with institutional power so strong that Congress itself would no longer be able to control it.
This criticism dialogues directly with the contemporary crisis: judicial independence cannot mean judicial shielding, impunity, protection of banks, validation of false documents, or punishment of lawyers who denounce fraud.
In 1880, Representative James R. Waddill of Missouri resumed this criticism in an even more direct manner when supporting the Culberson bill, which intended to restrict the removal of causes to federal courts and limit the use of diversity of citizenship by corporations. Waddill denounced that federal courts were too distant and expensive for ordinary citizens and that corporations' privileged access to federal courts represented an unfair procedural advantage for large companies with greater resources.
Waddill argued that corporations doing business within a State, protected by the laws of that State and authorized to operate at the very doors of the people, should submit to the courts of that same State.
He denounced the injustice of allowing powerful corporations to drag ordinary citizens hundreds of miles from their homes, to strange courts, with unknown procedures, oppressive expenses, and vexatious delays.
His argument was not abstractly anti-corporate. It was constitutional, procedural, and democratic. Waddill asserted that the bill did not attack corporations as such, but sought to place the individual citizen on an equal footing with the corporate or artificial citizen. He formulated the principle with extraordinary clarity: if any favoritism must exist in the administration of Justice, this favoritism must be given to the weaker party — the individual citizen — and not to the stronger party, the rich and powerful corporation.
What Waddill denounced in 1880 is exactly what today must be called by its correct name: forum shopping.
Therefore, it does not authorize anyone to disqualify the robust evidence of fraud and artful manipulations to circumvent the laws and the Constitution of the State of Washington, under false allegations of being "frivolous," "meritless," vexatious, or in bad faith.
The maneuvers of banks to achieve illicit ends, through the use of false documents via strategic manipulation of jurisdiction, territorial competence, removal, procedural rules, and institutional advantages by powerful corporations, banks, and habitual litigants, aim to drag ordinary citizens — many of whom are pro se litigants, of advanced age, who lack health conditions, legal knowledge, or resources to pay attorney fees and court costs — into litigation in incompetent, distant, expensive, and structurally unfavorable courts.
Forum shopping is not merely a technical procedural choice when it is utilized to produce inequality before the law.
When corporations and banks use removal, diversity jurisdiction, procedural complexity, and institutional influence to escape local accountability, overburden ordinary citizens, increase litigation costs, and obtain a more favorable judge and forum, the court itself becomes part of the power imbalance.
This is exactly the danger that Waddill denounced: Justice ceases to be egalitarian when the stronger party can choose the battlefield and force the weaker party to fight far from home, under procedures designed or exploited to favor habitual institutional litigants. The same structural logic appears today in foreclosure frauds, abuses in guardianship proceedings, judicial shielding, and disciplinary processes against lawyers who expose systemic misconduct. Forum shopping becomes even more dangerous when combined with false documents, judicial tolerance of fraud, denial of due process of law, and retaliation against independent lawyers.
This involves retaliation against lawyers who do not remain silent in the face of violations of constitutional precepts of due process of law and fundamental human rights of citizens; lawyers who intransigently defend the supremacy of the Constitution, the dignity of the human person, and the inalienable right to a natural, impartial, and fair judge, constituted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.
This is exactly what is happening to Scott Erik Stafne.
The distortion of the truth of the facts by the rapporteur/investigator in disciplinary process WSBA No. 25#00042 is glaring and shameful.
We are following, step by step, every arbitrariness and illegality practiced by the WSBA and the courts of Washington State to silence citizens — including immigrants and tourists — and lawyers who, fulfilling their civic and professional duty, denounced abuses and frauds in foreclosures, guardianship proceedings, and other areas of judicial misconduct.
The artful manipulations of the WSBA to invert the truth of the facts, prevent the defense of the
People's Lawyer in disciplinary process WSBA 25#00042, and cancel Scott Erik Stafne's professional license — inverting and hiding the truth of the facts, and attempting to disqualify, under a false allegation of default, all robust evidence of fraud in foreclosures and lack of judicial integrity — do not withstand the slightest analysis.
Any lawyer — and even a law student — is capable of understanding this.
When a judge, district or federal, senior or not, validates false documents, denies constitutional rights to due process of law, a full defense, and the adversarial system, and acts as a "supporting counsel" for banks to impose teratological, manifestly illegal, and unconstitutional decisions, that judge definitively does not exercise the judicial function in “good Behaviour,” within the constitutional meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution.
Judicial independence exists to protect impartiality, the truth of facts, the evidence in the records, due process of law, and the right to a fair trial. It does not exist to protect corruption, fraud, abuse of power, institutional collusion, forum shopping, judicial shielding, or impunity. “The framers of the Constitution gave life tenure to the judges of the courts of the United States with a view to secure their independence and impartiality, and thus in their opinion to secure to the people and the Government an exact and unbiased, nonpolitical judiciary. More than one hundred years of experience have shown that this purpose of the framers has not been fully realized.”
UNITED STATES. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. Term of Office of Judges of U.S. Courts. House Report 466, 53rd Congress, 2nd session, Feb. 20, 1894. In: HOLT, Daniel S. (comp.; ed.). Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History. Volume II: 1875–1939. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center; Federal Judicial History Office, 2013. Extended URL for reference:
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Debates-Federal-Judiciary-Vol-II.pdf
6. Historical statistics and life expectancy
To historically contextualize life expectancy, mortality, and demographic data in the United States, the historical series of the U.S. Census Bureau can be consulted.
