Governor Inslee’s new Covid vaccine mandate provides an exception for those with a religious exemption. In fact, current state and federal laws also provide religious exemptions if they would not cause undue hardship on the employer. But what does a religious accommodation request letter look like? There are likely many ways to write such a letter. Below is a DRAFT of one possible letter from a Christian perspective.

---

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

"And when her husband heard it bleating, he said: Take heed, lest perhaps it be stolen: restore ye it to its owners, for it is not lawful for us either to eat or to touch any thing that cometh by theft."

Amendment 1 Religious and political freedom.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Angus Lee was recently a guest on the Lars Larson podcast to talk about district attorney Mike Schmidt and his involvement in selective prosecution as it pertains to the anti-riot statute.

In the interview, we highlight a specific event that occurred at a known Antifa bar, where Joey Gibson and Russel Schultz were prosecuted according to Oregon's anti-riot statute. While video evidence shows they didn't break any laws and did not engage violently, they are being prosecuted because their political and religious beliefs did not align with those prosecuting them.

This selective prosecution is unjust and goes against their first and fourteenth amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Angus Lee is pursuing a selective prosecution motion in state court to hold those who charged Schmidt and Gibson accountable.

Listen to the Lars Larson podcast to hear more about the complaint we have filed against this unjust prosecution (interview starts 36:30).

In our interview with Lars Larson, we spoke about district attorney Mike Schmidt and how his political beliefs have influenced his prosecution decisions.

Mike Schmidt issued a formal written policy in which he openly allowed criminal activity by his political allies in support of a political agenda. In the same breath, he has been prosecuting those who do not have the same political viewpoints.

We've scoured the case law in all the federal circuits in the US, and have found no DA who has ever issued a formal written policy in which political beliefs are so deeply ingrained.

Politics have nothing to do with prosecution. Mike Schmidt's pro-crime policies for those who share his political belief go against the norms that we've seen in past prosecutors.

We've brought a case to federal court and requested documents that show how this formal non-prosecution policy was created, and aim to restore justice and hold Mike Schmidt accountable for his unjust political prosecutions.

Listen to this podcast to learn more about this case.

...

Attorney D. Angus Lee appears on the Lars Larson radio show to provide legal analysis on a new ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court regarding Washington State’s drug possession law. Interview starts with 33:23 remaining.

In this interview, Angus Lee addresses the Freedom Rally held in Mossyrock, Washington, and talks about the recent unconstitutional restrictions on small business owners, churches, and Washington State residents.

These restrictions are hurting families, taking away the ability to practice religion in public spaces, and ignoring basic constitutional rights.

As free citizens, we have the right to stand up together against violations of our constitutional rights. We recently filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Gibson against the government. Mr. Gibson's right to practice religion in a public space has been infringed upon, and our lawsuit is aimed to restore that right.

Watch the interview to learn more about the recent events happening in Washington State, and how our law firm fights for our clients' individual freedoms.

The Angus Lee Law Firm recently filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Patrol for the closure of freeways to aid protestors during the BLM march on Friday, June 19th.

This act was in violation of his own "Stay Home, Stay Healthy" orders that were made to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Emails obtained by a public disclosure request show that Inslee had clear intent to secretly subvert his own COVID restrictions and to facilitate a massive BLM gathering during the peak of the COVID lockdown restrictions.

We believe that no matter how noble the cause of any gathering may be, it is simply not up to the WSP to recklessly put the public health of the community at risk by actively facilitating a mass gathering in violation of State law.

Read The Post Millenial's recent coverage of this lawsuit to learn more and see the emails in question.

...

On June 19th, 2020, Washington State Patrol and Department of Transportation closed a portion of Interstate 5 so that a Black Lives Matter protest could march on the freeway.

The protest was made up of hundreds of people, an ideal place for the spread of COVID-19. No matter how noble the cause, this protest did not abide by the rules laid out by Gov. Jay Inslee's proclamation to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Prior to the gathering, WSP circulated a 15-page action plan entitled “Interstate 5 Protest Closure Action Plan.’’ By helping facilitate this mass gathering, WSP went against Gov. Jay Inslee’s emergency proclamation and state law.

We believe that no matter how noble the cause of any gathering may be, it is simply not up to the WSP to recklessly put the public health of the community at risk by actively facilitating a mass gathering in violation of State law.

