Undersheriff Blake Richards Graduation

ASOTIN COUNTY, WA – The paper trail is now a confession. Newly unredacted emails, court filings, and public records obtained by the LCV Blotter reveal a coordinated effort by Asotin County officials to hide the use of taxpayer money for the personal legal defense of Superior Court Judge Brooke Burns. The evidence includes a proposed “retroactive retainer agreement,” a sham special deputy appointment, false statements to the Washington State Auditor, and a judge whose father sits on the county commission that controls the budget. The case, Switzer v. Asotin County (Columbia County Superior Court No. 26‑2‑00027‑07), began as a routine Public Records Act (PRA) request. It has since exploded into a sprawling scandal involving potential criminal violations of unauthorized practice of law, official misconduct, and first‑of‑their‑kind digital obstruction tactics. The Retroactive Confession On January 9, 2026, Amanda Daylong – a private attorney hired by Asotin County and appointed as a special deputy prosecutor – sent an email to County Chief Operating Officer Chris Kemp and former clerk Stacey Harman. The subject line claimed attorney‑client privilege. The content destroyed it. “We need to have you get a retroactive retainer agreement signed to ensure we are cleared regarding Switzer’s potential objections on expenditure of public funds.” A retroactive retainer is a document that purports to take effect on a date earlier than the date it is actually signed. The only reason to seek one is to create the appearance of lawful authority after the fact. In other words: Daylong knew the County’s original July 2025 fee agreement and special deputy appointment were legally suspect, and she instructed Kemp to backdate a cure. When the unredacted email was inadvertently produced to the requester, Daylong demanded that all recipients delete it under a claim of attorney‑client privilege. That claw‑back request was itself a confession – and it was declined. The Sham Special Deputy Appointment The underlying scheme began in July 2025. On July 10, Asotin County signed a fee agreement with Daylong’s firm, Floyd, Pflueger, Kearns, Nedderman & Gress, P.S., agreeing to pay $325 per hour for “Public Records Act Litigation and Consulting, Switzer v. Asotin County, et al.” The problem? No such lawsuit existed. The case caption was a fiction. Eleven days later, Prosecutor Curtis Liedkie signed a “Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Appointment” for Daylong – again for the same nonexistent case caption. The appointment was notarized by Tammy Bolte, Daylong’s paralegal. The actual purpose of the appointment became clear on July 8, 2025, when Liedkie filed a notice of withdrawal and substitution in the Washington Supreme Court case Switzer v. Hon. Brooke Burns. Liedkie withdrew as counsel for Judge Burns, and Daylong substituted in. The County was never a party to that case. The special deputy appointment was a legal fiction designed to launder taxpayer money through the prosecutor’s budget to pay for a judge’s personal defense. Father and Daughter: The Commissioner Connection Adding another layer of conflict, public records confirm that Asotin County Commissioner Brian Shinn is the father of Judge Brooke Burns. The relationship was referenced in a July 2024 Lewiston Tribune article, which stated that Commissioner Shinn spoke publicly about his daughter’s judicial workload. Commissioner Shinn has voted on county budgets and resolutions that funded the very legal defense of his daughter. Under RCW 42.23.030, a public officer who has a direct financial interest in a contract or matter they vote on is prohibited from doing so. The appearance of impropriety alone is enough to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge, and the nepotism implications are inescapable. The requester’s PDR 26‑10 specifically sought emails between Judge Burns and the county commissioners – including her father. The County’s first response to that request was a zip file containing 157 email files. A CSV manifest of those files (Exhibit C in the court record) shows: · Zero emails from, to, or copied to Judge Burns, Prosecutor Liedkie, or Coroner Webber; · 139 emails authored by the requester himself, forwarded among county officials; · 18 delivery receipts and out‑of‑office replies. The requester had explicitly instructed the County to omit his own emails. The instruction was ignored. --- False Statements to the State Auditor In December 2025, the County responded to a whistleblower complaint filed with the Washington State Auditor’s Office. Stacey Harman wrote on December 31, 2025: “As of today, no funds have been expended for this purpose.” Chris Kemp wrote on December 16, 2025: “The County did not hire and pay a private law firm”; “Coverage was provided under our insurance policy and assigned legal counsel”; “Mr. Liedkie never filed ‘Notice of Appearance.’” All three statements are false. The July 10, 2025 fee agreement obligated the County to pay Daylong’s firm. The July 3, 2025 disclaimer letter from WCRG/Clear Risk Solutions stated that coverage for PRA claims was “not afforded.” The July 8, 2025 notice of withdrawal in the Washington Supreme Court proves that Liedkie did appear as counsel for Judge Burns. The false statements are now part of the criminal referral filed with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. The Answer That Admitted Everything On June 11, 2026, Asotin County filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. The Answer is a boilerplate document, but it contains binding admissions: venue is proper, the lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations, the County charged a scanning fee, it gave an 87‑day estimate for PDR 26‑10, it entered into a retainer agreement with Daylong, and Daylong was appointed as a special deputy. These admissions will be used against the County at summary judgment. Twenty affirmative defenses were also pleaded. A motion to strike most of them was filed the same day. The defenses that will likely survive (attorney‑client privilege and exempt records) are already hollow: the privilege log is a one‑line citation, which waives the exemption under Sanders v. State, and the retroactive retainer email triggers the crime‑fraud exception under Dietz v. Doe. The Tactical Blizzard: Nine New PDRs Filed On June 11, 2026, the requester submitted nine new Public Records Act requests to Asotin County, seeking: · Financial records of all payments to Daylong; · Communications about the retroactive retainer; · Complete insurance claim files (W1756); · Personnel files of key officials; · Text messages from personal devices; · Settlement agreements involving PRA or OPMA violations; · Training records for PRA/OPMA compliance; · Billing records for the defamation threat letter; · All communications with the State Auditor’s Office. Each new PDR is a separate potential violation. Each has its own penalty clock. The County’s response deadlines are approaching. --- The Defamation Threat That Never Materialized On March 23, 2026, Daylong sent a letter to the requester threatening “separate correspondence” regarding alleged defamatory statements. The letter identified no specific statement, cited no legal authority, and set no deadline. The requester demanded clarification or retraction on May 29, 2026. The County never responded. No defamation lawsuit has been filed. The threat is now part of the record as evidence of bad faith and an ultra vires use of public resources. --- What Comes Next A motion for summary judgment is pending. The requester has also filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses, a motion to compel metadata production to determine if the July 2025 documents were backdated, and a criminal referral requesting appointment of a special prosecutor. The court has been asked to set expedited hearings. Judge Burns has recused herself. Visiting Judge K. Peter Palubicki of Adams County is presiding. The County’s best strategy would be to capitulate and minimize penalties. Instead, it continues to fight, delay, and obstruct – a choice that only increases its exposure. --- Read the Documents All court filings, exhibits, and PRA requests are available for download upon request via email to lcvblotter@gmail.com. The unredacted retroactive retainer email (Exhibit P) is posted in full. The CSV manifest of 157 non‑responsive files is also available. LCV Blotter is an independent watchdog publication. It is not supported by advertising. It is supported by readers who believe that a free press must be free of corporate influence. If you value investigative journalism, consider becoming a contributor or a free‑agent contributor under the LCV Blotter brand. --- Corey Switzer is the founder of LCV Blotter and the pro se plaintiff in Switzer v. Asotin County. He can be reached at coreyswitzer@gmail.com.