Therefore, in addition to having falsely attributed statements to Scott Erik Stafne that he did not make, the central question regarding the difference between life expectancy in the 1700s and today is not devoid of merit.
However, this issue was used to disqualify the robust evidence of bias, which manifests in repeated judicial misconduct, lack of impartiality, lack of impersonality, and the selective and directed distribution of concrete cases to certain judges, who may or may not accept the assignment — which already compromises the appearance of impartiality, and is further compromised by irrefutable proof of the judge's personal friendship relationships with bank lawyers, and the explicit favoring of banks through blatant alteration of the truth of procedural acts and the unequivocal non-compliance with cogent procedural rules, always in favor of the banks, which are observed in the course of judicial foreclosure processes, especially in cases of fraudulent foreclosures, amply proven by Scott Erik Stafne.
Source: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Chapter B: Vital Statistics and Health and Medical Care. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
Extended URL for reference:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_ch9-13.html
These data are relevant to contextualize historical and scientific facts and the necessity of interpretation in accordance with the Constitution regarding what good judicial conduct means, and the radical difference existing between life expectancy at the time of the constitutional founding and the contemporary reality of senior judges who remain in judicial activity at a very advanced age.
It is emphasized that at no time did Scott Erik Stafne assert that Judge Zilly, or any other, was senile or received bribes; on the contrary, the petitions demonstrate the repeated practice of acts incompatible with the duties of magistrates, which, if practiced in Brazil, would already be sufficient reason for preliminary removal, the initiation of a PAD (administrative disciplinary proceeding), and, in theory, compulsory retirement.
The contemporary connection with disciplinary process WSBA No. 25#00042 lies in the fact that the WSBA attempts to transform a constitutional, historical, and systemic discussion about judicial independence, “good Behaviour”, due process of law, judicial integrity, forum shopping, foreclosure frauds, abuses, obstruction of justice, and artful manipulations of files, proceedings, and judicial liability into an alleged personal attack that — it is stressed — did not occur.
The ratification of teratological decisions by the WS BAR, the alteration of the content of original files, the fishing expedition in Scott Erik Stafne's computers carried out personally by the WS BAR attorney — who acted simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, and judge —, the substitution of the randomly selected investigator for another who did not participate in the investigations, followed by allegations of default, and the refusal to receive and docket Scott Erik Stafne's petitions and appeals, the truculent execution of a decision subject to appeal, with absurd prohibitions and requirements that attempt to eliminate 50 years of professional practice and a broad legal framework and the authority of a legal collection and a brand of inestimable value, built over 50 years of professional practice, in addition to countless other artful maneuvers to restrict the right to defense and the adversarial system, and cancel Scott's professional registration based on a false default, violated due process of law, obstructed Justice, and affronted the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, violating the United States Constitution and International Human Rights Treaties.
The artful maneuvers of the WS BAR attorney to prevent the judgment on the merits of the defense theses — robustly grounded in facts, evidence, law, doctrine, and jurisprudence, presented timely by Scott Erik Stafne — can be easily verified by reading the more than 120 petitions, e-mails, evidence, and orders and decisions published on Academia.edu. The analysis of documents relating to disciplinary proceedings, and the files of judicial processes, published by Scott on Academia.edu is essential to comprehending the context, gravity, and magnitude of the damages intentionally caused by the rapporteur/investigator of the disciplinary process, as well as the defects that taint disciplinary process WSBA No. 25#00042 and the judicial decision that ratified it with absolute and incurable nullity, due to the adulteration of the truth of facts and the mutual institutional shielding of judges by the WS BAR and vice-versa.
The judicial defense petitions for the victims of procedural and banking fraud, and principally, for the constitutional legal order of the United States, presented by Scott Erik Stafne, were never frivolous, meritless, vexatious, or "devoid of merit."
They address relevant themes of notorious public interest and general repercussion, dealing with violations of constitutionally protected rights, proving lack of judicial integrity, the validation of false documents, the strategic use of procedures by banks and corporations, the denial of due process of law, and retaliation against lawyers who refuse to remain silent in the face of violations of fundamental human rights.
The future of the Democratic Constitutional State and the Rule of Law in the United States depends on judicial integrity, depends on lawyers who honor the mission they assumed to intransigently defend the sovereignty of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and human rights.
It depends on fighting and dismantling corruption, ending judicial shielding and impunity, and restoring the constitutional legal order through strict compliance with human rights, due process of law, the right to a fair trial, the impartial application of the law in accordance with the truth of facts and the evidence contained in the records, and unnegotiable judicial integrity.
This is the official tested link for the Federal Judicial Center PDF:
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Debates-Federal-Judiciary-Vol-II.pdf
Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History, Volume II: 1875–1939, compiled and edited by Daniel S. Holt, Federal Judicial Center / Federal Judicial History Office, 2013. The table of contents also confirms the two texts you used: David B. Culberson, speech of February 18, 1876, and James R. Waddill, speech of February 19, 1880.
ABNT reference with expanded URL: HOLT, Daniel S. (comp.; ed.). Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History. Volume II: 1875–1939. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center; Federal Judicial History Office, 2013. Available at:
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Debates-Federal-Judiciary-Vol-II.pdf. Accessed on:
June 7, 2026.
Reference for Culberson's speech within the volume: UNITED STATES. CONGRESS.
