# LEGAL VIOLATIONS ANALYSIS
## Potential Statutory and Constitutional Violations — Confidence Assessment
### Case Reference: OFH-2025-001 | April 2026

---

Each violation is rated on a confidence scale based on the strength of available evidence:
- **HIGH** — Direct documentary evidence establishes the violation; elements are provable from the record
- **MEDIUM** — Strong circumstantial evidence; some elements require inference or additional discovery
- **LOW** — Plausible based on pattern evidence; requires significant additional investigation

---

## 1. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (RCW 42.56)

### Violation 1.1: Willful Withholding of Responsive Records
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.070(1) — agencies must make all public records available for inspection
- **Evidence**: 911+ emails mathematically proven to exist via reply-chain analysis (if Reply B exists, Original A must have existed). The originals were not produced.
- **Key example**: Council Member Steve Fields — 325 emails TO him produced, 114 reply-chain proofs of his outgoing emails, ZERO sent emails produced
- **Penalty**: $5-$100/day per violation + mandatory attorney fees (RCW 42.56.550)
- **Source files**: `PRA_SUPPRESSION_REPORT.md`, `AFFIDAVIT_EXHIBITS.md`

### Violation 1.2: Surgical Removal of Executive Communications
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.070(1)
- **Evidence**: Mayor Birney — 8 unique outgoing emails vs. 1,838 mentions of her name in the corpus. 432 emails received by the Mayor, 82 reply-to proofs of her responses, only 54 sent emails produced. This ratio is mathematically incompatible with normal email behavior.
- **Penalty**: Same as above; willfulness significantly increases per-day penalty under *Yousoufian* 9-factor test
- **Source files**: `PRA_SUPPRESSION_REPORT.md`, ghost probe analysis

### Violation 1.3: Failure to Produce Attachments
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.070(1) — attachments are part of the record
- **Evidence**: 4,109 emails reference 35,455 attachment instances (288 unique filenames). Zero attachments were produced. These include the FCA report, budget documents, PR firm deliverables, and internal memos.
- **Source files**: `AFFIDAVIT_EXHIBITS.md` (Exhibit 3)

### Violation 1.4: Production Inflation via Duplicates
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.080 — agencies must not charge for "unnecessary copying"
- **Evidence**: 5,182 of 7,573 documents (68.4%) are duplicates. The City represented 7,573 as the production volume. Effective unique records: ~1,541.
- **Source files**: `duplicate_analysis.json`

### Violation 1.5: Five-Month Email Blackout
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.070(1)
- **Evidence**: September 2024 through January 2025 — the period when the PR firm was hired, the FCA was held in draft, and the closure timeline was finalized — produced effectively zero emails. This is the most consequential period for the request and the production gap cannot be accidental.
- **Source files**: `AFFIDAVIT_EXHIBITS.md` (Exhibit 8)

### Violation 1.6: No Privilege Log
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.56.210(3) — agencies must provide specific exemption and log for withheld records
- **Evidence**: No privilege log, no exemption citations, no redaction explanations accompanied any part of the four-installment production.

### Violation 1.7: Corruption of Source Records
**Confidence: MEDIUM**
- **Statute**: RCW 40.16.020 — willful destruction/concealment of public records (Class B felony)
- **Evidence**: 96% of raw .msg files (5,967 of 6,213) have intact OLE2 containers but corrupted MAPI property streams. This pattern is consistent with programmatic manipulation during export, not random corruption. However, proving *willfulness* requires eliminating innocent explanations (e.g., buggy export tool).
- **Source files**: `FORENSIC_INTEGRITY_ANALYSIS.md`, truncation report

---

## 2. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT (RCW 42.30)

### Violation 2.1: Final Action Taken Outside Public Meeting
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.30.060 — no governing body shall take "final action" except in open public meeting
- **Evidence**: The decision to close OFH was made no later than December 2024 (PR firm hired, closure plan drafted). No public meeting authorized this decision. The March 25, 2025 Council meeting was a post-hoc ratification.
- **Remedy**: Any action taken in violation is "null and void" (RCW 42.30.060(1))
- **Penalty**: $500-$1,000 per member who attended + mandatory attorney fees

### Violation 2.2: Failure to Provide Public Comment Opportunity
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 42.30.240 — governing body must allow public comment before taking "final action on any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or motion"
- **Evidence**: No public comment period preceded the closure decision. The November 18, 2025 vote to demolish did include public comment, but the closure itself (March 2025) did not.

