This summary is chiefly written by Attorneys Leslie Garrison and David Zuckerman of Seattle, Washington regarding Case No. 11-2-13154-3SEA.

From the onset of this case petitioner attorneys have knowingly and willfully brought misleading and false charges to promote their cause when as examples:

  1. Ms. Barbara West, attorney for Godfrey Holmstrom, brought the original petition against the Pipes that falsely stated Mr. Mott had been diagnosed with dementia for several years knowing the diagnoses was done the day prior to the hearing.
  2. Ms. Janet Somers, attorney for GSS, threatened the Pipes to sign the CR2A in September 2011 knowing that she was denying the Pipes of their Constitutional rights to go to law enforcement or government agencies.   The CR2A is all the more  a concern since the it came on the heels of Ms. Walker’s report to Janet Somers and subsequently to Commissioner Velategui regarding the suspicious psyche exam used to declare Mr. Mott a vulnerable adult that contained no sustaining documentation of dementia from his physician.
  3. Ms. Somers made false statements about Mr. Mott and Ms. Pipes to the Guardianship Court to obtain confidential documents that pertained to the request to Adult Protective Services to have Mr. Mott’s circumstances investigated.
  4. Ms. Somers falsely claimed to the Court that Ms. Pipes was a “stalker” and was behind the emails and mailings sent out by others.
  5. Ms. Somers filed a case of Contempt of Court against the Pipes with Commissioner Velategui rather than with the King County Prosecutor.   Commissioner Velategui consistently ignored  the declarations of those who stated that they believe Mr. Mott was competent shortly prior to his vulnerable adult hearing or have stated that Mr. Mott warned them that he was fearful of his wife Carolyn Knick; Commissioner Velategui ignored the fact that both GSS and Ms. Knick breached the CR2A by Ms. Knick going to the Bellevue Police to harass witnesses and by GSS making false statements to the Guardianship Court and not abiding by the guidelines of the CR2A by giving six month reports  on Mr. Mott;  and Commissioner Velategui made several errors in the current judgments as noted in the Pipes’ brief to the Court of Appeals when:
  6. Finding the Pipes in contempt of court without identifying which act(s) the Pipes committed to warrant the finding and instead making a contempt finding based on inference and the conduct of third parties;
  7. Awarding $28,800 in attorneys’ fees against the Pipes that are unreasonable and excessive;
  8. Sanctioning the Pipes $20,000 when such sanction is punitive and imposed in violation of RCW 7.21.030(2);
  9. Awarding $30,000.00 in damages without a showing of actual damages incurred since the court issued its order in June 2012 and with no showing that any injury was proximately caused by the Pipes’ conduct;
  10. Relying on the court’s inherent contempt authority to impose punitive sanctions without making specific findings that the remedial remedies available under the statute are inadequate to insure compliance.
  11. Imposing restrictions of the Pipes that amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the first amendment.
  12. Ms. Karolyn Hicks, attorney for Carolyn Knick, falsely claimed to the Court that Ms. Pipes was responsible for defamation comments about Ms. Knick when these comments were clearly made by Mr. Mott to others who wrote declarative statements of this fact that are part of Court record.

In addition, it was reported that the Governor’s Office, FBI, King County Sheriff all had requests that this matter needed investigation that were filtered to the Bellevue Police Department (BPD)  when:

  1. Major witnesses report that they have not been contacted for an interview of the facts of this matter concerning their declarations to the court which were sent to BPD.
  2. Detective Thompson of BPD called Bill Kennamer and told him the false statement that Janet Pipes was the sole recipient of the Will Mr. Mott requested her to draft to protect his children.  According to Mr. Kennamer, Detective Thompson had no interest regarding the statements Mr. Mott made to Mr. Kennamer in Mr. Mott’s request for help from this friend of many years.
  3. Detective Thompson called Ms. Pipes to harass her without any knowledge of this case and without any desire to know more about what occurred even though Ms. Pipes wrote to the Bellevue Police from the onset seeking help for Mr. Mott and included the names of witnesses to contact.
  4. Detective Thompson stated to Ms. Pipes that he was involved in reports from Ms. Knick regarding her belief she was being harassed, which was in direct conflict to the CR2A for Ms. Knick to go to law enforcement.
  5. Chief Pillo of BPD responded to Cindy Walker’s request for an investigation by stating her department was not going to investigate this matter and referred her to Adult Protective Services.