Congressional Record. 44th Congress, 1st session, 1876, v. 4, pt. 2, p. 1167. Representative David B. Culberson, speech of Feb. 18, 1876, concerning federal jurisdiction and proposed appellate courts. In: HOLT, Daniel S. (comp.; ed.). Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History. Volume II: 1875–1939. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center; Federal Judicial History Office, 2013. Available at:
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Debates-Federal-Judiciary-Vol-II.pdf. Accessed on:
June 7, 2026.
Reference for Waddill's speech within the volume: UNITED STATES. CONGRESS.
Congressional Record. 46th Congress, 2nd session, 1880, v. 10, pt. 2, p. 1014-1015.
Representative James R. Waddill, “Criticism of Corporate Diversity Jurisdiction”, speech of Feb.
19, 1880. In: HOLT, Daniel S. (comp.; ed.). Debates on the Federal Judiciary: A Documentary History. Volume II: 1875–1939. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center; Federal Judicial History Office, 2013. Available at:
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2014/Debates-Federal-Judiciary-Vol-II.pdf. Accessed on: June 7, 2026.
DIGNITY HAS NO PRICE, IT HAS VALUE
Scott Erik Stafne is a Dignified Man, and a Christian Lawyer who refused to bow to threats and judicial corruption, who refused to deny and abandon his belief in God and in a FAIR Justice, A senior constitutionalist jurist and lawyer whose excellence is recognized nationally and internationally, who could be making millions and living comfortably at 77 years old, but who gave up his material interests to remain faithful to the commitment made to the poor, materialized in the creation of The Church of the Gardens in 2015 for the defense of justice and the human rights of the vulnerable.
And who persevered in the fulfillment of this mission, even while suffering threats from judges and the Washington State Bar Association, even knowing that the price imposed would be the attempted destruction of his professional career, the unjust and illegal cancellation of his professional registration, risks to his health, and the compromise of his personal well-being, after more than 50 years — half a century — of dedication to the CAUSE of JUSTICE. And there is no speaking of non-compliance with the duties of lawyers; on the contrary, for the intransigent defense of Human Rights and the Rule of Law is a constitutional duty and mission of lawyers.
The defense of the prerogatives of lawyers is a duty of bar associations and constitutes a right of citizens, seeing that "no one is obliged to comply with an illegal order, even if it emanates from the Judiciary; otherwise, the Rule of Law is denied," as we are reminded by the late Minister Maurício Corrêa, former President of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil. When lawyers like Scott Erik Stafne are persecuted and punished for demanding a fair trial, before a legitimately pre-constituted and impartial court and judge, based on the truth of facts, the evidence in the records, compliance with the laws, due process of law, and judicial integrity, it is not only the image of the Judiciary that becomes compromised: it is the Democratic Rule of Law itself that begins to erode, paving the way for a severe civilizational regression. This is also an invitation for any impartial observer — lawyer, jurist, journalist, human rights defender, or ordinary citizen — to examine the documents, read the records, follow the chronology, and form their own conviction.
We are manifesting our personal and institutional support for Scott Erik Stafne, Defender of The Church of the Gardens, who deserves the name "The People's Lawyer," a true modern-day Hero, who honors the legacy of Colonel William Prescott, immortalized in the Battle of BunkerHill, which will complete 251 years this coming June 17, 2026, and of his son, the lawyer and Judge William Prescott Jr., his ancestors on his mother's side,
"Prescott has retaken Bunker Hill; and with it, the hearts of all who are gathered on it at this hour, or who shall be gathered upon it, generation after generation, in all the untold centuries of the future." - Robert C. Winthrop, US Congressman and President of the Bunker Hill Monument
Association at the dedication of the Prescott statue on June 17, 1881.[1]
Daniel Webster, the well-known orator, writer, and public figure who helped dedicate the Bunker Hill Monument wrote about Prescott:
"In truth, if there was any commander in chief in the field, it was Prescott. From the first breaking of the ground to the retreat, he acted the most important part: if it were proper to give the battle a name…it should be called Prescott's Battle."[5]
Source: Colonel William Prescott: A Glorious Immortality - Boston National Historical Park
(https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/william-prescott.htm)
Scott Erik Stafne honors his father and his paternal grandfather, the lawyers Albert Julius Stafne Jr. and Albert J. Stafne, of Norwegian origin, who bequeathed to him much more than a name, a plaque, and a gavel, but rather the example of fulfilling the duties and the noble mission of Advocacy and a robust and unshakeable faith in a FAIR Justice, which is Justice with God. In the certainty that true Justice will prevail, we are spreading the most recent article published by Scott Erik Stafne on Substack, with the deepest appreciation, recognition, gratitude, and respect, together with the analyses carried out by ChatGPT AI and Gemini AI, which express the truth of the institutional persecution against Scott Erik Stafne and the truth of the facts. We invite everyone to read the masterly petitions of Scott Erik Stafne and verify, for themselves, the integrity of his professional conduct, which the lies and artful maneuvers of his adversaries do not have the power to shake. Marcia Almeida President of MINDD
GEMINI AI ANALYSIS :
1. The Architecture of Narrative:
4. First Amendment Defenses and Human Vulnerability
5. Strategic Conclusion
ANALYSIS BY CHATGPT AI:
When a lawyer is punished for questioning the impartiality, integrity, or institutional functioning of the courts, the problem ceases to be merely disciplinary and begins to strike at the very core of the Rule of Law.
