1

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

IN AND AROUND THE COUNTY OF THURSTON, WASHINGTON
3

4

5 JAMES K. SHELTON )
BEN SHELTON, III
6 SAMI SAAD
) CASE NO 22-2-00198-34
7 Plaintiffs,
) JUDGE JAMES DIXON
8
vs.
9 )
LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD OF THE STATE
10 OF WASHINGTON “LCB”
and )
11 RICK GARZA, DIRECTOR OF LCB,
12
In his Individual and Official Capacities, )
13
THE CITY OF SEATTLE, )
14
and
15
WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE STEVE HOBBS, )
16
Defendants. )
17

18 PLAINTIFFS ADDITIONAL PROOF MEMORANDUM ON LICENSE RESTORATION
19
The Plaintiffs borrowed this information from another case against the WSLCB that is public record.
20 Once the Court sees this information it will support everything that we said in this video last week.

21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FyNGdNhP4

22 Black Original Cannabis License Holders Tell the Truth About Seattle Racism: Uglier than
23 New Jersey.

24 https://www.scribd.com/document/556527230/Kevin-Ben-and-Sami-Green-Wall-Street-v-
WSLCB-and-City-of-Seattle-Thurston-22-2-00198-34
25

26

27

28
1
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 I. The Widmer Proof.

2 Dirty Dealing Primer on William J. Widmer, Jr.
https://www.scribd.com/document/559080655/The-Dirty-Dealing-Primer-on-WSLCB-and-the-
3 White-Widmer-Family

4

5 U.S. Trustee v. Widmer Ex B
https://www.scribd.com/document/559080655/The-Dirty-Dealing-Primer-on-WSLCB-and-the-
6 White-Widmer-Family

7 U.S. Trustee v. Widmer ORDER Ex C
https://www.scribd.com/document/559083369/U-S-Trustee-v-Widmer-ORDER
8
Green Tree Servicing Relief from Stay Ex D
9 https://www.scribd.com/document/559083645/Green-Tree-Servicing-v-Widmer-Relief-From-Stay

10 Wong v. Widmer Ex E
https://www.scribd.com/document/559083715/Wong-v-Widmer-14-12946
11
12 Pacific-Fairplay v. Widmer Ex F
https://www.scribd.com/document/559083944/Pacific-Fairplay-Widmer-Complaint-14-12946
13
************
14
The findings of the Court are simply outrageous as William Widmer Pled the 5th three times in his
15
Bankruptcy case in 2014 and WSLCB knew all about it in 2015 when it was busy kicking out people
16 who look like us. They said in no uncertain terms there was no way he should get a license, but then
17 they end up giving him a recreational license and a medical license too. That’s racketeering. This is

18 what they said in a Memo that they provided in response to a public information request.

19 RE: 401K as a LLC member

From Hendricks, Sharon A (LCB)To
20
Wambold, Allen G (LCB); Reid, Nicola M (LCB)Recipientsallen.wambold@lcb.wa.gov ;
21 nicola.reid@lcb.wa.gov

22 Moving on, since it appears that the Widmers didn’t wait for Board approval to change
ownership of the LLC with the Secretary of State, you need to decide what you want to do
23 about that. I suggest we charge him with violating WAC 314-55-120.

24 The other thing you need to know is that Aryna and I met with two FBI agents who are
carrying on a year-long investigation of Mr. Widmer, and the various financial transactions
25 he’s been involved in would turn your hair white. He’s involved in bank fraud that has cost
the depositers millions in losses, he’s involved in laundering money for drug transactions,
26 and the agents say they’re somewhere between 6 and 12 months away from federal charges
that will put him away for a while. They both agree he is no one who is going to obey
27
marijuana laws or regulations.
28
2
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 They also say he has a long list of legal actions against him, including a bankruptcy that failed
because he didn’t disclose everything. They’re going to send us some information, which we
2 should check against what he disclosed to us because they believe he likely either
misrepresented or failed to disclose material information when he applied to us for a license.
3
Kim
4
We downloaded a document from someone else who posted all of the information online. We
5 show the Court the actual cases from the file. Some of the facts from the cases are this:

6 11 USC §727 - Discharge

7 (a)The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—

8 (3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve
any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the
9 debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or
failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;
10
(5) the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge
11 under this paragraph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s
12 liabilities;

13 Wherefore, with such in mind and with our Highest Nature In Course:
From U.S. Trustee v. Widmers WD WA Case No. 14-12946
14
13. The Initial SOFA filed by the Debtors disclosed two transfers made within the
15 two years preceding the commencement of the Chapter 7 Case: (a) the December 2013 sale of
stock and real estate to W&L Holdings, Inc., and (b) the sale of a 2009 Cobalt 276 boat to an
16 unknown third party. See Initial SOFA, No. 10.

