What was claimed versus what the evidence shows. Three tracks of documented discrepancies sourced from the VPD investigation and supporting records.
In this case, statements made to law enforcement, to the public, and to the prosecutor's office are contradicted by documentary evidence in multiple directions.
District counsel made statements to the detective contradicted by district records. The complainants made public statements contradicted by VPD and the PA's office. Their attorney made statements to law enforcement that contradicted each other across multiple contacts.
Each item below cites its primary source.
Garrett Williams, district counsel at Stevens Clay P.S., made two misleading statements to Det. Alie in his October 28, 2025 email response. These are documented in VPD Supplements 4 and 5.
Stevenson signed documents confirming non-voluntary separation. The district confirmed non-voluntary status to the Washington State Employment Security Department for unemployment benefit purposes. A voluntary resignation would have disqualified Stevenson from unemployment benefits under RCW 50.20.050 — the district's agreement not to oppose the claim is itself evidence the separation was not voluntary.
This contradiction operates in two directions. Williams told Alie no investigator was retained — misleading by omission, since Kaiser clearly existed and Williams personally participated in the follow-up proceedings. However, the complainants inflated this in the opposite direction, representing the Kaiser investigation as a $30K investigation specifically into the supplemental contracts that the district then covered up. The evidence suggests Kaiser was retained to investigate a separate Aguilera complaint about administrator misconduct, and the supplemental contract issue surfaced as a thread within that broader scope — not as the primary subject.
Williams knew about Kaiser but pretended he didn't exist. The complainants knew about Kaiser but misrepresented what he was investigating. Both sides manipulated the same fact in opposite directions.
Public statements made by the complainants — primarily through social media, emails to officials, and the declarations themselves — that are contradicted by the documented record. These statements and the contrasting evidence were documented by Det. Alie throughout the investigation.
Bunda, Lowman, and others repeatedly stated on social media and in emails to the school board that the Vancouver Police Department was conducting a criminal investigation into Jenae Gomes for a Class B felony. Bunda posted on October 12, 2025: "The Chief Operations Officer, Jenae Gomes, is being investigated by the Vancouver Police Department and the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney for allegedly violating RCW 40.16.020... If convicted, this is a Class B felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, up to ten years in prison, or both."
Officer Bauman filed a General Information Report — a standard intake document for walk-in complaints, not a criminal investigation. VPD's Public Information Officer Kim Kapp issued a media statement on 9/9/25 explicitly stating: "We took a general information report but there is no criminal investigation." Det. Alie's investigation, when it did begin, concluded there was no basis for criminal charges against Gomes and instead referred the complainants for potential malicious prosecution.
Sources: Bunda Facebook posts (8/30, 9/5, 9/6, 10/12), EPS Advocate posts (9/10, 9/11), VPD media statement 9/9/25, Det. Alie Supplements 2 & 5 — Page 007–018, 039–041
The complainants repeatedly stated that Gomes was "pending charges" with the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Bunda's 10/10 email to the school board asked why they hadn't "acknowledged or acted on the information given about an EPS employee's police report currently pending charges with the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's office for an alleged Class B felony."
Gayle Hutton of the PA's office emailed Bunda on 10/16/25 stating the matter was "closed, and no action is being taken." Hutton explained: "There was no investigation done on the case at the time and based on what we received, there was no case to be prosecuted. Our office does not investigate cases." DPA Anna Klein confirmed to Alie that her knowledge of the case came only from a clerk receiving phone calls about it.
Sources: Bunda email to board 10/10/25, Hutton email 10/16/25, Alie-Klein call (Supplement 5) — Page 012, 023, 039
Bunda's EPS Advocate page and the second-wave declarations portrayed Gomes' unanswered phone call from Officer Bauman as intentional refusal to cooperate. Angela Gates told Alie that Gomes "refused to cooperate with the investigation." Harvey's published email characterized Gomes as a "felony suspect" exercising her "Fifth Amendment right to silence."
Officer Bauman's report simply noted she called Gomes and received no answer — a single unanswered phone call. Gomes subsequently spoke with Bauman, who directed her to Det. Alie. Gomes emailed Alie on 9/10/25 — eight days after the complaint was filed — and cooperated throughout the investigation. As Alie noted, even Harvey's own email acknowledged there was "no indication in Off. Bauman's report that Off. Bauman's message to Gomes mentioned anything about the reason for the call."
Sources: EPS Advocate posts (9/11/25), Harvey email (9/10/25), Gates interview (Supplement 3), Gomes emails to Alie (Supplement 2) — Page 010, 015, 031
The second-wave declarations stated: "It appears that the allegations set out in the attached police report are that COO Jenae Gomes violated the law." Social media posts presented Thiemann's self-produced conclusions as VPD findings. The Instagram post from glowgoddessdesigns clipped Bauman's report to show only Thiemann's "Conclusion 1" and "Conclusion 2" in a manner that made them appear to be police conclusions.
Officer Bauman's General Information report contained no allegations made by the police department. Alie documented this directly: "The VPD report, as attached, is a general information report and contains no allegations made by the police department. The only allegations in that report are made by Thiemann and repeated, in the same specific language, by the witnesses who signed what read as canned statements." The "conclusions" in the report were Thiemann's own self-produced analysis, not VPD investigative findings.
Sources: Wave 2 declarations, social media posts, Instagram clip, Det. Alie Supplement 2 — Page 011, 016
The complainants represented the Kaiser investigation as a $30,000 investigation specifically into the supplemental contracts — one that proved wrongdoing and was subsequently covered up by the district and its counsel. Harvey told Alie that a "private investigator was paid to look into this" and "testimony was provided in a closed Board session" where the board "denied the complaint."