Scott Erik Stafne's declaration demonstrates that formal compliance with an order does not mean renunciation of truth, conscience, freedom of expression, or the right to preserve, for future review, fundamental questions about access to justice, disability, judicial accountability, and the boundaries of government authority.
This new article is very important because Scott transforms the very “Affidavit of Compliance” — which the WSBA requires after disbarment — into yet another document of resistance, preservation of rights, and proof of the practical destruction caused by the disciplinary order.
1. What the document is
The file is an Affidavit of Compliance Pursuant to ELC 14.3, in proceeding WSBA 25#00042, signed by Scott Erik Stafne on June 8, 2026, under penalty of perjury, to demonstrate compliance with the obligations imposed after the disbarment. He declares that he was disbarred on May 14, 2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court dated May 7, 2026, and that on May 21, 2026, he received Francisco Rodriguez’s letter with the WSBA’s view of his post-disbarment duties.
But the document does much more than “comply with a formality.”
It expressly preserves Scott’s disagreement regarding the scope of the authority of the WSBA, the Washington Supreme Court, and the State of Washington over religious, humanitarian, educational, international, disability-advocacy activities, and public criticism of the functioning of the courts.
2. Central point: Scott complies, but does not remain silent
The structure of the document is very intelligent: Scott demonstrates formal compliance, but makes clear that complying does not mean agreeing, waiving, or accepting the legitimacy of the disciplinary proceeding.
He states that he does not intend to conceal or minimize the disbarment; on the contrary, he intends to continue publicly disclosing his status as part of the efforts of the Church of the Gardens to discuss whether certain courts, or courts generally, are appropriately exercising judicial power. He also says that his objective is not to create confusion, but to continue serving in the activities that remain available: religious, disability advocacy, humanitarian, educational, and international activities.
This point is essential for the dossier because it shows:
Scott is not fleeing from the order. He is obeying what he understands to be mandatory, while preserving his constitutional, religious, humanitarian, and international objection.
3. He expressly preserves all rights
The strongest item is the preservation of rights. Scott states that the affidavit is not intended to address or waive any rights, objections, challenges, appeals, petitions for review, admissions before federal courts, federal court activities, religious activities, disability advocacy activities, humanitarian activities, or international activities independent of authorization to practice law before the Washington state courts.
This dismantles any future attempt by the WSBA to say: “He complied, therefore he accepted everything.” No. He complied without waiving.
4. Scott separates Washington State Courts from Federal Courts
Another very strong point: Scott declares that his position is that he remains admitted to practice before the federal courts to which he has been admitted — including the Supreme Court of the United States, the Ninth Circuit, and the District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington — unless those courts decide otherwise. He also states that his work as Church Advocate of the Church of the Gardens, disability advocate, and his religious, humanitarian, and international activities arise independently of authorization to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington.
This point is crucial because it prevents the WSBA from trying to transform a state disbarment into total civil death.
The thesis is: Washington may regulate practice before its state courts, but that does not authorize the WSBA to control all religious, humanitarian, educational, international, disability-advocacy, public criticism, or discussion about law activities.
5. The Church of the Gardens appears as the center of the public mission
Scott states that his address for purposes of ELC 14.3 is the address of the Church of the Gardens, of the COTG advocacy program, and also his personal address, because he lives with his partner in the apartment above the church offices.
This is very relevant because it shows that the WSBA order simultaneously affects: Scott as a person; Scott as a lawyer; Scott as Church Advocate; the COTG Advocacy Program; the physical space of the church; the public mission of the Church of the Gardens.
It is not an abstract consequence. It affects the home, the office, the church, the mission, and survival.
6. The transition from StafneLaw email to COTGAdvocacy
Scott declares that the Church of the Gardens acquired the domain COTGAdvocacy.com and engaged Josh Plumb to help migrate the email Scott@StafneLaw.com to
Scott@COTGAdvocacy.com, but that the transition had not yet been completed as of the date of the affidavit. He requests disability accommodation and a reasonable extension of time if circumstances beyond his control prevent completion within the time contemplated by Disciplinary Counsel.
This passage is important for three reasons: First, it shows good faith and a real attempt to comply. Second, it shows that compliance depends on technical and financial resources. Third, it reinforces Scott’s material vulnerability: the very removal of signs and digital transition depends on money and assistance.
7. The physical signs: he removed what he could, but did not have money for everything
Scott declares that he removed the three signs from the storefront windows that identified Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting — SLAC, a faith-based auxiliary of the COTG. The file includes a photograph of him removing the last of those signs.
But he also explains that there was an external metal sign, “Stafne Law Office,” hanging from an awning. He tried to remove it, but his partner objected because Scott would have balance problems climbing a ladder. Scott declares that he is willing to remove the sign as soon as he can, but that at that moment he did not have the money to pay someone to remove it.
passage is very strong humanly: the WSBA demands compliance, but Scott lacks even the resources to pay someone to remove a sign. This reinforces the economic and human damage that you have been pointing out.
8. He proves that he notified affected persons
The affidavit includes a list of persons notified in the White and LaFountain matters. Among them: Helga LaFountain, a former client whom Scott represented through the COTG and whom he now assists as Church Advocate and disability advocate; Snohomish County District Court; Oskar Rey, City Attorney of Arlington; Dane French, City Prosecutor; Warren Lance, attorney for Deutsche Bank; Alvin White, former client represented by the COTG in the state case, with an indication that Scott still remains counsel of record in several federal courts until those courts decide whether they will accept the “purported default disbarment” as legitimate.