Adult Protective Services (APS) case worker Marie Alexander responded to Cindy Walker’s October 31, 2011 request for an investigation when:

  1. On February 9, 2012 (3 months later) she saw Mr. Mott with Ms. Knick present and reported that all Mr. Mott could say was “Yes” or “No” and that in her opinion Mr. Mott had severe dementia.  This was eight days after Mr. Mott was seen by Dr. Werner who reported that Mr. Mott got up to greet him, they talked, and Mr. Mott correctly identified the Governor of Washington and that Mr. Mott needed stimulation.
  2. Ms. Alexander called Ms. Pipes and told her that she thought all of the emails sent to her by Mr. Mott were bogus and that all of the emails and letters in the file were bogus.  When Ms. Alexander was asked if she had called any of the witnesses, Ms. Alexander responded that it was none of her business.  When asked if she would verify that all of the emails were truthful by calling her attorney, Ms. Alexander said that the case she was investigating was harassment against Ms. Knick.
  3. Ms. Alexander called Mr. Kennamer and told him that he must be lying about what Mr. Mott said to him because Mr. Mott was “not allowed to talk to anyone,” which clearly violates the Standards of Practice as set out by the National Guardianship Association and should have been investigated rigorously by APS.
  4. None of the witnesses who have written declarations in behalf of Ms. Pipes/Mr. Mott have been called for interviews by APS.

There has been a callous pursuit against the Pipes in court by petitioners in opposition to RCW 74.34.200 (2) which states that: “it is in the intent of the legislature, however, that where there is a dispute about the care or treatment of a vulnerable adult, the parties should use the least formal means available to try to resolve the dispute,” thus costing the Pipes massive attorney fees.

As a case history the original petitioners filed a motion for a VAPA order based on a May 2011 medical report that appears to have been done for the purpose of filing the original VAPA motion and for a Guardianship Petition of Mr. Mott.  The baseline psych evaluation was done May 5, 2011.  The factual wording of the psych exam states that Mr. Mott could have metabolic or psychological dementia caused by stress, depression or PTSD.  It states that Mr. Mott does not have Alzheimer’s.  There are contradictory statements by Ms. Knick regarding Mr. Mott in the report.  There was no input by Mr. Mott’s long term physician Dr. Kinnish which additionally raised questions about this report.  These matters were ignored by Commissioner Velategui.


There were misstatements of fact in the original petition which included the assertion that Mr. Mott suffered from dementia for a number of years; that Ms. Pipes took advantage of him by drafting up new wills in which she was the sole beneficiary; and Ms. Pipes opened a joint bank account implying that she did so to take Mr. Mott’s money – omitting the amount of Ms. Pipes own money she deposited and requiring Ms. Pipes attorney to facilitate the return of her deposit.


The original petitioners had Mr. Mott sign new legal documents transferring all his personal and financial interests over to Ms. Knick and Mr. Holmstrom when he was purportedly suffering from dementia and allegedly lacked the capacity to have signed the previous wills dated sometime earlier.  This fact was ignored by Commissioner Velategui.


Thus, the credibility of Ms. Knick and Mr. Holmstrom are without merit. Ms. West should have known this.  Unfortunately there have been additional misrepresentations in this case, including:


In the Petition for Order Directing Adult Protective Services to Release Investigation File and Identify Complainant presented by attorney Janet Somers states these two false statements:


Despite Mr. Mott having been diagnosed with dementia several years prior, Ms. Pipes has engaged in an extramarital affair with Mr. Mott.  During the course of that affair, inter alia, she drafted a Will for Mr. Mott’s signature appointing her both Personal Representative and sole beneficiary.  See O’Brien Decl., Paragraph 4.

Declaration of Tom O’Brien In Support of Guardian’s Petition for Order Directing Adult Protective Services to Release Investigation File and Identify Complainant again states the same false statements:

  1. Mrs. Pipes is known to have carried on an extramarital affair with Mr. Mott, in spite of his diagnosis with dementia.  During the course of her relationship with Mr. Mott, among other things, Mrs. Pipes drafted a Will for Mr. Mott to execute in which she named herself both Personal Representative and sole beneficiary of Mr. Mott’s Estate.

The court records show that William Kennamer previously sent an email to a number of people regarding Mr. Mott’s welfare and the fact that none of his friend’s had access to him.  Mr. Kennamer was contacted by Det. Thompson on behalf of Ms. Knick and given false statements about Ms. Pipes.  Ms. Alexander of APS told Mr. Kennamer that she did not believe his story that Mr. Mott asked for help and wanted out of his house since Mr. Mott was not allowed to talk to anyone.  Not allowing Mr. Mott to talk and visit with friends violates the Standards of Practice as set down by the Certified Professional Guardian Standards of Practice.