Kaiser was retained to investigate an Adam Aguilera complaint about administrator misconduct — not the supplemental contracts specifically. The contract issue appears to have surfaced as a thread within that broader investigation, not as its primary scope. The complainants inflated both the purpose and the significance of the Kaiser investigation to support their narrative, just as Williams deflated it to nothing.
Sources: Harvey to Alie (Supplement 4), Aguilera Declaration, Kaiser invoices — Page 030, 034. Full Kaiser report pending.
Alan Harvey (WSBA #25785), a former Clark County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, served as the legal architect of the complaint campaign. His documented statements to law enforcement contain material contradictions, and his conduct raises questions under the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.
"Providing forms" and "assisting with preparation" are materially different admissions. Bunda confirmed in a recorded interview that Harvey "worked on it together" with her. Det. Alie concluded: "The language, content, and format of the declarations was appearing to be Alan Harvey's work product and not individualized witness statements." Harvey's initial minimization of his role was directly contradicted by his own subsequent statement, by Bunda's recorded admission, and by the textual evidence.
Harvey told Alie he was unaware that Bunda had posted his emails publicly and unaware that the second-wave declarations contained specific language from those emails — including the Josephine Townsend comparison.
Harvey professionally represents Bunda. Bunda's EPS Advocate page — which she operates openly and discusses regularly — posted Harvey's email on September 11, 2025. The second-wave declarations, dated September 17–October 3, contain paragraphs that directly mirror Harvey's published email, including the Townsend comparison in nearly identical terms. Det. Alie documented the connection explicitly. For Harvey to be unaware of both the posting and the content duplication while actively representing Bunda strains credulity.
Sources: Harvey email (9/11/25), EPS Advocate post (9/11/25), Wave 2 declarations, Supplement 4 — Page 015, 026, 034
In an email published by Bunda on September 11, 2025, Harvey wrote: "It appears that there was an attempt to contact the felony suspect, here Evergreen School District COO Jenae Gomes, and Ms. Gomes didn't return the call. As this is a felony investigation where Ms. Gomes is a suspect involving a crime of public trust, she may have simply been exercising her Fifth (5th) Amendment right to silence."
Gomes was listed as a "subject" in VPD's Mark43 system — a generic dropdown designation Alie explicitly clarified was used simply to indicate a person a report is about, with no implication of criminal status. There was no "felony investigation" at the time of Harvey's email. Officer Bauman's report was classified as a General Information Report. As a former prosecutor, Harvey would have understood these distinctions. Characterizing a person as a "felony suspect" based on an intake report — in a public email subsequently posted to social media — goes beyond advocacy into misrepresentation of the legal process.
Sources: Harvey email (9/11/25), EPS Advocate post (9/11/25), Det. Alie clarification of Mark43 designations (Supplement 2) — Page 015–016
Harvey spent 15 years as a Clark County prosecutor, including assignments to Major Crimes and the Children's Justice Center. He has extensive experience with how police reports become prosecutable cases. He helped construct the original complaint, drafted declarations, and advised the group throughout — while the group publicly characterized the case as a confirmed investigation with pending charges.
"Mr. Harvey is a former Clark County prosecutor. It is highly likely he would recognize a report viable for actual consideration of charges at the prosecutor level and would have opportunity to explain these distinctions. He offered that the citizens offering these declarations may not understand the reporting/referral process." And: "He clearly had a significant hand in advising this group before the packet was offered, because it contained declarations he helped produce. He certainly knows the manner in which this issue was reported, including Off. Baumann's original report, was not the normal process and, as it existed before any of my follow up reports were completed, was not a sufficient investigation to be considered for charging."
Sources: Det. Alie, Supplements 3 and 4 — Page 030, 034
Harvey told Det. Alie he "professionally represents Thiemann and Bunda." He also drafted declarations for Lowman. Thiemann is the named plaintiff in the $4.5M tort claim against the district. Bunda and Lowman are named suspects or referred for charging in VPD's malicious prosecution referral. Harvey signed Thiemann's tort claim in his professional capacity as a licensed Washington attorney (WSBA #25785).
Representing both the primary complainant (Thiemann) and the individuals whose conduct the prosecutor is being asked to evaluate for potential criminal charges (Bunda, Lowman) creates a direct concurrent conflict of interest. Earlier in the investigation, Harvey characterized his assistance to Bunda as that of a "friend" — and Bunda described him as such to Alie — before he later disclosed professional representation of both Thiemann and Bunda. There is no indication written consent was obtained from all parties or that the conflict was disclosed.
Sources: Harvey to Alie (Supplements 3, 4, 5), Bunda recorded interview, Thiemann tort claim signature block
When Alie asked Bunda if Harvey was professionally representing her or just helping out as a friend, she clarified he was acting as a friend. Harvey was non-committal with Alie about whether he was representing Thiemann in the context of the police investigation specifically, while acknowledging representation on the tort claim.
Harvey subsequently told Alie he "professionally represents Thiemann and Bunda." He signed Thiemann's tort claim with his bar number. He called Alie on Thiemann's behalf rather than having Thiemann speak directly — nearly a two-hour call. The shift from "friend helping out" to professional attorney-client representation, without clear disclosure of when that transition occurred, obscures the nature of Harvey's involvement during the period when declarations were being drafted and circulated.
Sources: Bunda recorded interview (Supplement 2), Harvey calls (Supplements 3, 4, 5), Thiemann tort claim — Page 020, 030, 034, 039