THE CITY POLICE CHIEF SHOULD UNDERSTAND CITY JURISDICTION
The Ocean Shores police department chief above all others should understand the city’s legal boundaries. An email and a USPS restricted delivery letter was sent to the Ocean Shores police Chief, Neccie Logan on 4/22/2024:
——————————————————————-
Ms. Logan,
Neccie Logan, as a city police chief, you should immediately understand your city’s legal boundaries. Here in this letter, I am sending you five coordinates, and I am asking you to identify which of these coordinates are within the city of Ocean Shores legal boundaries? Simply answer with a YES or a NO. If you cannot answer with a yes or no, then please reply with an explanation. And please refer me to your jurisdiction document.
| COORDINATE REFERENCE# | COORDINATE | YES or NO ANSWER |
| 1 | 46.967444,-124.175147 | |
| 2 | 46.979379,-124.174866 | |
| 3 | 46.999639,-124.174447 | |
| 4 | 47.011331,-124.163101 | |
| 5 | 47.012405,-124.174328 |
You may click on the coordinate link above or type those coordinates into the mapping service you choose. This is a very simple request and should only take you a few minutes. I expect to hear from you within 30 days. If I do not hear from you, I will assume that you do not understand the city’s legal boundaries or do not wish to share the information that you have.
——————————————————————-
The police chief has never had any problems communicating in the past, but on this jurisdiction inquiry, the police chief DID NOT answer. There was no reply whatsoever by 7/14/2024. Earlier, the same questionnaire regarding the coordinates was sent to the city’s lead attorney, and he replied, “the City declines to comment on this matter”.
Why can’t the police chief answer a simple jurisdiction question?
Maybe it has something to do with her code enforcement officer brutally violating the rights of a State Park visitor, when he acted out of jurisdiction by writing a city ordinance violation to a person (Mr. X) who was located outside of the city at coordinate number 1, which is deep inside of the Washington State Park to the tune of 1525 feet, more than a quarter of a mile beyond the cities western boundary parcel, and more than a mile beyond the “Welcome to the State Park Signs”.
Meet, Chi, the dog that was sentenced to death by the city of Ocean Shores – CODE ENFORCEMENT.
Coordinate number 4 is the location of the OS city hall. Coordinates 2,3, and 5 are located inside the State Park and outside of the city’s boundaries.
CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTING OUT OF JURISDICTION IS A SERIOUS CRIME
Under no circumstances should an officer charge an individual with a city ordinance violation for an offense which occurs outside of the city’s legal boundaries. But that is precisely what the OS city code enforcement officer did June of 2018.
A city code enforcement officer that acts out of jurisdiction is committing a serious crime. I guess only the police chief knows the answer to why she suddenly went mute, when asked a jurisdiction question.
Certainly, the inquiry was not complicated. It simply asks: “Is this location within the city’s legal boundaries? Answer yes, no, or explain. And the chief chose silence.
Silence is not an admission of guilt. It is a prudent choice to protect oneself from unintended self-incrimination. However, silence in the face of a direct accusation of crime can be considered an admission of guilt and is admissible as evidence by the jury. This is based on the idea that an innocent person will deny a serious charge as a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. This silence can be introduced at the trial as an indicator of guilt.
THE CITY WAS TWICE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE A JURISDICTION DOCUMENT
There have been two OS city municipal cases where the city court was compelled to produce a legal jurisdiction document and the document the court provided was the city’s Articles of Incorporation boundaries definition.
That document clearly shows that the city does not possess or own the State properties and it shows those State properties are not “within the city”.
See how the city of OS violates jurisdiction in the Washington State Park
THE WASHINGTON STATE PARK IS A BEAUTIFUL SANCTUARY AND IT IS NOT WITHIN THE CITY DOMAIN
The city of OS, WA experiences the great fortune of being situated next to one of the most beautiful State Parks in the Northwest. But the city does not own the State Park, State Beaches, State Highway, State Tidelands, State Seashore Conservation Area, or anything west of their border parcel. Nor are those State Properties within the city.
People travel to the Washington State Park to be free of city problems and ordinances and certainly do not expect to be charged with a city ordinance violation.
A city’s code enforcement using its articles of incorporation to commandeer a beautiful, prized State Park sanctuary is illegal, unethical, immoral, and is profoundly wrong in every sense.
THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ACTED OUT OF JURISDICTION AND WRONGFULLY CHARGED A FEMALE YELLOW LABRADOR RETRIEVER NAMED CHI AS BEING A DANGEROUS DOG WHILE CHI IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF A DANGEROUS DOG AND IT APPEARS THAT HE USED AN ILLEGAL LAW TO DO SO
Meet, Chi, the dog that was sentenced to death by the city of OS – Code Enforcement.