---

## 3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 36.70A)

### Violation 3.1: Closure Without Comprehensive Plan Amendment
**Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 36.70A.130 — amendments to comprehensive plans (including Capital Facilities Plan) require public hearing
- **Evidence**: Redmond's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2030 lists community centers as capital facilities. Closing OFH constitutes a de facto amendment. No amendment was proposed, noticed, or heard.
- **Note**: The City may argue that closing one facility while "planning a replacement" does not constitute a plan amendment. This argument is weaker given that the replacement has no budget, timeline, or design.

### Violation 3.2: Failure to Provide Early and Continuous Public Participation
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 36.70A.140 — "each county and city... shall establish and broadly disseminate... procedures providing for early and continuous public participation"
- **Evidence**: The public learned of the closure 7 days after a senior official denied it was happening. No participation process existed for this decision.

---

## 4. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (RCW 43.21C / WAC 197-11)

### Violation 4.1: Demolition Without SEPA Review
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: WAC 197-11-800(2)(g) — demolition exemption explicitly excludes "structures or facilities with recognized historical significance"
- **Evidence**: OFH is 74-76 years old (exceeds every historic eligibility threshold). King County Historic Preservation staff assessed it as "likely eligible for designation for historic and cultural significance." No SEPA checklist, threshold determination, or Historic Property Inventory was filed.
- **Case law**: *Norway Hill Preservation v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267 (1976)* — SEPA violations routinely result in injunctive relief

---

## 5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAW

### Violation 5.1: Failure to Conduct Historic Property Evaluation Before Demolition
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites & Resources); WAC 197-11 (SEPA Question 13); City of Redmond's own published guidance
- **Evidence**: The City's published SEPA guidance states: "SEPA requires that historic structures are considered regarding their eligibility prior to potential demolition." No evaluation occurred. DAHP was not contacted. The Redmond Landmark Commission (RMC 4.33) was not consulted. The King County Landmarks Commission was not notified under Interlocal Agreement 4672.

### Violation 5.2: Failure to Evaluate Alternatives
**Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH**
- **Statute**: RZC 21.30.050 — Certificate of Appropriateness requires alternatives analysis including adaptive reuse and relocation
- **Evidence**: While OFH is not on the Heritage Resource Register (which would trigger formal COA requirements), the SEPA and King County frameworks independently require alternatives evaluation for historically significant structures. No such evaluation has been publicly documented.

---

## 6. FIRST AMENDMENT / CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

### Violation 6.1: Surveillance of Protected Advocacy Activity
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First Amendment
- **Evidence**: March 20, 2025 — City staff filed a surveillance report documenting a community advocate's visit. The report was escalated through 5 levels to the Mayor within 13.5 hours. Government surveillance of protected speech creates a "chilling effect" — *Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999)*
- **Source files**: Email thread `0fc164f66ff00055`, IDs 943+

### Violation 6.2: Retaliatory Threat of Expulsion
**Confidence: HIGH**
- **Statute**: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First Amendment
- **Evidence**: The day after the surveillance report, staff circulated a "Code of Conduct" memo establishing "Verbal Warning → Suspension → Permanent Expulsion." Teens were reportedly prevented from making "save the teen center" signs.
- **Case law**: *Gibson v. United States, 329 F.2d 438 (9th Cir. 1964)* — banning individuals from public facilities is a form of prior restraint
- **Source files**: Email thread `31c21ebda2d23656`, IDs 907-911

---

## 7. WASHINGTON STATE SURVEILLANCE LAW

### Violation 7.1: Unauthorized Government Surveillance
**Confidence: MEDIUM**
- **Statute**: WA Const. Art. I, § 7 ("No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs... without authority of law"); RCW 9.73.030 (two-party consent for intercepting communications)
- **Evidence**: The surveillance report documents observations of a private citizen's activities, statements, and associations during a visit to a public facility. Whether this rises to a constitutional violation depends on whether the advocate had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public facility. The *chilling effect* analysis under the First Amendment (above) is stronger.