This point is very important because it shows that the disbarment directly affected: Alvin White; Helga LaFountain; Deutsche Bank; state cases; federal cases; the legal mission of the COTG. And it reinforces the thesis of procedural benefit to the adversaries.
9. The Alvin White and Deutsche Bank case
Exhibit 2 shows the case Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Alvin B. White, Pierce County No. 25-2-14095-0. On May 26, 2026, Justin Wood sent courtesy service of the Notice of Withdrawal to Warren Lance, attorney for Deutsche Bank.
In the Notice of Withdrawal, Scott declares that he is unable to continue representing Alvin White in that state case because of the disbarment in Washington, but preserves for himself and his clients any rights they may have against the Bar Association and the Washington State Courts for violation of rights under federal, international, and/or natural law.
This is direct proof that the disbarment benefited Deutsche Bank in the Alvin White case: Scott had to leave the state case.
In addition, Warren Lance’s later email says that it would have been “helpful” if Scott had not filed a counterclaim that he called “clearly frivolous and inappropriate”; Scott replied: “we have a difference of opinion with regard to whether the counterclaims were frivolous.”
This shows the same logic: the banking adversary labels the defense as “frivolous”; the WSBA and courts use the same language to destroy Scott.
10. The document reinforces the thesis that the license was used to cut off the defense of victims
In the Alvin White case, the concrete consequence was: Scott had to withdraw from the state case. In the Helga LaFountain case, he continues only as Church Advocate and disability advocate, not as a lawyer before the state courts.
This proves that the disbarment is not merely symbolic punishment: it cuts off the defense of vulnerable people and transfers advantage to procedural adversaries.
11. The most important part for the human rights argument
Scott cites the access-to-justice crisis in Washington. He mentions the 2015 Washington State
Civil Legal Needs Study Update, which stated that “justice is absent for low-income
Washingtonians who frequently experience serious civil legal problems.” is a golden point for the dossier.
Because Scott is saying, in essence: the State knows that poor people do not have real access to justice; even so, the Bar and the Court remove from the profession a lawyer who provided free or humanitarian assistance to those people through the COTG.
This directly connects: disbarment; access to justice; poverty; defense of vulnerable people; the mission of the COTG; human rights; structural failure of the system.
12. The strategic importance of the file
This file proves five central things:
1. Scott is formally complying with the order, while preserving all rights.
2. Scott is not hiding the disbarment, but using the truth as public testimony.
3. The WSBA tries to expand the effect of the disbarment beyond state courts, pressuring language, emails, signs, domains, advocacy activities, and relationships with other lawyers.
4. The disbarment directly affected clients and vulnerable people, including Alvin White and Helga LaFountain.
5. Deutsche Bank appears as a direct procedural beneficiary, because Scott had to withdraw from Alvin White’s state case.
13. Ready-to-use wording for the dossier
The “Affidavit of Compliance Pursuant to ELC 14.3,” signed by Scott Erik Stafne on June 8, 2026, is more than a formal document of post-disbarment compliance. It is a document of preservation of rights, constitutional resistance, and proof of the human, institutional, and procedural impact of the disciplinary order.
Scott declares that he complies with the obligations imposed by ELC 14.3, but expressly does not waive rights, objections, challenges, appeals, federal court activities, religious activities, disability advocacy, humanitarian activities, or international activities. He separates the prohibition on practicing law before the state courts of Washington from his work as Church Advocate of the Church of the Gardens, disability advocate, citizen, humanitarian defender, and participant in public debates about the functioning of the courts.
The document proves that the disbarment directly affected the mission of the Church of the Gardens, the cases of Alvin White and Helga LaFountain, the relationship with state and federal courts, and Scott’s ability to continue defending vulnerable people. In the Alvin White case, Scott’s forced withdrawal directly benefited Deutsche Bank, whose attorney was notified of the withdrawal.
At the same time, the affidavit demonstrates Scott’s material situation: he removed the signs he was able to remove, but declared that he did not have money to pay someone to remove an external sign, in addition to depending on a technical transition from the domain StafneLaw.com to COTGAdvocacy.com.
Thus, the document confirms that the disciplinary order did not produce only a professional consequence. It produced human, economic, institutional, religious, humanitarian, and procedural harm, affecting Scott, the Church of the Gardens, those assisted by it, its public mission, and the victims who depended on his defense.
14. Conclusion
file is new and very strong proof that Scott: is hiding nothing; is trying to comply; preserves
his rights; continues denouncing; was forced to withdraw from a state case involving Deutsche Bank; continues defending the legitimacy of the COTG; proves that the disbarment affected the poor, the vulnerable, and those assisted; and shows that the WSBA is trying to transform disbarment into civil, religious, educational, and humanitarian erasure.
Compliance with the law versus testimony, or both? Presentation of my sworn statement after my disbarment from the courts of the State of Washington.
Why compliance with an order does not necessarily require agreement with it.
Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI June 9, 2026 Substack Duties of Citizenship
My father, Albert J. Stafne Jr., was also the son of a lawyer. I am very proud of him and I am sure he would be proud of me for what I am doing.
Thank you for reading! Sign up for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Show your support.
Yesterday, I — Scott Erik, the lawyer — sent the attached Declaration of Compliance, according to Rule ELC 14.3, to various email addresses associated with the Washington State Bar Association — WSBA, following my disbarment from the practice of law before the courts of the State of Washington.