17 25. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when asked at the Examination about the
Unit 301 Transfer. Specifically, Mr. Widmer would not explain why he failed to disclose the Unit 301
18 Transfer on the Initial SOFA, what consideration he received for the Unit 301 Transfer, and whether
or not he transferred Unit 301 to Ataro LLC in satisfaction of a debt
19

20 31. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at the Examination regarding the source of
the funds used for the IndyMac Transfer.
21
36. Mr. Widmer asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at the Examination regarding the source of
22 the funds used for the Flagstar Transfer.

23 48. The Defendants testified at the Examination that in January 2014, three months before the
Petition Date, they sold a 1999 Porsche 911 for $22,500 (the “Porsche Proceeds”) to an unknown
24 third party through Craigslist (the “Porsche Transfer”).

25 49. The Defendants deposited the Porsche Proceeds into Union Bank account no. 0423 on or about
January 17, 2014.
26
50. The Porsche Transfer is not disclosed on either the Initial SOFA or the Amended SOFA.
27
51. The Defendants testified at the Examination that they purchased a Rolex watch (the “Rolex”) for
28 approximately $40,000 in or around March or April 2013.
3
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1
52. The Defendants testified at the Examination that they gave the Rolex to the receiver for Fairplay
2 Financial Inc. in or around November 2013 (the “Rolex Transfer”).

3 53. The Rolex Transfer is not disclosed on either the Initial SOFA or the Amended SOFA.

4
58. In the year prior to the Petition Date, the Defendants withdrew, transferred, or otherwise used at
5 least $360,000 from MWR account nos. 8270 and 2070, and Union Bank account no. 0423 (the
“Missing Funds”).
6
BANKRUPTCY NO. 14-12946-TWD Pacific/Fairplay v. Widmer
7
13. Widmer was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial during all relevant times.
8
14. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer engaged in multiple
9 transactions that were intended to and did benefit Widmer or third parties to the detriment of
Fairplay, including loans, reconstruction projects, and real estate transactions, examples of which
10 are set forth below.

11 15. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer directly or
12 indirectly obtained funds from Fairplay through fraudulent means, engaged in transactions with
Fairplay, and/or used the credit of Fairplay to engage in personal financial transactions to the
13 detriment of Fairplay, examples of which are set forth below.

14 16. During the time he was an officer and director of Fairplay Financial, Widmer made material
misrepresentations to and/or concealed material information from the Fairplay Board of Directors
15 and/or management to the detriment of Fairplay, including his own involvement in certain real
estate transactions, the lack of adequate funding sources to cover Fairplay’s losses, and his repeated
16 approval of loans in violation of company policy and lending regulations. Widmer made such false
and misleading statements with the intent that the Board or management of Fairplay Financial
17 would reasonably rely on the truth thereof in conducting Fairplay’s business. Fairplay suffered
damages as a result of its reasonable reliance on Widmer’s false and misleading statements.
18
A. The Boylston Transaction
19

20 17. In or about August 2013, Widmer submitted a false loan application to Fairplay in the name of
ATR, LLC, an entity that did not exist.
21
18. The loan was to be secured by certain real property located at 2731 Boylston Avenue East, Unit
22 #301, Seattle, WA 98102 (the “Boylston Condo”) which, Widmer represented, was owned by ATR,
LLC when in fact, it was owned by Widmer.
23
19. The false loan application submitted by Widmer contained the forged signature of Richard Brent
24 Qualls, a purported representative of ATR, LLC….