Chi is not a dangerous animal and not by any stretch of your imagination could she be considered dangerous. Chi is the exact opposite of a dangerous animal. Every dog expert that has evaluated Chi states as much.
“Here we have Chi, a female yellow Labrador retriever. Without a doubt anyone in OS will tell you that this dog is one of the friendliest dogs you could come across. When you meet this dog, it is so kind and will lick your fingers. This dog has never bitten anyone and could not be made to do so. This dog has been around thousands of old, young, children, babies, dogs, and has never been anything but loving and friendly. When I tell them that the dog has been listed as dangerous, they laugh and think I’m making a joke. When I told them the story of how the code enforcement officer in OS prosecuted myself and Chi, they were left – shocked.”
A HISTORY OF OUT OF JURISDICTION CHARGES FROM THE CITY AGAINST MR. X
This story pertains to an OS resident who was visiting the Washington State Park and was written a city ordinance dangerous dog violation for a dog fight which occurred inside of the Washington State Park and more than a quarter mile west of the city’s legal boundaries. The victim will herein be referred to as Mr. X.
It all started with Mr. X starting a business 11 years ago that dramatically reduced the number of 911 calls being generated for the OS police department. Steiner, the former police chief immediately noticed this giant drop in 911 calls and tuned into Mr. X to be the reason for the drop in 911 calls. At that point the police chief attempted to force Mr. X to buy 52 solicitation permits at $150.00 each on a yearly basis. This would equate to a $7800.00 yearly permit expense.
“The permits he tried to sell me were not even valid in Washington State Park and that was confirmed by the Washington State Parks. Regardless of these facts the police chief insisted that the city owned the Washington State Park and that his city permits were valid there. The Washington State Parks stated that the permits were not valid in the Washington State Parks and would not be honored by the Washington State Parks. Therefore, I refused to by the permits.”
When Mr. X refused to buy the permits, he was charged by the city police and taken into the city courtroom and prosecuted for 22 months until the case was dismissed.
And since that dismissal, Mr. X says he has been harassed by various senior longstanding members of the police department, primarily the code enforcement officer.
A short time after the 22-month long dismissal, on June 4, 2018, Mr. X and his dog were walking in the leash free area of the Washington State Park as they have done thousands of times before, when three male dogs who were also off leash provoked a fight with his female yellow Labrador retriever named, Chi. A 5-second fight ensued where Chi was bitten on the neck and another dog received a small injury during the fight. The dog fight occurred in the Washington State Park and Chi was not guilty of any State charges. None of the four dogs were guilty of any State Charges.
OS city code enforcement did not witness the dog fight but knew precisely where the dog fight occurred. Chi was not guilty of any State code violation and the city code enforcement officer knew that, so he decided to charge Mr. X with a city code violation which he felt he could prosecute, as the city charge removes “kill” and replaces it with “any physical injury”.
The code enforcement officer immediately jailed Chi and then called Mr. X on the telephone and declared him to have a “dangerous animal” telling him he would be charged with a CITY violation for having a “dangerous animal”. Code enforcement told Mr. X that his dog would be killed unless he signed and complied with the code enforcement officer. He then informed Mr. X that he himself and Chief Steiner drafted the Dangerous Dog ordinance he was being charged with.
During the OS Municipal Court process:
- Mr. X asked for an attorney but was not provided with one.
- Mr. X asked for a jury trial and was not given one.
- Mr. X was not allowed to enter photos or videos of his female yellow Labrador, Chi.
- The OS Municipal courtroom was compelled to produce a jurisdiction document and they produced the Articles of Incorporation.
- Mr. X was not allowed to mention jurisdiction.
- Mr. X was told if he mentioned jurisdiction, he would be charged with contempt.
- The city decided the fate of Mr. X in a bench trial and no mention of jurisdiction was made during the trial.
Here is what makes this charge from code enforcement so reprehensible:
- Code Enforcement violated the law by making an out of jurisdiction charge against Mr. X.
- Beyond the out of jurisdiction charge, code enforcement claims to have helped draft the dangerous dog law he charged Mr. X with.
- Beyond the out of jurisdiction charge, the dangerous dog law he drafted is illegal.
- Beyond the out of jurisdiction charge, the dog he declared to be dangerous is not. The dog is the exact opposite of a dangerous dog. Who simply defended herself after being provoked by three male dogs. Treating an innocent friendly yellow labrador retriever like a “Hannibal Lector” type animal is the CRUELEST thing you can do to a dog. And to force the dog owner to treat his dog that way is TORTURE.