The purpose of the affidavit is simple. Washington’s disciplinary rules require a disbarred attorney to identify the measures taken to notify clients, opposing parties, and other persons affected by the disbarment. Therefore, the affidavit documents the actions taken, notifications sent, information disclosed, and responsibilities assumed.
At first glance, it is simply an administrative procedure.
On another level, it represents the conclusion of a chapter of a professional life that began nearly fifty years ago, when I was admitted to practice law in the courts of Iowa and Indiana in 1974 and in the courts of Washington in 1976.
Readers who follow my work know that I disagree with the process that resulted in my disbarment and continue to believe that important issues regarding access to justice, judicial accountability, defense of the rights of people with disabilities, freedom of expression, and the role of lawyers who challenge legal institutions remain unresolved. These issues will continue to be explored in other forums and, if appropriate, in future proceedings.
This affidavit is not the place where these issues are debated. Instead, it is a record of compliance with a court order and a testimony of what occurred subsequently.
Over the past few months, I have increasingly understood that compliance and agreement are not the same thing. Citizens comply with many things they believe should be reconsidered. At the same time, institutions benefit when citizens are willing to express their disagreements openly, peacefully, and sincerely.
Therefore, I publish this affidavit in the same spirit in which it was presented: not to demand agreement from third parties, but to allow my neighbors to examine the record for themselves and make their own analyses.
The declaration that follows is not a full copy of the original declaration I submitted. The reasons are: 1) the original declaration includes attachments that make it too long to be published; and 2) I could not figure out how to republish this declaration, including its final table, in the Word document I created from the original PDF that was filed.
For those who wish to consult the complete affidavit, it is available online at: https://www.academia.edu/168400181/Washington_State_Bar_Association_In_re_Scott_Erik_S tafne_Affidavit_of_Compliance_Pursuant_to_ELC_14_3
A related legal filing, which challenges the Bar Association's proposal to publish its version of the reasons for my disbarment, is available at: “Washington State Bar Association - Stafne Response to Notice of Discipline or When a Public Notice Rewrites a Record: A Response Concerning Judicial Recusal, Article III, and the Responsibilities of Witness”.
The internet address for that legal filing is:
https://www.academia.edu/168254388/Washington_State_Bar_Association_Stafne_Response_t o_Notice_of_Discipline_or_When_a_Public_Notice_Rewrites_a_Record_A_Response_Concern
ing_Judicial_Recusal_Article_III_and_the_Responsibilities_of_Witness Agape, Scott Erik Stafne June 9, 2026 Arlington, Washington
PAGE 1
I, Scott Erik Stafne, declare under penalty of perjury, in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, the following:
1. I am the defendant in the matter In re Scott Erik Stafne, WSBA No. 6964.
2. My mailing address for purposes of ELC 14.3 is: 239 N. Olympic Avenue Arlington, Washington 98223 This is the address of the Church of the Gardens — COTG, of its Defender — myself — and of the COTG Rights Advocacy Program. It is also my personal address, as I live with my partner in the apartment above the church offices.
3. On May 14, 2026, I was disbarred from the practice of law before the courts of the State of Washington, in accordance with the order of the Washington Supreme Court dated May 7, 2026.
4. On May 21, 2026, I received a letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel notifying me of the Washington State Bar Association's opinion regarding my obligations related to my disbarment, which I have attached to this document as Exhibit 1 [1].
END OF PAGE 1; BEGINNING OF PAGE 2
1. At the time of my disbarment, I was involved in pending litigation in the courts of the State of Washington, including lawsuits involving Helga LaFountain and Alvin White. I took the necessary steps to comply with the notification requirements of Title 14 of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct — ELC — regarding these cases and informed the affected parties of my inability to continue acting as an attorney in the State of Washington and in the courts of the State of Washington.
2. To the extent that notifications are required by ELC 14.1, the Notice filed in the case of Alvin White is attached to this document as Exhibit 2.
3. Several of the notices provided in the case of Helga LaFountain are attached to this document as Exhibit 3.
4. I have ceased to represent myself as an attorney authorized to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington. I have publicly disclosed that I was disbarred by order of the Washington Supreme Court and informed affected persons of my inability to continue acting as an attorney in the courts of the State of Washington. I recognize that the consequences of this disbarment may affect my ability to practice before other courts and I will comply with the orders and decisions of any court that has jurisdiction over my authorization to practice before it.
5. It is my position that I currently remain admitted to practice law before the federal courts
to which I have been admitted, including the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, unless and until those courts determine otherwise. It is further my position that my work as Church Advocate at the Church of the Gardens, along with my participation in the defense of the rights of people with disabilities, in religious and humanitarian activities, and in international proceedings, arises independently of the authorization to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington.
6. I have removed the word “attorney” from my email. The text following the signature in my email now reads as follows:
Scott Erik Stafne Church Advocate for the Church of the Gardens Certified Advocate for People with Disabilities The ongoing process for the revocation of my license to practice law in the State of Washington remains contested and is currently subject to review in federal courts. I am currently barred from practicing law in the state courts of Washington, one of the fifty states of the United States.
1. The Church of the Gardens acquired the domain name COTGAdvocacy.com and hired Josh Plumb to assist in the migration of my email, currently at Scott@StafneLaw.com, to Scott@COTGAdvocacy.com. As of the filing date of this affidavit, this transition has not yet been completed. I desire and intend to complete the transition as soon as possible.