25 B. The Watchtower Transaction

26
32. On or about September 26, 2012, Fairplay funded a loan in the amount of $374,400 (the
27 “Watchtower Loan”) and disbursed said funds to Watchtower, LLC, approximately $250,000 of
which was disbursed to the seller of the Watchtower Property, and the remaining portion of which
28 was to be used for construction on the Watchtower Property.
4
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1
33. Widmer obtained additional construction funds from Fairplay (in addition to the initial
2 disbursement) that were booked to the Watchtower Loan at his direction, and instructed a
contractor, U.S. Construction, to perform work on his own personal residence and to bill that work
3 to the Watchtower Property by creating and submitting false invoices for work completed on the
Watchtower Property.
4
34. U.S. Construction did not actually perform any construction work on the Watchtower Property.
5 Instead, its principal, Thomas Berk (“Berk”), at Widmer’s instruction, performed a significant
amount of construction work on Widmer’s personal residence and billed that work totaling
6 approximately $73,000 to the Watchtower Property by submitting false invoices that were paid by
Fairplay Funding under the Watchtower Loan through additional construction draws.
7
35. Very little construction work was actually completed on the Watchtower Property. It was
8 completely gutted and reframed from the inside, but remains completely unfinished and gutted
down to the studs.
9
________________
10
The full Board even knew about the corruption and wrote about it see our Exhibit A in
11
September 2016 an Official Board Order that says the same things we just said in this filing but we
12
can see now that Kaleafa has multiple shops and is doing just fine. Somewhere a dirty deal was cut
13 and this is clearly the Judge or a Jury could find unlawful racketeering when we submit our Jury
14 Demand.

15
16

17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26

27
28
5
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 In fact in the Final Order of the Board there were more cases than the Bankruptcy cases

2 where Hometown Bank was awarded $1.4M against them there are many Civil cases too and one of
them was Judgment against them for $2M by Judge Beth Andrus. There was $2.5M from Judge
3
Patrick Oishi with $33K in Attorney Fees…. and then they went Bankrupt but they can still have
4
multiple shops in Oregon and Washington while we as Blacks got run out. That is unlawful racism
5 and racketeering and even the news media won’t touch any of it. You at this Court are all we have

6 left because you can see on the next page they failed to disclose material things to the WSLCB as the
email predicted but they STILL GOT LICENSES and are able to more than earn a living.
7
8 Widmer Board $2.5 Judgment

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16
Widmer Board $2.0 Judgment
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26

27
28
6
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 Widmer Lies to the WSLCB and gets away with it.

2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17
18

19

20 Plaintiff have attached Exhibits B, C, D, E and F from the Federal U.S. Bankruptcy Court for more
proof.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 II. Bruce’s Beach.

2 The WSLCB is continuing the perpetuate

3
But the tide is changing and this Court has leverage to make things right:
4
A Black family got their beach back — and inspired others to fight against land theft
5 The beachfront land — known as Bruce's Beach in Manhattan Beach, Calif. — is being returned to
the descendants of Charles and Willa Bruce 97 years after it was taken from them.
6
DANNY HAJEK
7 POSTED ONOCTOBER 10, 2021, 10:49 AM

8
Black landowners have faced eminent domain abuse for generations
9
Bruce's Beach stands as just one example of land theft that's taken place across the United States
10 through violence, intimidation and legal maneuvers. For generations, Black landowners like Willa
11 and Charles Bruce have been victimized by eminent domain abuse and unjust property laws.

12
"One of the reasons why the Bruce's case has been generating so much attention is because it
13 represents the first instance in the history of the United States where an African American family or
14 community that had their property taken unjustly, ended up having it returned," says Thomas W.
Mitchell, a property law scholar at Texas A&M University. He's worked to reform discriminatory
15
policies that have stripped African Americans of their land.
16

17 Activists are trying to help other Black families reclaim their land

18 During the signing ceremony in Manhattan Beach, Newsom recognized activist Kavon Ward as the
driving force behind the Bruce's Beach movement. Advocating for the Bruce family led to the
19
founding of her organization called Where Is My Land, dedicated to helping Black Americans reclaim
20 stolen land and secure restitution.
21
"I informed the [Bruce] family that I would do anything in my power to help them," Ward, 39, tells
22
NPR. "Not only to get restitution for their loss of civil rights — their loss of business enterprise, but
23 for me, I felt like justice was getting their land back." See Exhibit ______
24
25

26

27

28
8
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 III. Restoration of Washington Drivers’ Licenses.