- Beyond the out of jurisdiction charge, code enforcement now continuously violates Mr. X’s rights daily by forcing him to treat his kind friendly animal as though it is some sort of “Hannibal Lector” type of dangerous animal, thus forcing Mr. X to treat his kind friendly animal in such a way that will harm the animal and place stress continuously on Mr. X and his dog Chi. Code enforcement also requires Mr. X maintain a $500,000.00 bond. Pay the city $100.00 yearly for inspection of premises. Will not allow his dog to use a standard dog kennel and must be locked in a “Hannibal Lector” style container where the dog cannot contact humans. Must maintain a short leash and a muzzle. Even though she has never bitten a human and loves all people and animals. This is inhumane treatment to a kind loving family companion. This is a daily torture from an illegal wrongful charge and prosecution.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LEGAL SYSTEM IN OCEAN SHORES IS BROKEN
Next on 1/30/2019 city code enforcement charged Mr. X with the completely bogus charge of not having a business license. During the municipal courtroom process for that charge, the business license was never argued in the courtroom and never discussed, because it did not apply and made no sense whatsoever. Instead, the courtroom focused on a completely different permit they forced Mr. X into purchasing. When Mr. X refused, police chief Neccie Logan threatened to fine Mr. X $500.00 daily for each day he was in business until he agreed to purchase the permit that did not even apply to Mr. X. That case was eventually dismissed after a 17-month long struggle in court.
Mr. X was becoming exhausted from the mistreatment by the city and began thinking of leaving the city, but realized in his senior years, it was too late to start over somewhere else. He would need to stay and fight for his rights and the rights of others.
THE OUT OF JURISDICTION PROSECUTION BY THE OS MUNICIPAL COURTROOM CONTINUES TO BRUTALLY VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF MR. X ON A DAILY BASIS AND IS A DAILY INHUMANE TREATMENT TO CHI, HIS KIND FRIENDLY LABRADOR RETRIEVER
This is an ongoing daily rights violation from a wrongful charge. The rights violations here are enormous where code enforcement forces the dog owner to treat an innocent family companion and best friend as though it is some sort of a “Hannibal Lector”, leaving the dog’s owner in constant fear that code enforcement will stop by after noticing some minor compliance violation, then confiscate the dog, kill it, and charge the owner with a serious crime which could send him to jail for 364 days and a $5000.00 dollar fine.
Code Enforcements “Hannibal Lector” treatment to his Dog Chi will destroy the dog’s soul and friendly character leaving her void of her natural ability to help and improve humanity. This treatment by code enforcement is a CRUEL TORTURE.
DURING THE FOURTH YEARLY INSPECTION THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DEMANDED POSESSION OF CHI, CHARGED MR. X WITH A SERIOUS CRIME PUNISHABLE BY 364 DAYS IN PRISON, A $5000.00 FINE, AND SENT HIM A DEATH SENTENCE LETTER SHOWING HIS INTENT TO KILL HIS FAMILY COMPANION, CHI
The next charge by city Code Enforcement occurred during the fourth yearly inspection, for which Mr. X is required to pay $100.00 on a yearly basis. During the inspection the code enforcement officer stated that there were not enough signs posted at his premises, even though Mr. X had 8 signs posted and the code enforcement even took photos of the ones posted on the dog kennel which is the most obvious point for notification on premises. The code enforcement officer who was dressed in police battle gear with a knife strapped on his chest then stated that he was going to take Chi from Mr. X. The code enforcement then went to his office and created a letter stating that he intended to kill his dog Chi, place Mr. X in prison for 364 days, fine him $5000.00, and charge him with a serious dangerous dog crime.
Mr. X spent the next 7 months fighting that charge before it was dismissed.
The next year code enforcement did not do an inspection but did cash the $100.00 check. Maybe the code enforcement officer was on vacation and forgot to inspect the home premises of his dangerous animal.
Mr. X believes that Chief Logan is protecting a criminal officer and allowing him to continue torturing an innocent senior citizen, Mr. X, and his female yellow Labrador retriever named, Chi.
PARK VISITORS DONATE TO THE WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND THEY EXPECT TO BE PROTECTED FROM CITY CODE VIOLATIONS WHILE IN THE WASHINGTON STATE PARK
Another OS resident with a background in law enforcement: “If the OSPD chief admits that the officer acted out of jurisdiction, it will reduce OSPD jurisdiction … tremendously. Not to mention the other legal issues for her officers. And that is why she will not respond when asked if she has jurisdiction in the Washington State Park. Unfortunately, the chief got sucked into a spiderweb. It’s hard to charge OS taxpayers for the maintenance on a new $50,000,000.00 police empire mega building where the chief can have a private million-dollar office as they discover that jurisdiction is half of what they earlier stated.”
