Council Balks At Belkot's Resolution To Condemn Charlie Kirk Assassination - OPMA Case Ends At Preliminary Injunction Hearing

Sep 18, 2025 6:33 am

Councilor Belkot Presents Resolution to Condemn Political Violence and Assassination of Charlie Kirk; Rest Of The Council Balks

After Councilor Belkot presented her resolution today (see below), Councilors Little, Marshall, Fuentes, and Jung immediately sought to dilute the resolution by including references to recent school shootings, which do not appear to have any political motivations, and the assassination of a Minnesota politician several months ago.

READ CLARKCOUNTYTODAY.COM ARTICLE HERE

It is clear that all councilors except Belkot are reluctant to move forward with the proposed resolution as originally presented.

ALSO - Read The Ken Vance Article Regarding Angus Lee's Call For A Proclamation

Angus Lee got the ball rolling by stating...

“Murder is fundamentally and undeniably wrong,’’ Lee stated. “There is no gray area. Political murder is an even greater evil, striking at the very foundation of peaceful democratic discourse.

For elected officials to remain silent when asked to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk is unacceptable.

“It is not enough to personally avoid supporting violence,’’ Lee stated. “Every public official has a duty to publicly and unequivocally state that murder is wrong, that political violence is wrong, and that the murder of Charlie Kirk was wrong. This is a very low bar.

“If members of the Clark County Council cannot summon the courage to clearly condemn this murder, then they are failing in their most basic obligation to the public,’’ Lee stated. “Silence in the face of political violence amounts to tacit approval. It emboldens those who commit such acts and makes future violence more likely.’’

Would you support Belkot’s resolution?

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - _______________

A RESOLUTION condemning political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

WHEREAS, the United States was founded upon the principles of liberty, justice, and the inherent rights of all people as recognized in the Declaration of Independence; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly, which are essential to the preservation of a free and self-governing people; and

WHEREAS, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a national political and religious leader and advocate, is a tragic and intolerable act of political violence that strikes at the very heart of these constitutional freedoms; and

WHEREAS, political violence in any form undermines the rule of law, threatens civil order, and attempts to silence lawful expression through fear and force; and

WHEREAS, the Clark County Council affirms that while citizens may differ in their views, such differences must always be expressed through peaceful and lawful means, never through threats, intimidation, or violence; and

WHEREAS, our nation’s founders recognized that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that consent must be expressed through free debate, lawful assembly, and fair elections — not by coercion or bloodshed; and

WHEREAS, it is the duty of both government leaders and private citizens to reject violence, defend constitutional liberty, and uphold the natural rights endowed by our Creator;

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDERED AND RESOLVED BY THE CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS:

The Clark County Council unequivocally condemns political violence in all its forms, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and declares that acts of violence shall never be tolerated as legitimate tools of political expression. This Council urges all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to resolve differences peacefully, and to protect the freedoms that secure our Republic.

ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2025.

CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL

UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Cut Short, Complaint Withdrawn After Case Citation Dispute

As many of you know, last Friday was finally the Preliminary Injunction Hearing (the fourth attempt) for the OPMA violations I’ve alleged against Councilors Marshall, Yung, Fuentes, and Little. Unlike the defendants, who have practically unlimited taxpayer-funded resources, I’ve had to move this case forward on my own as a pro se litigant (without an attorney).

From the beginning, the defense threw up roadblocks: questioning my standing as a taxpayer, demanding venue changes, nitpicking service, and stalling to run out the clock. At the September 12 hearing, much of the discussion focused on whether C-Tran decisions and County decisions were closely enough connected, on how agendas are worded, and on whether communications between councilors outside meetings rose to the level of OPMA violations. I provided text messages and emails showing coordination before both meetings, which to me are clear examples of how OPMA violations occur.

The most difficult moment came when the defense argued that “several” of my cited cases didn’t exist. In reviewing later, I found only one error — one too many, certainly, but nowhere near what was alleged. Unfortunately, that shifted the direction of the hearing. I explained that I had used multiple sources, including the County law library, but by that point it was clear the case would not move forward as I had hoped.

At that stage, I decided to withdraw the complaint — not because the violations aren’t real, but because Councilor Belkot’s related federal case raises the same OPMA issues and may prove to be the stronger venue for justice. Belkot’s attorney is also not pursuing a preliminary injunction, so continuing in state court after this hearing would have been redundant and a poor use of resources for both sides.

This outcome was disappointing, though not entirely surprising, and I'll be sharing more later about what I discovered while pursuing this case.

Please support Councilor Belkot’s Legal Fund and help her get justice for Clark County. And keep an eye on developments in Skamania County — there may be more to come soon.