The Olympia Washington Kiwanis members and their friends have cost the Washington State taxpayers over $50 million dollars (so far), because of their willful ignorance of long term, merciless and well known, child abuse that occurred at the Olympia Kiwanis Boys Ranch.

October 2006 note: This Olympia Kiwanis stuff is old news. I've left this information on the web, because I like the thought that someone will say to one of these Kiwanis friends or members: "Grandma, (Grandpa), are you still friends with those Olympia Kiwanians?"

Back to the 2011 or 2009 or 2007 or 2005 or 2003 or 2001 or 1999 or 1997 or 1995 or lbloom.net State of Washington Employees Salaries List

1994 Olympia Kiwanis Members List
2007 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,332 employees)(includes gross & overtime wages, hire date)
2005 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,257 employees)(includes hire date)
2002 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,569 employees)
2002 Port Of Olympia employees list (pop 42,514)(40 employees)
2009 Oly Evergreen St Col employees list (938 employees)
Olympian Newspaper 2010 Thurston employees list
2006 Olympia School District employees list (Includes Benefits)
2002 City of Olympia employees list (pop 42,514)(685 employees)
Olympian Newspaper 2010 city of Lacy employees list
2002 City of Lacey employees list (pop 31,226)(226 employees)
2009 South Puget Sound Com Col employees list (1,001 employees)
Name search of Wash. State voters includes our addresses (and birthdays)
Name search of Wash State Court filings Traffic, Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile Offender, and Probate/Guardianship
Back to the beginning OKBR Home Page(http://lbloom.net/indexok.html)