Learn more about the case by watching this video:

The Angus Lee Law firm was proud to represent Kelly C. Carroll, a small business owner in Battle Ground, Washington. Kelly owns a Vancouver-based pet grooming business, ThePetBiz, which she opened just five days before Governor Jay Inslee’s stay-at-home order on March 23.

Carroll's business was legally allowed to operate under the stay-at-home order, as she provided services such as pet daycare for essential workers.

Even though she was practicing her constitutional rights, and operating her business legally, Vancouver City Prosecutor Kevin McClure filed a criminal charge against her for allegedly violating an emergency order proclamation.

This was a gross display of political persecution. Ms. Carroll was entitled to run her business under the policy guidelines, but was targeted for prosecution because she organized a protest against lockdown orders.

After the Angus Lee Law Firm filed multiple motions to have the prosecutions case dismissed, the case was dismissed by the court.

D. Angus Lee is a civil rights lawyer and defender of...

Our criminal defense attorneys are committed to defending our client's civil rights. A current case of ours that's received media attention is that of Jabo Johnigan, a 27-year old software engineer in Vancouver, Washington.

Johnigan was arrested on March 13, 2019, following an illegal home search, during which Vancouver officers Christopher Bohatch and Scotland Hammond came into Johnigan's house without a warrant, and failed to read Johnigan his Miranda rights.

They barged into his home without a warrant or any other lawful authority, searched his home, seized him, and interrogated him.

The case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence, but neither of the officers were held accountable by their police agency for their violation of Johnigan's civil rights.

Our law firm is committed to presenting the best defense of Johnigan’s civil rights, and are seeking an award of financial compensation for Mr. Johnigan.

Learn more about the case at these news outlets:

...

On April 28th, 50-year old William Abe was shot and killed by three Vancouver police officers. This fatal shooting has received a large amount of attention after video of the shooting appeared online, and last week a coalition of groups demanded oversight into the investigation of this shooting.

As detailed in The Columbian's recent news story, Clark County Prosecutor Tony Golik is asking for an outside prosecuting attorney's office to look into the shooting. As he said, “We need to be introspective and listen to the public right now. I support the call for an outside prosecutor,”... “It would be an important step to take for these cases to ensure everyone has complete confidence in the process.”

Our office received a copy of Deputy Neiman’s report regarding the investigation into the officer-involved slaying of Mr. William Abbe.

Upon our review of the report, it is...

At the Angus Lee Law Firm, we’re committed to fighting for our clients. Using our extensive trial experience, we know how to effectively represent clients accused of criminal charges including felonies, DUI, Domestic Violence and Assault, and more.

What is the Mental Health Court?

The Mental Health Court is a specialty court that is designed to help both misdemeanor and felony defendants who suffer from a mental illness. Under the guidance of professionally trained staff members, participants will be treated with the goal of making a positive change in their life. While post-plea cases are accepted, a “pre-plea” program is offered as well. This means the individual must waive their right to a speedy and jury trial. In order to continue in the program, the defendant must agree to certain stipulations. A contract will be required. If the person successfully completes the program, their pending charges can be dismissed.

Goals of the Mental Health Court

The primary goal of the Mental Health Court is to reduce criminal recidivism, which means the participant will be less likely to violate the law in the future. The criminal offender will have direct access to the appropriate treatment for their mental illness. By requiring strict accountability for unacceptable behavior,...

Like many other states around the country, Washington State is growing more concerned about roadway safety. As a result, a new law was recently passed regarding the use of mobile devices on the road. Under this new law, a citation for using a mobile device while driving is considered a “serious traffic violation”. Our Washington State attorneys have gathered all the facts for you, so read on to get the details and avoid getting pulled over because of this new law.

Extreme Ramifications

Now, if you get pulled over for using a mobile device while driving, it’s considered a "serious traffic violation” like reckless driving or speeding more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit. This means that a citation for using a mobile device could seriously impact your insurance rates, and possibly lead to a suspension of your license, causing harmful ramifications to your day to day life. There is one exception for this new law, as “using a personal electronic device to contact emergency services” is still legal.

...

Below are some treatment providers that may be of assistance to those in need of an evaluation and any recommended treatment.

Below are some treatment providers that may be of assistance to those in need of an evaluation and any recommended treatment.