Commissioner Velategui ignored the Standards of Practice.

Additionally, there are records in this case that Mr. Mott sent many people information about his dissatisfaction with his marriage and his desire to get divorced.  This information has been filed by GSS in the court file and made available to the public and also sent to the Arizona Board of Nursing in their efforts to punish Ms. Walker.  This information has been made available to Detective Thompson via the Bellevue Police Department by Janet Pipes and Cindy Walker.

As Examples:

  1. Mr. Mott stated in his letter to Dr. Kinnish that he thought his wife was a sociopath and that he thought she had slept with a large number of Bellevue Police.  This letter was additionally sent to the Holmstroms in 2010 who acknowledged the letter.  A signed copy along with a copy of the Will naming both Mr. Holmstrom and Ms. Pipes as representatives and Mr. Mott’s children beneficiaries of their grandparent’s CDs and a copy of Ms. Pipes’ Durable Power of Attorney was sent in a sealed envelope to Mr. Holmstrom.  Mr. Holmstrom used Ms. Pipes’ Durable Power of Attorney to take her money without her knowledge.
  2. Mr. Mott filed for divorce from Ms. Knick in January 2011 on his own accord.  Presumably, had his attorney Mr. Matthew Cooper thought Mr. Mott had dementia and unable to make decisions on his own it would have interfered with his ability to file Mr. Mott’s petition for dissolution as he did.
  3. Ms. Benish, a close friend of Mr. Mott since childhood, states in her declaration that she asked Mr. Mott why he didn’t just divorce his wife.  According to Ms. Benish, Mr. Mott replied, “I don’t dare.  I don’t know what she’d do, but it wouldn’t be pretty.”
  4. Ms. Konitzer states in her declaration that when she spoke with Mr. Mott on the phone regarding her experiences with her husband, Mr. Mott replied with statements that lead her to believe he had experienced something similar, “I told Ed about my experiences and the sensation I had that things were unreal, that I couldn’t defend myself, and that I felt emotionally unstable.  Each time I made a point about my own experiences, Ed’s comment and tone of voice indicated that his wife was treating him the way I had been treated by my ex-husband.  For example, I described to Ed how my ex-husband would accuse me of being the crazy one, and how I started believing he was right.  Ed responded, ‘I already know that.’  When I described how sociopaths have a tendency to twist your words to use against you, Ed responded ‘she does that.’”
  5. Mr. Mott was sent a letter by Ms. Pipes addressed to Mary Mott, his first wife.  Mr. Mott told Ms. Pipes that he did not trust her and was afraid that she would send the letter to Godfrey Holmstrom.  Mr. Mott sent this letter asking for help to several of his friends.  Those friends included Joe Austin, Marian Benish, Sheila Evans and friends from the San Juan Islands who contacted Ms. Pipes.  In this letter were numerous statements that Mr. Mott had made to Ms. Pipes regarding his wife Carolyn Knick.  When Ms. Benish contacted Ms. Pipes following the first hearing, Ms. Benish told Ms. Pipes that Mr. Mott had told her all of the same things about his wife reflected in that letter.  One of the statements in this letter found in the Kane email was that Ms. Knick had sex with the guide when Mr. Mott took his wife on an African safari.
  6. In the document prepared by Mr. Holmstrom’s attorney, Barbara West, entitled Joinder and Declaration in re Petition for Immediate Temporary Order of Protection for a Vulnerable Adult, Mr. Mott crossed out the words “and do not intend to divorce Carolyn.”
  7. The GAL found it was necessary to appoint a professional Guardian for Mr. Mott and neither Mr. Holmstrom nor Ms. Knick as originally petitioned.

Commissioner Velategui ignored these declarations and ruled in favor of Ms. Knick