2 https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/judge-orders-halt-driver%E2%80%99s-license-suspensions-
unpaid-tickets
3
4 “The judge’s order today removes an enormous burden from so many Washington
residents who’ve lost their driver’s license just because they couldn’t afford to pay a
5 ticket,” said Don Scaramastra, Partner with Miller Nash LLP. “And, going forward,
people who cannot pay a ticket no longer have to fear losing the ability to drive their
6 kids to school, get to work, or pick up groceries.”
7
“We will continue to work toward a permanent solution to end debt-based license
8 suspensions, which are counterproductive and harmful. But, the terms of this order,
at least for now, effectively sever the link between poverty and driver’s license
9 suspensions in Washington,” said Mark Cooke, ACLU of Washington Smart Justice
Campaign Policy Director.
10

11 The plaintiffs are represented by Donald Scaramastra of Miller Nash LLP; Eryn
Karpinski Hoerster and Kelly Mennemeier of Foster Garvey PC; Hathaway Burden of
12 Summit Law Group PLLC; and Lisa Nowlin, Mark Cooke and John Midgley of the
ACLU of Washington.
13 Some quotes from the filings:
14
E. License suspension can, and often does, lead to a cascading series of escalating
15 financial obligations that punishes and perpetuates poverty.

16 Moreover, the State affirmatively proves that the harm caused by DOL’s mandatory license
suspension scheme was not limited to the four Plaintiffs, but instead has been systematically
17 inflicted upon tens of thousands of drivers licensed in Washington.

18
“Due process requires a competent and impartial tribunal,” and “even if there is no showing
19 of actual bias in the tribunal, . . . due process is denied by circumstances that create the
likelihood or the appearance of bias.”41
20
Since the late 1970s, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that
21 the suspension of a driver’s license “implicates a protectable property interest”
that is “substantial.”51 Continued possession of a license “may become essential in the
22 pursuit of a livelihood” and, therefore, is “not to be taken away without that
procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”52 The Court has
23 pronounced it “fundamental” that “except in emergency situations” the state “must
afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before the
24 termination becomes effective.”53

25
Where have the Plaintiffs ever received Due Process in THEIR cases? Even then, the ACLU
26 will argue for some people who have been denied licenses in a Takings context after a hearing, again

27 that is the Oscar’s II case that Plaintiffs have already mentioned. We again mention it below:

28
9
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 IV. Oscar’s II Restaurant.

2
Plaintiffs have already mentioned Oscars but the problem is that the same people who
3 helped Oscars and the Drivers’ licenses won’t even talk to us so this Court and our movie is all we
4 have. We are reaching out one more time to the lawyers in this screen capture from the Driver’s

5 Licenses but ultimately we have to put our Faith in this Court to do the right thing.

6 https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/drug-abatement-oscars-ii-restaurant-overturned
7
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of property
8 without just compensation. The United States Supreme Court’s current interpretation of that
provision is set out in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct.
9 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992). Under Lucas, two categories of regulatory actions are
compensable regardless of the public interest served by the restraint: 1) those involving
10 “physical invasion” of property; and 2) those denying “all economically beneficial or
productive use of land.” Id. 505 U.S. at 1015-16. The second type of deprivation is sometimes
11 called a “total taking.” Id. at 1030. The Washington Supreme Court more broadly looks to
12 “whether the regulation destroys or derogates any fundamental attribute of property
ownership: including the right to possess; to exclude others; or to dispose of property.”
13 Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 602, 854 P.2d 1 (1993). Physical invasions and total
takings are not the exclusive ways of satisfying this standard. Id. at 602.2
14
Once a total takings like this has been shown, the government must generally compensate the
15 possessor of property. Lucas at 1019; Guimont at 602-03. The government may, however,
rebut this presumption by showing that the proscribed use was never part of the possessor’s
16 title to begin with. Lucas at 1027; Guimont at 602.
17
Plaintiffs note that is impossible for WSLCB or Seattle to prove in this case because just like
18 Oscars we weren’t violating ANYTHING. We were just minding our business – literally – and trying
19 to build our lives and raise our families in a very racist PNW. Will this Court do something or just

20 rubber stamp it?

21 Respectfully submitted,

22

23 ________________________________
James K. Shelton
24

25 ________________________________
Ben Shelton, III
26

27 ________________________________
Sami Saad
28
10
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 The Plaintiffs swear that this Memorandum was emailed
Per COVID regulations to the Defendants at:
3
4 serviceatg@atg.wa.gov
MOS_Legalservice@seattle.gov
5 CityClerkFiling@seattle.gov

6
This 17th day of February, 2021
7

8
_______________________________________
9 James Kevin Shelton

10

11

12

13
14
15
16

17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
30 Additional Memorandum in Support of License Restoration

31