The domain
redirects to this page.

The Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff's office has long been a haven for corruption, malfeasance, unprofessionalism, and downright stupidity. Like all residents of the state we've watched it over the decades and reacted merely by sighing and shaking our heads. But we're tired of it. We've had enough. We've filed a criminal complaint against Scott Fenske, of Granite Falls, Snohomish County, Washington, and we absolutely, positively guarantee that the Snohomish County Sheriff's office will screw it up, if not through downright corruption, then through stupidity and unprofessionalism. Snohomish County enjoys a "hillbilly factor" far in excess of anything we've ever seen north of the Rio Grande. It's time folks began documenting the counter-productive, even criminal activities of this western Washington law enforcement agency. We'll eventually add a guestbook to this page which invites and enables the public dissemination of law enforcement horror-stories from Snohomish County, Washington. 1-29-2007

This web page details our opinions of and experiences with:

Glen Scott Fenske
Scott Fenske

of Granite Falls, Washington

This May be the Dumbest, Most Dishonest
Son of a Bitch on God's Green Earth

You Decide



Snohomish County Sheriff
3000 Rockefeller Ave
Everett, WA 98201

Please consider this a formal criminal complaint against the following individual:

Scott Fenske (possible middle: Glen)
POB 725
Granite Falls, Washington

Scott Glen Fenske
1146 200th Ave. NE
Granite Falls, Wa., 98252

Various contact points include:


In July of 2006 my son and I purchased a 19 ft Fiberform runabout from Fenske.
We responded to his Craigslist ads (2 ads) which listed the vessel as having an 80 gallon fuel tank. This oversized tank was one of the main reasons for my interest in this particular boat, since the boat would end up in SE Alaska where fuel stops are few and far between.

I subsequently had a number of telephone conversations with Fenske re this 80 gallon fuel tank. Fenske mentioned it repeatedly, and responded to my comments about the size of the tank. He explained that he had specifically, personally installed the 80 gallon tank because he wanted to use the boat on lake Chelan and he didn’t know how many fuel docks were located on the lake. He went so far as to detail his fuel consumption calculations, showing why he felt he needed the 80 gallon tank.

I subsequently had a number of email conversations with Fenske in which I mentioned the 80 gallon fuel tank in more instances, and Fenske replied to those remarks, in writing, regarding the advertised 80 gallon fuel tank. At no time did Fenske claim that the fuel tank he had personally installed was anything but 80 gallons.

My son and I subsequently looked at the boat in person at Fenske’s Granite Falls address. During this 90 minute time period, I again mentioned the 80 gallon tank as many as 8-10 times, and Fenske responded to all of those comments by reiterating that he had personally installed the 80 gallon tank, and he went so far as to draw an imaginary line with his foot on the carpet of the boat, showing where he had personally installed the 80 gallon tank under the permanent decking where it was not available for inspection except by hiring a contractor to remove that permanent decking. All of this was witnessed by myself, and by my son.

We did purchase the boat from Fensek, based on this tankage.
It was later discovered that Fenske had specifically purchased a 36 gallon tank and installed THAT, instead of the 80 gallon tank he had advertised twice in writing (we are going to subpoena any and all ads Fenske has ever placed through Craigslist, to see if he in fact advertised this as an 80 gallon tank more than twice – we believe law enforcement can obtain CL’s ads without a subpoena). We have Fenske’s signed receipt for the 36 gallon tank, and Fenske has now admitted in writing that the tank is actually 36 gallons, and that his assertion that it was an 80 gallon tank was “a typo”. Obviously that is nonsense. Scott Fenske consciously and deliberately mis-advertised this vessel for the express and explicit purpose of making the vessel appear more valuable than it was. Scott Fenske is a liar.

Fenske also told us verbally:

  1. The engine was newly rebuilt, with only 3 hours on it, and that the engine was still under warranty. In FACT, no such warranty existed because Fenske had neglected to file the appropriate forms with the engine manufacturer, which would have validated the warranty. Fenske lied. This was discovered when the engine failed utterly at 8.5 hours (five hours after we purchased the boat from Fenske). The cause of the failure was that Fenske had filed a hole in the oil pan in which to insert a dipstick tube which did not fit and was not designed for the engine. This mess was not visible to us at the point of purchase as it is virtually underneath the engine (but great pictures of it are displayed on the website referenced below). This filing of a hole in the oil pan was done with the oil pan installed on the engine; this resulted in the crankcase being filled with metal shavings, which caused all of the bearings in the engine to fail within 8 hours of use (no one says this guy is bright). The engine had to be replaced at a cost of $3994 because Fenske’s promise of a valid warranty was untrue, and he had to have known it.
  2. Fenske volunteered that the battery was “recent”. In fact the battery failed in the first hour or two of use and was found to be quite old. The battery was replaced at a cost of $110.
  3. Fenske advertised, in writing, that the outdrive had been recently “completely rebuilt”. After the sale Fenske supplied us a packet of receipts for parts and work done on the boat, in a large yellow envelope marked “BOTE PAPERS” (no misprint). This packet contained no such receipts for ANY work to the outdrive. Our licensed marine mechanic will testify that he found NO evidence of ANY work having been done on the outdrive. The outdrive was replaced at a cost of $1610.
  4. Fenske had cautioned us not to apply WOT (wide open throttle) to the engine for the first eight hours. This was dutifully observed. Upon application of WOT it was discovered that the vessel could not be turned to starboard. This was not a result of natural engine torque, it was due to the fact that the steering cable was completely corroded, as were the outdrive gimbals. Fenske would have known about this, yet failed to disclose a condition that made the vessel extremely dangerous to operate.
  5. Fenske claimed that the outdrive had been replaced using new hoses. In fact, the raw-water supply hose from the outdrive to the engine was immediately found to be completely rotten, a condition which does not occur unless said hose has been neglected for many years (our guess is 12-15 years in this case – our mechanic is happy to testify). Fenske lied.
  6. Fenske had told us numerous times that the vessel was capable of 50 mph. Since we were cautioned not to use WOT until the engine was broke-in, there was no way to verify this at the point of purchase. In FACT, once we were able to apply WOT, we discovered that the vessel was capable of only 36 mph.
  7. Fenske was asked if the transparent side-windows, which were not available for inspection at the time of purchase, were of usable condition. Fenske replied that they were “perfect”. In fact they are almost completely opaque with rust, scratches and tears.
  8. Fenske promised to include all the items that were located in the bow at the time of purchase, with the boat. In fact, many items were missing when Fenske delivered the vessel to us.
  9. Fenske volunteered that he had personally installed a new bilge pump in the boat. When it was found to be non-operational, we removed it and discovered that it was very old and worn out.


