HomeMy WebLinkAbout091625 email - Trespass hearingALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Subject: Request for Intervention – Fairgrounds Trespass Appeal Improperly Handled by City of Port Townsend
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Dear Commissioners,
On September 16, 2025, I participated in an appeal hearing regarding a trespass admonishment issued at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. That hearing was conducted not by Jefferson County,
but by the City of Port Townsend, through City Manager John Morrow.
During the hearing, Mr. Morrow stated on record:
> “The decision making authority on whether to ask someone to leave or have someone trespass is really on the owner operator of the property. The police team doesn’t make any determination
over whether that is a valid complaint.”
This confirms what I have argued from the beginning: the County, as owner/operator of the fairgrounds, holds the legal authority to issue and adjudicate trespasses from that property.
---
County Code Requires County Process
Jefferson County has codified its process for trespass matters on county property:
JCC 8.85 (“Code of Conduct and Trespass”) establishes rules of conduct and provides for trespass from county lands and facilities.
JCC 8.85.060 (Appeal) [insert exact subsection if available] provides that persons subject to trespass admonishments may appeal such decisions.
JCC 2.30 (“Office of the Hearing Examiner”) creates an independent hearing examiner system for quasi-judicial matters, including administrative appeals under county ordinances.
Taken together, these provisions require that appeals of trespasses from county lands be heard through the County’s own process, not through the City of Port Townsend.
---
Improper Delegation to the City
Mr. Morrow stated during my hearing that he asked the County Prosecutor whether the County would process the appeal, and was told the County “would be happy for the City to do it.” This
informal delegation does not satisfy county code requirements. The County cannot abdicate its codified obligations by passing the matter off to another jurisdiction without formal process
or legal basis.
---
Denial of Due Process
The appeal I was given through the City was not meaningful:
Mr. Morrow stated his determination “does not require [him] to consider purpose of request to leave.” This renders the appeal a rubber stamp, not a review of validity.
When I asserted that this was a due-process violation, Mr. Morrow told me: “It isn’t smart to get into an argument with the officer during a hearing. I’ve heard enough from you.” This
was not neutral adjudication, but retaliatory.
By failing to follow JCC 8.85 and JCC 2.30, the County deprived me of the appeal forum that your own laws provide.
---
Request for Remedy
I respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners:
1. Acknowledge in writing that trespass appeals from county lands are governed by JCC 8.85 and must be heard through the County’s process as provided under JCC 2.30.
2. Void the current trespass admonishment as the appeal process was conducted by the wrong jurisdiction and was therefore defective.
3. Confirm that future trespass admonishments from county lands will be processed through the County’s Hearing Examiner, not delegated to the City without lawful authority.
I request that this letter be entered into the official record and that I receive a timely written response.
Respectfully,
Peter Rousseau