Wed. May 31, 2017. Rob Wielgus, director of the large carnivore lab at WSU howls on a Colville National Forest road near the last location of the Profanity Peak wolf pack before they were hunted down last year. Three wolves from the pack still survived. 202056
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: King County Sheriffs Office asked to file Charges against Joel Kretz
June 1, 2018
Copy of Email Sent to the King County Sheriffs Office to request Charges be filed against Joel Kretz on Behalf of Dr. Robert Wielgus .
Protect The Wolves™ <>
12:17 PM (2 minutes ago)
to sheriff, Robert, patricia, Ann, Claire, Adam, bcc: Jerry, bcc: Lynn, bcc: Lou, bcc: lmarie, bcc: Lynn, bcc: Melinda, bcc: Melony, bcc: Vicki, bcc: Erik, bcc: Lynda
To Whom it May Concern,
We are a Native American 501c3 called Protect The Wolves™ Sanctuary. We have had enough of Our Elected Officials being allowed to Break the Law without consequence! We have called the king County Prosecuting Attorneys Office asking for a Response for over a week now.
We find it sad, that we have to request Charges be filed against an elected official, However had an Org or any other Individual for that matter issued this type of threat publicly, there would have been Criminal Charges brought forward against them.
Our Own States Representative Joel Kretz appears to have broke the laws of our State by issuing in-direct Death Threats against Dr. Robert Wielgus, These RCWs will be attached below with a link to the publicly made in-direct Death threat.
Joel Kretz has established a course of conduct in order to Get Dr Robert Wielgus to withdraw his statements, when that did not work, Kretz Coerced WSU with not getting funded for other Programs. Coercion, should not be any different for an elected official as it is a Private Citizen!
It is Paramount that our Children’s Professors 1st Amendment Rights are not only protected but as well enforced.
In addition It is quite disturbing that Our Own States Ethics Board overlooked the RCW aspect of what has actually happened. Plain and simple Our States Laws have been broken.
Our 501c4 will be asking our Own States Attorney Generals office to propose Legislation to:
1) Not only Protect Our Children’s Professors, their 1st Amendment Rights
2) to Propose legislation to appoint oversight upon our states ethics board, as it appears that they also have no regard for following our Own States Laws.
3) to propose Legislation that makes it illegal for our states Representatives to issue coercive threats of funding cuts to Our Children’s Publicly Funded Schools, Colleges, University’s.
Please call Us to set up a Phone Conference with The Victim Dr. Robert Wielgus asap.
Regards
Patricia Herman President Protect The Wolves™ Sanctuary
Roger Dobson Director of Media Protect The Wolves™ Pack
Publicly made “In-direct Death Threat” from the Seattle Times
Kretz, incensed, demanded an apology from WSU just as public as the remarks Wielgus had made — and got it. The university quickly issued a news release disavowing Wielgus’s statements and asserting that Wielgus had admitted he had no basis in fact for making them.
In a letter of concern written into his personnel file, Wielgus was instructed by Ron Mittelhammer, the dean of the College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resource Sciences to have no further contact with the media without first clearing his statements with WSU. Wielgus duly went silent as the furor raged.
“He ought to be drawn and quartered and a chunk of him left everywhere in the district,” Kretz said in an interview then with The Seattle Times, saying Wielgus had a vendetta against McIrvin.
Source of in-direct Death Threat : https://projects.seattletimes.com/2017/wsu-wolf-researcher-wielgus/
RCWS for requesting Charges be filed:
Kretz repeatedly established a course of conduct 😉
.
9A.36.070
9A.36.070 Coercion. 9A.36.070 Coercion. (1) A person is guilty of coercion
if by use of a threat he or she compels or induces a person to
engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain
from, or to abstain from conduct which he or she has a legal
right to engage in.
(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent
immediately to use force against any person who is present at
the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(27) (a), (b),
or (c).
(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor. [2011 c 336 § 361;
1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.36.070.]
*Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2011 c 166 § 2,
changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
In Order to seek relief
9A.36.083
9A.36.083 Malicious harassment—Civil action. 9A.36.083 Malicious harassment—Civil action. In
addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080
for committing a crime of malicious harassment, the victim
may bring a civil cause of action for malicious harassment
against the harasser. A person may be liable to the victim of
malicious harassment for actual damages, punitive damages
of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred in bringing the action. [1993 c 127 § 3.]
Additional notes found at www.leg.wa.gov
Kretz has a history of intimidation and coercion with Dr. Robert Wielgus, and his Employer WSU, with a plan in mind to coerce Robert into or forcing WSU to get Rob to back off.
9A.46.010
9A.46.010 Legislative finding. 9A.46.010 Legislative finding. The legislature finds
that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an
important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter
is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a
person’s privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of
harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the
victim.
The legislature further finds that the protection of such
persons from harassment can be accomplished without
infringing on constitutionally protected speech or activity.
[1985 c 288 § 1.]
The Indirect Death Threat occurred in King County: Seattle times with article attached above.
9A.46.030
9A.46.030 Place where committed. 9A.46.030 Place where committed. Any harassment
offense committed as set forth in RCW 9A.46.020 or
9A.46.110 may be deemed to have been committed where the
conduct occurred or at the place from which the threat or
threats were made or at the place where the threats were
received. [1992 c 186 § 3; 1985 c 288 § 3.]
can be reasonably assumed that he was also stalking perhaps due to his continued Harassment; Snippet of RCW only follows
9A.46.110
9A.46.110 Stalking. 9A.46.110 Stalking. (1) A person commits the crime of
stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances
not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or
repeatedly follows another person; and
(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in
fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person,
or property of the person or of another person. The feeling
of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same
situation would experience under all the circumstances; and
(c) The stalker either:
(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is
afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not
intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the
person.
(2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under
subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not
given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to
contact or follow the person; and
(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection
(1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend
to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person.
(3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the
defendant is a licensed private investigator acting within the
capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165
RCW.
Definition of Harassment:
RCW 10.14.020
Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication, but does not include constitutionally protected free speech. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
(2) “Unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child.
[ 2011 c 307 § 2; 2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]
Comments
Pingback: King County Sheriffs Office, asked to file Charges against Joel Kretz | Protect The Wolves