We could continue for another ten or twenty points (or more – see the website if you enjoy being angry), but the issue of the fuel tank is the most documented and blatant of Fenske’s intentional mis-advertisements, and that one issue alone should be sufficient to gain a conviction. We have included a couple of the appropriate RCW statutes below. We are researching more at this time.

Fenske is being sued over this. He was given countless opportunities to reimburse us for some of these items beginning way back in Sept. of ‘06, but he has persisted in stalling or outright lying to us and our attorney for the past several months. His time has now run out and we will be filing suit in district court in Snohomish county as soon as we have finished putting our case together.

I’m going to say this straight-up to you: I have personally watched Snohomish County deputies lie to save one of their local good ol’ boys from prosecution. I watched this unfold with my own eyes some years back. When they were called on it, they lied again in writing. This is called obstruction of justice. The affected parties were unable to bring charges against either the perpetrator or the deputies in that case. Let us say that we are “more determined” (by several orders of magnitude) than those victims were, in this case. Law enforcement tells the citizenry not to take the law into its own hands. Very well. Show us how YOU intend to right these wrongs.

Both the criminal and civil sides of this case will be painstakingly documented on the Internet at the following URL. Our 1st amendment attorney, [xxxxxxxxxx], will oversee this website:


From our experience, Scott Fenske is a pathological liar; He is a habitual liar; He is a sociopath. Fenske is, bluntly, a piece of shit. We believe he’s been lying his entire life, we don’t believe he will ever stop; we believe he probably no longer knows the difference between truth or fact. We believe that further investigation by us will almost certainly reveal a host of other victims. In trying to convince our attorney not to sue him, Fenske has attempted some of the most outrageous and transparent, dumbest and most easily proven false tall tales you could ever imagine. Our attorney now refuses to even interact with him unless it can be recorded or is in written form. We’ve reached that very same point.

You’ve got more than your share of shysters, con-artists, dishonest country-bumpkins, slippery hillbillies and other assorted vermin, sociopaths and scum up there in Snohomish county. Of course we’d be hard put to claim King county was any better – perhaps it’s just a different kind of criminal down here. The bottom line is that your county and ours are sick to death of being conned and lied to and bamboozled and screwed-over and cheated and stolen from and ------ and every one of us wants just a little piece of justice once in awhile. This case is laid out for you. Coming from a narcotics enforcement background I make a good witness. My son does as well, and he was present for almost all of Fenske’s verbal lies. This case demands to be made. The world is watching this via the Internet, and the victims of the world want to see if, after all, when they get screwed over, and do the “right thing” by turning to law enforcement for help, will they actually RECEIVE any help? Our notion is that they will not. That’s why we’re ready and willing to run this through the system as a citizen’s complaint using Washington’s due process laws, if, or when, Snohomish County law enforcement drops the ball. We hope you prove us wrong. Unfortunately, based on what we’ve seen of you in decades past, we don’t hold out a lot of hope you’ll do your jobs and we’re sorry that we’ll probably end up having to do it for you. Again, please prove us wrong.

We ask for a case number by return mail.

We’ve bought and sold ranches all through the SW, cars by the dozens, boats, tugboats, fish boats, airplanes, helicopters, rental properties, horses by the hundreds, livestock of all descriptions, businesses……and yet through all of that we have never, ever, not even close, come across a more dishonest individual than Scott Fenske. We want this man’s ass on a stick and we’re more determined than you could ever dream possible, to get it.




RCW’s follow:

RCW 9.04.010
False advertising.


Any person, firm, corporation or association who, with intent to sell or in any wise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or an interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, hand-bill, poster, bill, circular, pamphlet, or letter, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, which advertisement contains any assertion, representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: PROVIDED, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to any owner, publisher, agent, or employee of a newspaper for the publication of such advertisement published in good faith and without knowledge of the falsity thereof.

RCW 9.04.050
False, misleading, deceptive advertising.


It shall be unlawful for any person to publish, disseminate or display, or cause directly or indirectly, to be published, disseminated or displayed in any manner or by any means, including solicitation or dissemination by mail, telephone, electronic communication, or door-to-door contacts, any false, deceptive or misleading advertising, with knowledge of the facts which render the advertising false, deceptive or misleading, for any business, trade or commercial purpose or for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the public to purchase, consume, lease, dispose of, utilize or sell any property or service, or to enter into any obligation or transaction relating thereto: PROVIDED, That nothing in this section shall apply to any radio or television broadcasting station which broadcasts, or to any publisher, printer or distributor of any newspaper, magazine, billboard or other advertising medium who publishes, prints or distributes, such advertising in good faith without knowledge of its false, deceptive or misleading character.


RCW 9.04.070
False, misleading, deceptive advertising — Penalty.


Any person who violates any order or injunction issued pursuant to RCW 9.04.050 through 9.04.080 shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ninety days or both.