Another OS resident stated: “I donate yearly to Washington State Parks and now to see this happen, where visitors to the State Park are being patrolled by a city and written city violations. I go to the Washington State Parks to escape the city’s and all their issues and ordinances, only to find out they are laying in patrol to write me a city violation. Why am I donating to the State Park if a city is allowed to patrol the park and write me a city violation? It doesn’t get any more wrong than that.”
An OS resident commented: “Chi is the nicest and friendliest dog there is and by no means could she be considered dangerous. The city is outnumbered 10,000 to 1. This is clearly a case of an officer using the color of law to prosecute another. The city has run many people out of town using the color of law.”
THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CLAIMS TO BE INVOLVED WITH DRAFTING THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE WHICH HE ENFORCES ON STATE PARK VISITORS
The code enforcement officer himself is enforcing a law, which he drafted, that will kill your dog for causing “any physical injury” to another dog, where the CEO decides what dog provoked the fight, even though he did not witness the dog fight. Then place you on a supervisory status with yearly inspections, mandatory $500,000.00 bond, $100.00 yearly dues, force you to use a muzzle and leash, force you to lock your dog in a “Hannibal Lector” style confinement. During his inspection he may decide that you do not have enough signs, then charge you with another crime punishable by killing your dog, 364 days imprisonment, and a $5000.00 fine.
“The tried-and-true State law has been in existence for more than a hundred years. It’s a proven law. The ordinance that the code enforcement officer drafted is trash, junk, unsound, illegal, and utterly ridiculous. He should not be bragging of it.”
CODE ENFORCEMENTS ACTIONS ARE AN EXTREME AND BRUTAL ONGOING DAILY VIOLATION OF THE DOG OWNER’S RIGHTS AND CAUSES INHUMANE TREATMENT TO THE DOG
- Every day since June of 2018 Mr. X and his dog have been tortured by the code enforcement wrongful prosecution.
- Forces Mr. X to lock up his kind friendly dog into a “Hannibal Lector” style confinement.
- Forces Mr. X to maintain a $500,000.00 bond.
- Forced code enforcement fees of $100.00 yearly where he will inspect your home yearly. Including entering your home to ensure that you have posters placed inside of your home.
- Leaves the pet owner in constant fear that code enforcement will pop out of the woodwork and grab his family companion and best friend if she is, kindly greeting a stranger, playing with his grandchildren, neighborhood children, playing fetch with other dogs, showing her affection towards others, or just relaxing in the sunshine, resulting in charges by code enforcement for failing to meet a minor insignificant compliance item that will punish you with 364 days in prison, a $5000.00 fine, and the death of your family companion.
- Fear of code enforcement suddenly show up at your home to snatch your family friend after he notices a missing sign posted on your property resulting in charges by code enforcement for failing to meet a minor insignificant compliance item that will punish you with 364 days in prison, a $5000.00 fine, and the death of your family companion.
- This wrongful charge and prosecution are cruel torture to the dog and the dog’s owner.
This type of code enforcement causes extreme fear for the dog’s owner and the dog, creating severe stress related disorders. Leaving the pet owner constantly wondering if the code enforcement officer who wears police battle gear, a handgun, and a knife strapped to his chest, is going to surprise the pet owner, take his best friend, and place charges upon him. This is a wrongful charge and is a relentless brutal rights violation.
“My biggest fear is that Chi will be playing with my grandchildren or other children, or kindly greeting a stranger, or playing fetch with another dog or children, or just lying peacefully on the deck, when the code enforcement officer pops out of hiding, confiscates Chi, kills her, and charges Mr. X with a serious crime sentencing him to 364 days in jail and a $5000.00 fine. I don’t know how I would explain to my family and granddaughters that Chi was killed by city code enforcement, because she was playing with the neighbor’s children.”
Meet, Chi, the dog that was sentenced to death by the city of OS – Code Enforcement.
$50,000.00 REWARD FOR ATTORNEY CONTACT
The OS city code enforcement officer clearly acted out of jurisdiction and has caused great harm and suffering which continues on a daily basis.
Please help end the daily human rights violations and inhumane treatment of a kind friendly innocent female yellow Labrador retriever.
Anyone, including an attorney, who helps Mr. X find an attorney will receive $50,000.00, or 50% of the proceeds awarded to Mr. X after attorney fees. A maximum of $50,000.00 will be awarded. Contact: editor@oceanshoresnews.com and your information in this case will remain anonymous.
2024/07/14 Ocean Shores News – www.oceanshoresnews.com