$100 million, that is the amount of the claims by Joe D’Amico and two of his companies against Jefferson County and former Sheriff David Stanko. This is by far the largest claim filed by D’Amico in his running court battles with Jefferson County spanning almost two decades. He has lost some, he’s won some. Here’s a look at what this lawsuit is about.

The Parties

The suit is pending in the United States District Court in Tacoma. Plaintiffs are Joe D’Amico and Fort Discovery Corp. and Security Services Northwest, Inc., two companies D’Amico owns. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are Greg Overstreet, who is in-house counsel for the corporations, Charles Maudell of Bellevue, and as lead counsel Wright Noel of the firm of Carson & Noel of Issaquah.

Defendants are Jefferson County, David Stanko and Robert Gebo. Stanko is the former Jefferson County Sheriff. Gebo worked for Stanko as an investigator. The current county commissioners and former county commissioner Kathleen Kler were originally named in the suit but have been dismissed. Attorneys for Defendants are Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Phillip Hunsucker and Andrew Cooley of the Seattle firm Keating, Bucklin & McCormack.

The Claims

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint begins with the statement: “As the demographics of Jefferson County changed from a rural mostly working-class population to a retirement community for the wealthy, Joseph D’Amico and his companies…were caught in the crosshairs….The political powers in the County do not like guns or people using guns.” As a result, D’Amico alleges that county officials conspired to run his businesses out of Jefferson County by various illegal means.

When D’Amico resisted in the courts, public forums, newspapers and the Internet, it is alleged, the county retaliated. He alleges that county officials sought to destroy his business by contacting his customers with false or harmful statements they knew would cause him injury. He alleges that county officials caused Facebook to suspend his advertising account. He alleges that the county opened a criminal investigation and issued press releases stating that he was under criminal investigation, with the intent and purpose of hurting his business–even though no criminal investigation was being conducted against him and no criminal charges have ever been filed. When D’Amico attempted to move his operations from Discovery Bay to remote forest land, he alleges the retaliation followed and resulted in preventing him from opening a commercial range on his newly acquired property.

Defendants deny all of D’Amico’s claims, though they do admit some facts.

Allegations Against Stanko and Gebo

To this writer, the most serious and troubling allegations, if true, concern former Sheriff Stanko and his investigator, Robert Gebo. Some of the other claims may not go anywhere, but this one, even at this early stage, seems to have legs. If true, this would be another case of what I wrote about in “Port Townsend’s Hatred and Intolerance Problem.” We have already too many instances of businesses run off for not toeing some unwritten conduct and thought code. Ironically, for a community that brands itself as welcoming and inclusive, the victims have been minority families. I believe someone named D’Amico falls into the category of a minority businessman, especially in this community.  The family behind the Lobo del Mar enterprise in Port Hadlock, a racially and ethnically mixed extended family that suddenly left town, had also been the subject of a questionable Stanko-directed investigation that never produced any evidence of criminality. That incident may resurface as this litigation progresses.

This article will be limited to examining the documented claims and defenses surrounding D’Amico’s allegations against Stanko and his investigator. That is complicated enough for one report. Subsequent reporting will explain other claims. I appreciate the time and materials provided me by attorneys Overstreet and Hunsucker which make it possible for readers to get a picture of what is going on in the lawsuit.

Stanko was Sheriff from November 25, 2014 to December 31, 2018. Stanko lost his bid for re-election to his own Undersheriff, Joe Nole. What follows are allegations by both sides which must be proven in court. I do not express any opinion on whether they are true or false or whether, even if true, they would entitle D’Amico to judgment in his favor.

D’Amico’s Allegations:

In late 2016 or early 2017, Stanko “took the lead on behalf of the County on efforts to shut down the gun range,” D’Amico states. Stanko met personally with people described as “politically powerful” opponents to D’Amico’s gun range operations. After this meeting, Stanko “intensified” his efforts, and implemented an allegedly illegal plan to shut down the gun range, which was then called Fort Discovery and located on property on the western side of Discovery Bay.

Stanko and Gebo are accused of contacting D’Amico’s customers and telling them not to use the gun range, or feeding them information that resulted in driving them off. The damage was caused by telling them that D’Amico was under law enforcement investigation for violating a “2009 court order,” even though there was no such order, and that the Prosecuting Attorney would soon be filing a legal action to shut down the gun range, which never happened.

In a letter expanding on D’Amico’s Damage Claim Form (a document that must be filed before filing suit), attorney Overstreet lays out facts suggesting that Gebo’s investigation was pretextual. At one point, the county issued a statement that D’Amico was under “criminal investigation,” a very damaging allegation to someone in D’Amico’s line of work of serving law enforcement and military clients. The supposed “crime” being investigated, though, appears from Gebo’s emails to have been a question whether sandwiches and other food consumed by a handful of police officers at the Fort Discovery range was prepared there or elsewhere–two years prior to the inquiries being made.  Not incidentally, there are no criminal penalties in the County’s health code sections pertaining to food service.

The plan to scare off D’Amico’s customers worked, the complaint alleges. By May 2017 all of Fort Discovery’s military and law enforcement customers had terminated their contracts with D’Amico, causing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.

Current Sheriff Nole could be a key witness, not for the county and Stanko, but for D’Amico. It is alleged that as Undersheriff Nole told Stanko, then his boss, and Special Investigator Gebo, that it was improper to contact D’Amico’s customers to persuade them to stop doing business with D’Amico.

The County’s Response:

All defendants deny these allegations. In its answers to interrogatories, Defendants say that for fifteen years prior to 2001 there were no disputes until D’Amico began training law enforcement and military on his gun range and began making “A LOT OF NOISE.” (Upper case is used in the interrogatory answers.)

The county’s interrogatory answers go on to recount the subsequent long history of litigation with D’Amico. Sometimes D’Amico won. Sometimes the county won. They have paid each other’s attorney fees and costs over the years.  D’Amico’s in-house attorney Greg Overstreet may be the state’s top attorney on the Inspection of Public Records Act. He authored the Bar Association’s voluminous manual on the law. After years of battling Overstreet in court, Jefferson County Chief Civil Prosecutor Hunsucker may also be up there in the ranks of the state’s top IPRA lawyers.

One very key legal fight the County says D’Amico lost was a decision by a hearing officer regarding the permissible scope of activities at the Fort Discovery range. The County asserts that the hearing officer ruled that training and use of the range by persons not employed by D’Amico was not a grandfathered use and not covered by any special use permit.

While not a “2009 court ruling,” it is a 2009 Hearing Examiner Decision. The County asserts that D’Amico violated the terms of the decision, indeed, that he effectively admits doing so in the complaint in this case.

The County also recounts receiving a high volume of complaints about noise from the Fort Discovery range and unsuccessful attempts to resolve the noise and land use issues with D’Amico.

The County generally states it has no information about the actions of Sheriff Stanko in regard to any investigation he conducted into D’Amico and his businesses, but appears to have been in possession of emails about contacts between Investigator Gebo and D’Amico’s customers.

Stanko’s Response:

Stanko’s answers to interrogatories state his side of the case, and sometimes conflict with what the county says. Sometimes he contradicts himself. He admits to meeting with people on Discovery Bay, but insists it was only about noise complaints. The county does have a noise ordinance and the Sheriff is charged with enforcing it. As for land use regulations, Stanko states unequivocally, “I do not enforce the land use code.” He says that he only enforced laws criminal in nature with exceptions such as animal control and noise. But when explaining why he investigated D’Amico he quickly contradicts himself: “We suspected [D’Amico] was violating the noise ordinance and possibly health codes.”

Enforcement of the health code is rarely a matter of criminal law. Stanko does not explain what part of the health code was possibly being violated. As discussed above, it may have been whether sandwiches were made on or off site.

Stanko admits that he had his investigator look into who D’Amico’s customers were on the grounds that D’Amico should not be allowing third parties to be there. That is not a criminal matter; it is a zoning issue, a land use regulation which the Sheriff earlier stated he did not enforce.

Stanko’s answers also stand in contrast to the interrogatory answer of the county as to what investigations have been launched against D’Amico. The county revealed that Stanko had Gebo investigate “possible violations of tax laws” as well as possible health and safety code violations. It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented for a county sheriff to launch an investigation of possible violations of tax laws. No information is provided as to what the tax laws in question may have been.

No prosecutions have been brought against D’Amico or any of his companies for criminal violation of tax laws, or violation of health or safety codes. Nor was D’Amico formally charged with violation of the county’s noise ordinance.

Jury Trial

All parties have demanded a jury trial, and the claims against Stanko and Gebo may make it there. There already appear to be plenty of issues of fact which will require a jury to decide. Plus, there will presumably be evidence from D’Amico’s former customers who will testify about what they were told by Gebo or Stanko. One key factual element D’Amico will have to prove is intent. Stanko’s denial that he enforced land use regulations when there are emails by Gebo stating he was investigating possible land use regulation violations at the Sheriff’s instruction do not help Stanko’s credibility. Stuff like investigating where sandwiches were made two years ago looks like a pretext for contacting D’Amico’s customers, knowing full well the damage that just the whiff of a law enforcement investigation would do to D’Amico’s business. There is much discovery to be conducted. Depositions will be taken. If Nole provides evidence, as the complaint alleges, that he told Stanko and Gebo it was improper to contact D’Amico’s customers with the goal of persuading them to not use D’Amico’s range, the case could get a significant boost and not require relying so much on the inference of intent from other facts.