There have been multiple irregularities in this case which run the gamut from misinformation provided by Ms. West regarding Mr. Mott’s own actions prior to his wife and neighbor taking over his life such as telling Ms. Pipes that Mr. Mott was seeing multiple women (at the same time alleging he had dementia), to information by Ms. Somers to Ms. Pipes’ first attorney, Kristina Selset regarding Mr. Mott’s wealth and Mr. Mott’s health updates (Ms. Selset noted Mr. Mott was almost non-responsive at the first hearing, several months later it was reported to her that his physical health was again good but he had almost no cognitive skills, to several months later reporting that Mr. Mott easily got up to greet Dr. Werner, they talked and Mr. Mott correctly identified the Governor of Washington).   The records show that shortly before the VAPA petition was initially filed, Mr. Mott was capably living alone, driving without difficulty, and able to care for himself.  This includes Mr. Mott’s preparations to voluntarily move to Arizona; filing for divorce; and letting David Culbertson and others know that he was excited about moving to Arizona.  A declaration informed the court that Joyce McBride visited Mr. Mott in his home in April 2011 when Mr. Mott was still living alone and driving.  Ms. McBride reports she did not see any evidence of dementia.  The first psych exam was done May 5, 2011.  The first hearing was May 6, 2011.  Commissioner Velategui was advised at the hearing that the psych exam noted in the petition stating it was done several years ago was instead done the day prior to the hearing.

Ms. Pipes has repeatedly been falsely characterized as a “stalker” in court hearings and court documents by Ms. Somers.  Not only is that a legal misuse of the term, but it is untrue.  Declarations filed in this case state that in January 2011 when Ms. Pipes went to Seattle to visit friends, including Mr. Mott, Mr. Mott called Ms. Pipes to tell her that his wife had taken his car keys and was taking him to a bogus doctor appointment (Mr. Mott’s words).  Mr. Mott gave Ms. Pipes the address of the doctor’s office, the time of his appointment, and asked her to meet him there.  Had Mr. Mott not contacted Ms. Pipes, she would have had no way of knowing about this appointment.  It was due to Ms. Knick’s reaction to this meeting where she told Ms. Pipes that her husband had Alzheimer’s and dementia that Mr. Mott realized what his wife was planning and told her he wanted a divorce.

The file reflects that Ms. Benish was never contacted by the Bellevue Police, and that she sent information about her perception of GSS and Ms. Knick to her and Mr. Mott’s mutual former classmates in an email in early Fall 2012.  Additionally, the emails from Mr. Kennamer, Mr. Kane and other friends of Mr. Mott contained factual information available in the public court file.  Ms. Pipes has been falsely accused of being the sole person behind this correspondence, when in fact this information is public and has been presented to the Court numerous times by GSS.

The fact that GSS was appointed Guardian instead of Ms. Knick and has since allowed Ms. Knick to act as gatekeeper to Mr. Mott is troubling, to say the least, and at most signals that GSS may have violated the Standards of Practice as set down by the Certified Professional Guardian Standards of Practice.  It is additionally troubling that Detective Thompson has harassed and made false statements to those involved trying to help Mr. Mott.

GSS filed a complaint with the Arizona Board of Nursing requesting an investigation of the nurse Cindy Walker after threatening her to sign a document that her letters of warning to agencies were instigated by Janet Pipes.  Upon Ms. Walker’s refusal to commit perjury by signing the document, the complaint to the Arizona Nursing Board was filed by GSS.

Commissioner Velategui ignored this evidence.

The following legal arguments prepared for this case by Pipes’ counsel for the court of appeals also pose questions regarding First Amendment rights denied the Pipes.


            The protection order entered in this case violates two provisions of the First Amendment:  the right to free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  One provision of the order states that Ms. Pipes cannot have any contact with the vulnerable adult by any means “including without limitation filing of legal or administrative actions regarding the vulnerable adult.”  Added in the margin and adopted by the court “and law enforcement and government agencies.”  Another paragraph includes this provision:    “In the event additional reports alleging abuse, neglect or exploitation of the Vulnerable Adult are filed by Respondent(s) or their agents without reasonable cause with any governmental, legal or administrative agency in the future, Respondent shall be liable for any costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, etc.”   

            The protection order is a prior restraint on speech.  A prior restraint is an administrative or judicial order forbidding in advance certain communications.  Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993).  “Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.”  Id.  Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). They are permissible only in exceptional cases such as war, obscenity, and “incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.  Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931).  “An order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order.”  Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 183, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2 325 (1968).

            While an order prohibiting the Pipes from contacting Ed Mott directly might be upheld, the superior court’s order defines “contact” far more broadly.  It includes “filing of legal or administrative actions regarding [Mott]”including those addressed to “law enforcement and government agencies.”  Clearly this is not merely a restriction on “contact.” An agency could handle a complaint concerning Mr. Mott’s treatment without passing on the content of the complaint to Mott himself.  The Court’s order severely chills Pipe’s right to free speech and to redress of grievances by threatening – and as it turns out, imposing – substantial financial sanctions.   This is a classic prior restraint of First Amendment rights.