When you need a criminal defense attorney, it can be difficult to determine which lawyer is right for your case. The right attorney can mean the difference between hearing "guilty as charged" and hearing "case dismissed!" For this reason, it’s extremely important to choose wisely among the many attorneys in Washington, and do your research to find the best legal representation for you.

Of all of the attorneys in Washington State, Angus Lee has proved to be appreciated by his clients over and over again. A 3-time recipient of the AVVO Client's Choice Award, Lee not only has his proven success in court, but also has the enthusiastic appreciation of his former clients to prove his expertise. Here are just a few of the reasons to choose Angus Lee as your criminal defense attorney.

He's Been On Both Sides of the Table

It's not every day that you find a criminal lawyer that's been a prosecuting attorney. That's Angus Lee. He served as an elected county prosecutor and also as a special assistant U.S. attorney, that means he knows how prosecutors think...

As a renowned criminal defense attorney, Angus Lee's reputation and experience often result in high-profile cases. One of these cases occurred recently when Angus Lee served as a prosecuting attorney in State v. Nathan Brooks. Nathon Brooks, at age 14, attempted to kill his parents in their home in Moses Lake, Washington in March 2013. Miraculously, both parents survived their injuries.

As prosecuting attorney, Angus Lee argued that Nathon should be tried as an adult, even though he was 14 at the time of the incident. If Nathon was tried as a juvenile, he would automatically be released from incarceration at age 21. Given the serious nature of the crime and the threat to public safety Nathon could pose, Angus successfully argued to the court that he should stand as an adult, which would impose a stricter sentence and more jail time. The court ended up deciding that Nathon should stand trial as an adult for two counts of attempted murder.

In the end, Nathon pled guilty as an adult, and was sentenced to a sentence much longer than what he would have faced being tried...

KXLY has reported accurately on my efforts, working with state law makers, to reduce gun crime committed by the mentally ill.

Last session I wrote to state law makers that I was looking to reduce “criminal misuse of firearms” and can do so by a “simple amendment” to the law that restores firearm rights to those involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Under the current law, people involuntarily committed can have their firearm rights restored without sufficiently ensuring that their mental health is fully restored.

In my letter I explained that "under the current law the trial court must restore firearm rights even if the trial court feels that there is a 49.9 percent likelihood that the person who was once involuntarily committed has not successfully managed the condition related to the commitment, is likely to have a recurrence of the condition, and still presents a substantial danger to the public.”

To fix this problem, I propose a minimum mandatory waiting period of 12 months after being released from an involuntary commitment. I also...

This was a very interesting article by the Columbian in Vancouver. It was very nice to have them reach out to me for comment on the Governor's decision on the death penalty.

--

Westley Allan Dodd killings: A gruesome anniversary

By Lauren Dake, Columbian political writer

Published: August 31, 2014

Jeff “Mac” McEllrath has never regretted his decision to help send Westley Allan Dodd to the gallows.

Twenty-five years ago on Labor Day, Dodd stabbed to death two brothers, William, 10, and Cole Neer, 11, in David Douglas Park in Vancouver. Later, the killer abducted 4-year-old Lee Iseli in Portland, murdered him and left his body near Vancouver Lake.

The murders haunted the community and gripped the nation. Memories from the grisly cases linger. McEllrath, a juror in Dodd’s trial, remembers Dodd’s detailed diary, the gruesome photos the child killer snapped of his victims, and the plans Dodd outlined for future targets.

“Like it...

In 2013, two highly respected experts in the filed of legal ethics weighed in on the 2009 allegations against Angus lee and authored comprehensive and detailed written opinions that there was no violation of the Rules of Professional conduct by Angus Lee.

Ethics expert Peter Jarvis wrote in the below analysis of the issues that Angus "Lee committed no RPC violations, did not ratify, direct or assist anyone else in committing such violations and cannot be said to have run an office in which ethical issues were ignored or were not fully and timely addressed."

Ethics expert Arthur Lachman authored an opinion coming to the same conclusion, writing "In my opinion, for the reasons set forth in detail below, Angus Lee did not violate the conflict of interest provisions of the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct."

Ethics experts Arthur Lachman and Peter Jarvis were not alone in their conclusion. In fact, five members of the WSBA board that reviewed the matter voted to dismiss it.