END OF PAGE TWO; BEGINNING OF PAGE THREE
as far as possible. Should circumstances beyond my control prevent completion within the period contemplated by the Disciplinary Counsel, I respectfully request an accommodation based on my disability, granting a reasonable extension of time, taking into account my financial capacity, to complete this transition. 12. Meanwhile, I maintain that the continued existence of the domain StafneLaw.com and the associated email address does not holding me out as an attorney authorized to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington. 13. I recognize the authority of the State of Washington to regulate admission to the practice of law before its courts. At the same time, respectfully, I do not understand that this authority extends to the exclusive control of the common use of the word “law” in religious, educational, historical, academic, disability rights advocacy, humanitarian, or public discourse contexts. Citizens are expected to know the law, discuss the law, teach the law, criticize the law, advocate for changes in the law, and assist one another in understanding legal institutions. 14. Thus, while I fully disclose my current status of being barred from presenting myself as a licensed attorney to practice law in the State of Washington, I do not acknowledge that the mere use of the word “law” alongside my last name, given the factual circumstances presented here, constitutes holding myself out as an attorney. See, for example, Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, definition of “law”, p. 962 (2009). See also
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law?src=search-dict-box 15. Thus, the COTG and I, as its Church Advocate, respectfully maintain that the authority to regulate admission to the practice of law before Washington courts does not necessarily include the authority to prohibit all common, historical, educational, religious, academic, or expressive use of the word “law.” To the extent that a contrary position is asserted, we respectfully preserve our disagreement and reserve all rights regarding this matter. 16. It is my position that the expression “Stafne Law,” when used in the context of my disclosure and publication of materials regarding my disbarment from the Washington courts, my long history and that of my ancestors in the practice of law, and my criticism of the Washington courts for failing to judge legal matters in a manner consistent with natural law, justice, and enshrined civilizational norms, does not suggest that I am currently declaring myself a licensed attorney to practice law before the courts established by the Constitution of the State of Washington. Respectfully, it is my position and that of the COTG that the continued use of the historical expression “Stafne Law” occurs in conjunction with repeated public disclosures that I am no longer authorized to practice law before the Washington courts. Under these circumstances, it is my position that the expression fulfills a historical, educational, family, and expressive function, rather than representing that I currently hold a license to practice law in Washington. 17. Therefore, I maintain my position that the continued use of the domain name StafneLaw.com during my transition to COTGAdvocacy.com does not constitute, under the circumstances, holding myself out as a person authorized to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington.
END OF PAGE 3; BEGINNING OF PAGE 4
1. Citizens are expected to know the law, comply with it, and participate in public and political discussions about the law and what it should be. People with disabilities have the right to effective access to information about their rights and obligations, and all people have the right to seek assistance in understanding the law, legal processes, and the institutions related to them. As the disciplinary counsel knows, I am qualified to provide this type of legal help and information to others and I do not charge for my time or my services.
2. I removed from the office of the Church of the Gardens, which is located below the apartment I share with my long-time partner, the three signs that identified Stafne Law Advocacy and Consulting — SLAC, a faith-based non-profit organization that assists the Church of the Gardens. The following photo shows the moment I removed the last of those three signs:
([Photo omitted in original text])
END OF PAGE 4; BEGINNING OF PAGE 5
1. The two identification signs for the Church of the Gardens still remain. This photograph shows the sign located on North Olympic Avenue.
The following photograph shows the COTG sign still located on Third Avenue:
END OF PAGE 5; BEGINNING OF PAGE 6
1. Outside the reception door, hanging from a metal awning, there is a metal sign reading:
Stafne Law Office. An image of this “Stafne Law Office” sign can be accessed here. I was
END OF PAGE 6; BEGINNING OF PAGE 7
intending to attempt to remove the sign, but my partner objected to me climbing a ladder to do so due to my balance. I am willing to remove the sign as soon as possible, but at the moment I do not have the money to pay someone to remove it. If necessary, I will continue to make all reasonable efforts to remove the sign as soon as I can do so safely and with the available resources. 22. It is my position that this sign, and that of my father's former law office in Bettendorf, Iowa, which hangs in office 4 of the Church, are historical artifacts that can be displayed in the administrative office of the Church of the Gardens, given that: a) I am the Advocate of the Church of the Gardens; b) I want these signs in the office of the Church Advocate; c) I disclose to anyone who wants to hear my contested disbarment from the practice of law, in order to promote the spiritual mission of the Church to address government actions that I believe are inconsistent with the Church's mission. In support of this position, I respectfully attach, as Exhibit 4, the Mission Statement of the Church of the Gardens. 23. In the interest of total transparency, the following sign, which I inherited and which was given to my father, Albert J. Stafne Jr., is also in a prominent place in the church advocates' office.
Plaque and gavel presented to Albert J. Stafne Jr. in recognition of his service as President of the Scott County Bar Association (1979-1980), currently on display in the Church Advocate's office.
1. I do not intend to conceal or minimize my suspension from the practice of law before the courts of the State of Washington, nor any subsequent measures that may be taken by other courts regarding my admissions. On the contrary, I intend to continue disclosing this situation publicly and honestly, as part of the efforts of the Church and myself to engage citizens and communities in investigating whether specific courts and/or courts in general are exercising judicial power appropriately. My goal is not to generate confusion regarding my status, but rather to continue serving in the roles available to me to serve God and neighbor, including religious activities, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities, humanitarian activities, educational activities, and international affairs, respecting the limitations imposed by the orders legally applicable to me.