---

## 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST / GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS

### Violation 8.1: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest
**Confidence: MEDIUM**
- **Statute**: WA Const. Art. VIII, § 7; RCW 42.23 (Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers)
- **Evidence**: Mayor Birney sits on the OneRedmond board with three NLG-affiliated individuals. NLG is the adjacent property owner and largest donor bloc ($12,200+). The Mayor did not recuse from OFH decisions. However, Washington's conflict of interest statute requires a "direct or indirect financial interest" — proving NLG directly benefits from OFH demolition requires showing they will acquire or develop the site.
- **Source files**: `FOLLOW_THE_MONEY.md`, PDC filings

### Violation 8.2: Pattern of Improper Public Land Disposition
**Confidence: MEDIUM**
- **Statute**: WA Const. Art. VIII, § 7 — gift of public funds/property
- **Evidence**: In April 2024, the City transferred $5.5M in public land to Plymouth Housing in 22 days with zero public hearings. Same legal pipeline (Kenny/Sato). A community member identified this pattern in writing: "You got away with selling Cleveland property to Plymouth Housing."
- **Source files**: `FOLLOW_THE_MONEY.md`, `PLYMOUTH_HOUSING_REPORT.md`

---

## SUMMARY TABLE

| # | Violation | Statute | Confidence | Remedy |
|---|-----------|---------|------------|--------|
| 1.1 | Withholding 911+ emails | RCW 42.56.070(1) | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.2 | Surgical removal of Mayor's emails | RCW 42.56.070(1) | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.3 | Zero attachments produced | RCW 42.56.070(1) | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.4 | Duplicate inflation (68.4%) | RCW 42.56.080 | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.5 | 5-month email blackout | RCW 42.56.070(1) | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.6 | No privilege log | RCW 42.56.210(3) | **HIGH** | $5-100/day + atty fees |
| 1.7 | 96% file corruption | RCW 40.16.020 | **MEDIUM** | Criminal (Class B felony) |
| 2.1 | Final action outside public meeting | RCW 42.30.060 | **HIGH** | Action null and void |
| 2.2 | No public comment opportunity | RCW 42.30.240 | **HIGH** | $500-1,000/member |
| 3.1 | No comp plan amendment | RCW 36.70A.130 | **MED-HIGH** | Invalidity of closure |
| 3.2 | No public participation | RCW 36.70A.140 | **HIGH** | Invalidity of closure |
| 4.1 | No SEPA review for demolition | WAC 197-11-800 | **HIGH** | Injunction |
| 5.1 | No historic evaluation | RCW 27.53; SEPA Q13 | **HIGH** | Injunction |
| 5.2 | No alternatives analysis | RZC 21.30.050 | **MED-HIGH** | Injunction |
| 6.1 | Surveillance of advocacy | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | **HIGH** | Damages + atty fees |
| 6.2 | Retaliatory expulsion threat | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | **HIGH** | Damages + atty fees |
| 7.1 | Unauthorized surveillance | WA Const. Art I § 7 | **MEDIUM** | Declaratory relief |
| 8.1 | Undisclosed conflict of interest | RCW 42.23 | **MEDIUM** | Investigation |
| 8.2 | Pattern of improper land disposition | WA Const. Art VIII § 7 | **MEDIUM** | Investigation |

**Total violations identified: 19**
**HIGH confidence: 13**
**MEDIUM-HIGH confidence: 3**
**MEDIUM confidence: 3**

---

*This analysis is based on publicly available records and documents obtained through the Washington Public Records Act. It does not constitute legal advice.*