Back to the beginning Gary Tabor Page

--part 1----part 3----part 4--
    (Deposition Exhibit No. 2 marked for identification)
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Do you have Exhibit 2 in front of you?
    A I do.
    Q Is this one of the documents you reviewed for today's deposition?
    A Yes, it is.
    Q Why don't you just describe for me what the document is?
    A It's a memorandum addressed to the Criminal Division of Thurston County Prosecutor's office from Ms. Cushman with the title City Prosecutor, and it's regarding an O.K. Boys Ranch referral. It's a 3-page document. The document I received has, additionally, handwritten above the title Memorandum "Attorney Work Product." This document does not. In any event, it's a discussion of her opinion regarding the possibility of charges being appropriate against three staff members of the O.K. Boys Ranch for failing to report suspected or known sexual abuse.
    Q Would you agree with me, sir, that after having reviewed this charge, you concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute under RCW 26.44.080 the following people: Tom VanWoerden, Colette Queener, and Laura Rambo?
     MR. LAW: Object to the form.
     MR. PAUL: Let me take it one step at a time. Maybe that will help our objection.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did you conclude as an attorney and prosecutor, sir, that after reviewing this case there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Thomas VanWoerden with violation of RCW 26.44.080?
    MR. LAW:. Same objection Counsel. Object to the form.
    A I did not conclude anything after - immediately after reading this. At some point, I made a decision that prosecution would not take place and was not appropriate.
    MR. PAUL: Move to strike as nonresponsive.
    Can you reread my question, please?
    THE COURT REPORTER: Question: "Did you conclude as an attorney and prosecutor, sir, that after reviewing this case there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Thomas VanWoerden with violation of RCW 26.44.080?
    MR. HANSEN: How is his answer not responsive to the question?
    MR. PAUL: He said it was not appropriate. I asked if there was sufficient evidence. That's the difference. Go ahead and answer, sir.
    A Well, the question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence is more than whether or not there is some evidence or even probable cause. I ultimately determined that there was probable cause. However, I also determined that the likelihood of convicting beyond a reasonable doubt was certainly not strong. So I guess the definition of sufficient my concIusion was that it wasn't.
    Q (By Mr.. Paul) All right. You indicated that there was certainly probable cause to believe that Mr. VanWoerden violated that statute; is that correct?
    A Yes.
    Q What does "probable cause" mean?
    A More probably than not, in the mind of a reasonable person.
    Q What are the elements, if you can tell me, sir, of the crime of failure to report as described by RCW 26.44.080?
    A I can't tell you every specific, but I can tell you generally that it's a person in a professional capacity knowing of the abuse of either a child or an adult who would be unable to care for themself and not reporting that to either the State or police.
    Q Did you determine, sir, after your investigation and reliance on the materials provided to you that Colette Queener had violated the RCW 26.44.080 concerning failure to report?
    MR. LAW: Same objection as before with respect to VanWoerden.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A Well, your question is: Did I determine that she had?  I think my answer is the same, is I determined there was probable cause.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did you determine that there was probable cause to find that Laura Rambo had violated RCW 26.44.080?
    A Yes.
   Q Let's take a look at the second paragraph where this memo to you indicates that: "A complete review of the file shows that all of the subordinate staffers, current and no longer working at the Ranch, can testify that a high level of sexual activity among the Ranch residents was common knowledge among the staff at the Ranch, comma, and an ongoing topic of conversation at group meetings, held regularly over a long period of time," period. Did you agree with that conclusion at the end of your investigation?
    A I think that there was some evidence of knowledge of sexual activity. I would not agree that it was an ongoing topic based on the information that I was provided by the police in their investigation.
    Q Is that the end of your answer?
    A Yes.
    Q Did you review the daily logs provided by the police?
    A I reviewed the daily logs that were provided by the police, yes.
    Q Did you make any attempt to review daily logs other than those provided by the poIice?
    A No.
    Q Did you make any attempt to review the DSHS programmatic audit conducted by Art Cantrall in the late 1980s?
    A No.
    Q Were you aware of its existence?
    A No.
    Q Did you make any attempt to learn what the DSHS licensing file contained in terms of further evidence in support of violations of RCW 26.44.080?
    A I did write a memo to the Olympia Police requesting information, which included asking them for information about any DSHS investigations. Concerning the allegation of failure to report, I would point out, however, that the Statute of Limitations for a gross misdemeanor is two years so we were only looking at information within a two-year window.
    (Mr. Kelley re -enters room)
     Q Referring two or three sentences later down this report, quoting: "Boys as young as aged 10 were assigned roommates who were considerably older, comma, for example,  comma, ------ comma, age 12, comma, was a roommate of ------ aged 17, period.  ------ was coerced by ------ to provide oral sex to him on a regular basis, period. At the end of your investigation, did you conclude that that was a true and accurate statement?
    A My investigation - again, I want to say the term "my  investigation," I want to emphasize, was the police investigation. And the scope of that investigation was  not as to the sexual activity that had occurred between residents of the O.K. Boys Ranch. It was as to reporting  of that by staff members.
  Q You wrote to Olympia Police Department February 24 of 1993  concerning the investigation on failing to report -
    A Yes.
    Q --- and said that you wished to commend the Department for an excellent investigation, did you not?
    A I don't recall that language. I may have.
    Q At this point in time, is there anything that you felt was not complete about the police work done by Olympia Police Department?
    A At the point in time that I wrote the memo?
    Q Actually, I was asking - and perhaps it's good to clarify - as you sit here today.
    A Which investigation are you talking about, the failure to report sexual abuse?
    Q Let's take it in four steps. As you sit here today, are you aware of whether or not the Olympia Police Department did a complete job on the failure to report the investigation?
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question.
    A I believe that the police did a good job of the investigation that was provided to me.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) As you sit here today, do you think the police department did a good job on investigating the sex crimes' aspect of their investigation?
    A As I sit here today, I do, yes
.  Q At the time you wrote your reports or at the time you were actively working on this matter, did you feel the same  way?
    A Yes.
    Q And that's true as to both the failure to report and the investigation of sex crimes at the Ranch?
    A Yes.
    Q Turning back to Exhibit 2, sir, there's a reference at the first sentence of the third paragraph, quoting, "------came to the Ranch with a serious known sexual problem, making him extremely likely to engage in aggressive sexual behavior with the other children, period."  As far as you know, is that true and supported in the police report?
    MR. LAW: Object to the form.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A Well, I'm having difficulty following which Police report you're talking about. My involvement in this case was as to a charge of failure to report sexual abuse, a gross misdemeanor. Prior to my involvement, there had been involvement by our Juvenile Court section in prosecuting two young people for sexually abusing other residents of the O.K. Boys Ranch. My consideration did not go back and reconsider what had previously taken place except as it applied to the failure to report.
  Q (By Mr. Paul) At the time you became - strike that. At the time you were concluding your investigation, had at least two juveniles been convicted of sex crimes?
    A Yes.
    Q Did you have any reason to doubt the efficacy of those convictions?
    A No, I did not.
    Q If you had, you would have probably said something about it as a prosecutor with a duty to report to police if you felt there was some gross miscarriage of the juvenile justice system?
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question.
    A Well, I communicate regularly with, the 0lympia Police, and I'm sure that we would have discussed the matter- if I had perceived a.problem.
     Q (By Mr. Paul) Let's take a look at what's marked as 9084, page 2 of your exhibit. At the second to last paragraph on the bottom, there's a quote, "VanWoerden," comma we're talking about Tom VanWoerden-- "VanWoerden, comma, for example, comma, admonished subordinate staffers not to discuss these incidents with outsiders because it would, quote, give the Ranch a bad name, period," end quote. Did you find that to be true and correct after your investigation?
    A Well, there was evidence that would suggest that. There was other evidence that would oppose that view.
    Q And that's why we're here, sir. I would like you to tell me now what evidence you're aware of that would tend to rebut the statement that I just read to you.
    A Well, I don't have a clear recollection of everything that was in the reports, but I recall that Mr. VanWoerden denied that and also that - I believe the other two individuals, the ladies, also denied that that was the case. They said that it was the procedure for staff to report to higher levels, and it was up to the higher levels of the administration of the O.K. Boys Ranch to make reports. But I believe Mr. VanWoerden indicated that if something happen and it was serious enough that it should be reported, that he believed staff understood that they were to go ahead and make the report.
    Q Is that the end of your answer?
    A Yes.
    Q Other than the statements from the accused, are you aware of any evidence whatsoever that would tend to rebut the statement that I quoted to you a minute ago?
    A I think there was a statement from a State worker - and I don't recall whether that's DSHS or CPS - that indicated that they were communicated with primarily by one person on behalf of the O.K. Boys Ranch about problems and so forth
.     Q Do you believe that was Miriam Madison or Madsen?.
    A I don't recall her name.
    Q The police report indicated that VanWoerden denied any knowledge of sexual activity prior to the report made to police around July I of 1992.
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question; misstates the exhibit.
    MR. LAW: I'll join in that objection.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Page 9084 has a sentence starting "VanWoerden denied." Do you see that, Mr. Tabor?
    A I do.
    Q Can you read, please?
    A "VanWoerden denied any knowedge of sexual activity prior to the report made to police around July 1, 1992."
    Q Did you notice the part of the report where Tom VanWoerden denied knowledge of sexual activity prior to the report made to police around July of 1992?
    A Well, at the time I received this letter, I didn't have anything in any report indicating VanWoerden talking with police. One of the requests that I made was to the Olympia Police to take a statement from Mr. VanWoerden, and it was only at a later date that I saw a transcript of  the tape-recorded statement in which he denied.
    Q Mr. VanWoerden denied in that statement made to police with his lawyer present, did he not, having knowledge of sexual activity at the O.K. Boys Ranch prior to July 1,1992; is that correct?
     MR. LAW: Object to the form.
    A No, I don't think that's true. I think he acknowledged knowing about something that occurred in June of '92.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Other than acknowledging what had occurred in June of '92, do you recall whether Mr. VanWoerden acknowledged any other sexual activity at the Ranch?
    A My recollection is that he stated that he knew that sexual activity took place from time to time.
    Q When was the last time you reviewed Mr. VanWoerden's verbatim statement taken in his lawyer's office after being advised of his Miranda rights.
    A Yesterday.
    Q Now, Reiko Cushman indicates that VanWoerden's denial of knowledge of sexual activity was not true. Do you see that in her memo?
    A Yes.
    Q Do you agree with the statement?
    MR. LAW: Object to the form.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.     A Well, you mean at this point?
      Q (By Mr. Paul) Sitting here today, sir.
    MR. LAW: Counsel, my objection goes as to the timing of this memo and the statement that Mr. VanWoerden gave that this witness has just referenced.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead and answer, sir.
    A I would agree that Mr. VanWoerden has, since the time of the writing of this, indicated that he had knowledge of sexual activity other than July I of '92.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) After you received this memo from Reiko Cushman, did you discuss it with her?
    A Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that she brought it, hand-carried the memo to us.
    Q Is that the typical procedure, then, where the City of Olympia refers charges to your office?
    A No, it is not.
    Q Had it ever happened before, as you recall?
    A There have been occasions when Olympia Police have brought cases to us, hand-carried them. There may have been occasions when a prosecutor from the City of Olympia accompanied them, but I don't recall any time that that ever happened before.
    Q So you can't name a situation other than this one where a prosecutor hand delivered an urg --
    A No.
    Q Was there anyone else at the meeting or the point in time where Reiko brought this memo to you?
    A Yes, I believe Chief Wurner came, and I believe the two of them, Ms. Cushman and Mr. Wurner, met with Mr. Sutherland and myself.
    Q Had Police Chief Wurner ever accompanied a prosecutor to join you and Mr. Sutherland in a meeting urging that charges be brought?
    A As I say, I don't recall a prosecutor ever coming before. Chief Wurner had come before.
    Q My question was: Had the two ever come jointly to you?
    A No, because the Prosecutor's Office in the City of Olympia does not refer cases to us. Police refers cases to us.
    Q So other than this, the Prosecutor's Office had never done a referral to you before?"
    A Well, they had written letters before, making suggestions, and that's the way I interpreted this. This was not a formal referral. In a subsequent memo to the Olympia Police, I asked them to make a formal referral to us if they chose to do so, which would include such things as the correct legal name, the date of birth, and the local address or the current address of any suspects. It would also indicate to us the specific charges that they were referring the case, and in the course of writing that memo and requesting that information I requested a number of other things that I would like to see accomplished.
    Q And the Olympia Police Department did make a formal referral, did they not?
    A They did, yes.
    Q And that was against VanWoerden, Queener, and Rambo?
    A Yes.
    Q And that was on the charges of failure to report?
    A Yes.
    Q How long did your meeting last where you and Chief Wurner and Prosecutor Cushman and Mr. Sutherland met? How long did that last?
    A Probably an hour.
    Q What did you discuss?
    A Ms. Cushman basically went over the sexual abuse that had been alleged in the police report by Detective.Nancy Gassett and discussed her feelings similar to what she expressed in this memorandum, which you referred to as Exhibit 2.
    Q Did she talk about the failure to report?
    A She expressed her views in that regard, yes.
    Q In the course of working for the Prosecutor's Office, Mr. Tabor, how many cases have you handled over the years?
     MR. LAW: Object to the form.
    A Thousands.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did this referral strike you as being one that was important to the Olympia Police Department?
     MR. LAW: Object to the form.     A I think all cases that are referred by police are important to the police.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) I agree. Did you consider this to have a sense of urgency, importance, that was highlighted by the people at the Olympia Police Department and the City Prosecutor's Office?
     MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question.
     MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A I think that both Ms. Cushman and Chief Wurner were very concerned about what they perceived to be a problem.
    (By Mr. Paul) And I take it you were too?
    A I certainly was open to hear their concerns.
    Q Did you talk about any special-procedural problems such as conflict of interest that may arise in this prosecution?
    A Not that I recall, no.
    Q Just to be clear, did anyone at this meeting discuss that, in addition to just yourself?
    A No, I don't believe so. I don't think that issue came up because I didn't see that as an issue, and I don't think anybody else did.
    Q Mr. Sutherland is on the Board of Directors of the corporation which was licensed to operate the O.K. Boys Ranch, was he not?
    A I don't - I don't know that. He's a Kiwanian, but I don't  believe he was on the board of the Boys Ranch.
  Q You are aware or - strike that. You were aware at the time of this meeting, were you not, that Mr. Sutherland  was a member of the Board of Directors of Kiwanis Club of  Olympia, which held the license to operate the O.K. Boys Ranch with the State of Washington.
    A No.
    Q -- were you not? Did you ask?
    A Did I ask what?
    Q Did you ask anyone at this meeting or anywhere else whether Mr. Sutherland was on the Board of Directors of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
    A No.  Did you care?
    A That wasn't an issue that I saw.
--part 1----part 3----part 4--

Below is an e-mail I received from a former Olympia, Washington resident.

From: ~~~~~~~~@aol.com
To: Louis Bloom manaco@whidbey.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: OKBR
Just came across your pages and felt the urge to respond... In the early 80's (81-83) I was at the OKBR frequently as a young kid walking to/from school, I became friends with some of the boys. At one point a small boy confided to me that he was being raped by another boy in the home. The abusing boy talked about it openly!
Days later I walked the victim to OPD where we both gave statements. Later that evening I began to receive these incredibly threatening phone calls from a woman employee of the ranch who's name I believe was Paulette at my home. She kept calling over and over screaming at me calling me names. It was horrible. I thought I was helping someone. Nothing came of it. Then all these years later, it all comes out ... one of the boys that I had known there left as a young adult and still couldn't get it together, he eventually killed himself. As an adult now I don't often think back to those times but it still saddens me. All those boys that needed a safe nurturing place to be, and how many of them were better off for having been taken there? It's not about money. It cost these boys their lives, their souls, their trust. Those people who knew, who didn't care, they should feel such shame. Just my opinion.

From: louis a bloom manaco@whidbey.net
To: ~~~~~~~@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: OKBR
thanks for your e-mail. from what i've read, dshs, the olympia police department, and other "authorities" didn't consider child on child rape to be against the law. it was considered "normal experimentation". The "paulette" you mention, may have been Collette Queener who was an assistant director at the OKBR. Collette, OKBR Director Tom Van Woerdan, and OKBR counselor Laura Rambo Russell were ineptly charged by Wa. St. with "criminal mistreatment for failing to stop abuse". The charges were dismissed by Thurston County Judge Daniel Berschauer on technicalities. The lawyer who represented Collette Queener said, (Nov. 14, 1996 Olympian), that it was a "witch hunt", and that " a more innocent person (than Queener) you could not have for a client. She's an ex-nun ..... I don't see how you could view her in an evil or negative light."
I congratulate you for doing the right thing, when all those adults looked the other way. I repeat on most pages that the " OKBR has cost the Washington State taxpayers over $35 million dollars (so far)", because I think most people don't care about the kids involved, but they may care that it has cost them (taxpayers) money.
louis bloom

There were many obvious and long-term warnings about the 1970-94 child abusing Olympia Kiwanis Boys Ranch.