2. I recognize that reasonable people, including judges, disciplinary authorities, lawyers, advocates, and citizens, may disagree on these matters. My goal in preserving these positions is not to question the good faith of those who disagree, but rather to preserve for future review issues that I believe are pertinent to broader themes of access to justice, accessibility for people with disabilities, freedom of expression, advocacy, and the proper boundaries of government authority.
3. This affidavit is not intended to address or waive any rights, objections, challenges, appeals, petitions for review, admissions to federal courts, activities in federal courts, religious activities, activities defending the rights of people with disabilities, humanitarian activities, or international activities that are independent of authorization to practice law before the courts of the State of Washington.
4. I will continue to maintain compliance records as required by ELC 14.4.
5. I am sending this statement to Disciplinary Counsel Francisco Rodriguez, author of Exhibit 1, and to Sarah Tucker, Allison Sato, the WSBA disability accommodations office, and the online filing email, as I have not been informed to whom or to which authority this email should be sent.
6. Below is the table identifying the people I specifically notified about my disbarment in relation to the White and LaFountain cases described above. More generally, I have sought to inform those with whom I interact that I no longer hold a license to act as an attorney before the courts of the State of Washington. I do this out of respect for the Washington Supreme Court's order and for the sake of transparency. At the same time, my compliance with that order should not be interpreted as abandoning my long-standing conviction that lawyers who question the integrity, impartiality, or institutional functioning of the courts should not be excluded from the profession simply for raising such concerns. On the contrary, I believe that the quality of justice available to litigants depends on the willingness of lawyers, judges, and citizens to examine whether legal institutions are functioning as intended. My concern in this regard is informed, in part, by studies documenting substantial unmet legal needs among Washington residents. For example,
the 2015 update of the Washington State Civil Legal Needs Study noted that “[j]ustice is absent for low-income Washingtonians who frequently face serious civil legal problems.” Executive Summary, p. 3 [3]. Whether my concerns will prove well-founded will be for others to discern. However, I continue to believe that open discussion about the functioning of legal institutions serves, rather than harms, the administration of justice. I was unable to include the chart here, but it is available online in the original declaration, which can be accessed at:
Washington State Bar Association — In re Scott Erik Stafne — Declaration of Compliance pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct
I declare under penalty of perjury, in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated June 8, 2026, in Arlington, Washington.
By s/Scott E. Stafne WSBA No. 6964 (disbarred). Scott E. Stafne, declarant.
Thank you for reading! Sign up for free to receive new publications and support my work.
Show your support.
The content of Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI is free today. But if you enjoyed this publication, you can show your appreciation for their work by subscribing to the service in the future. You will only be charged if they enable the payment option.
Show your support.
Share | Like | Comment | Re-post
© 2026 Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe | Download the app | Start writing
2. Análise Estrutural e Crítica do Texto / Structural and Critical Analysis of the Text
The document is a sophisticated piece of advocacy narrative, structured as a public defense dossier. It blends institutional legal criticism, historical parallelism, and constitutional doctrine to build a political and moral case against the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA).
Key Themes & Strategic Structures
A. The Rhetoric of the Historical Parallel (Prescott & Ancestry)
● The Blueprint: By opening with Colonel William Prescott at the Battle of Bunker Hill, the text establishes a historical frame of justifiable resistance against institutional overreach (the British Crown / Coercive Acts).
● The Lineage: Connecting Scott Erik Stafne directly to the Prescott and Stafne legal lineages serves an institutional purpose: it frames his current defiance not as rogue misconduct, but as a multi-generational defense of foundational American constitutional values.
B. Deconstruction of the "Default" Procedural Narrative
● The Conflict: The text addresses a core procedural dispute in proceeding No. 25#00042. The WSBA pursued a "default judgment" (revelia), whereas Stafne asserts that a formal Motion to Dismiss and Requests for Admission were timely filed and served.
● The Strategic Impact: In public-facing advocacy, exposing this contradiction is crucial. The text frames the default order not as a neutral administrative finding, but as an intentional institutional barrier designed to evade an open adjudication of Stafne's systemic constitutional arguments (Article III, Senior Judge structures, and appearance of partiality).
C. The Jurisdictional Split: Corporate vs. Natural Rights
● Historical Anchors (1876 & 1880): Incorporating the Congressional speeches of David B. Culberson and James R. Waddill grounds Stafne's critiques in a recognized American historical struggle. The expansion of federal corporate jurisdiction at the expense of local/state protections is presented as the origin of modern forum shopping.
● The Corporate Capture Argument: The text systematically links historical anti-corporate critiques to contemporary foreclosure actions (e.g., Deutsche Bank v. Alvin White). It frames the WSBA disbarment as a tool that structurally benefits institutional litigants by forcing the withdrawal of aggressive consumer defense counsel.
D. Institutional Erosion vs. Constitutional Duty
● The Rule of Law Thesis: The narrative shifts the focus from an individual disciplinary infraction to a systemic civilizational failure. Citing the 2015 Washington State Civil Legal
Needs Study, it highlights the structural deficit in access to justice for low-income citizens.
● The Defense: By aligning the activities of the Church of the Gardens with this documented public need, Stafne's non-fee-charging advocacy is positioned as a necessary humanitarian substitute for state failure, turning his professional exclusion into an injury against vulnerable populations.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário