The
People of the State of Washington, ex rel.,
Kenneth Wayne,
In his individual capacity, as Relator for the Washington
republic,
and in his capacity as representative of the classes described
fully herein
below,
Plaintiff
Vs.
dba: STATE OF
WASHINGTON
, and
inclusive of all political subdivisions established under
the authority of
STATE OF WASHINGTON including but not limited to:
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION; and,
WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
;
and also the following individual
actors:
GARY LOCKE
,
current member of the Washington State Bar Association, inactive,
and
Governor of Defendant “STATE OF WASHINGTON”;
JOHN G. SCHULTZ
,
Chairman of the Statute Law Committee;
DENNIS W. COOPER
,
Secretary & Code Reviser of the Statute Law Committee;
JAN ERIC PETERSON,
M. JANICE MICHELS,
Each as current members of the
Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, all as
members of the
Washington Bar Association, all as policy makers for State
of Washington;
John Ladenburg,
As the primary policy maker and
enforcer for the Office of Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney,
a current
member of The Washington State Bar Association, and member
of Washington
Prosecutors Association;
James Krider
As the primary policy maker and
enforcer of the Office of Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney,
and as a
current member of The Washington State Bar Association, and
as a member of
Washington Prosecutors Association;
Christine O’Grady Gregoire,
As fiduciary
of State of Washington’s Office of Attorney General, a supervising
authority
and policymaker over the several offices of county prosecuting
attorneys, and
as a member of the Washington State Bar Association;
Annette Sandberg,
Sgt
Kerwin #142
As
fiduciary(s) responsible for policy and procedures, training
and discipline,
and supervision of State of Washington’s Washington State
Patrol;
Trooper
Meenan #857,
Trooper
Depretto #351,
As
sworn fiduciaries charges with the duty to prevent or correct
wrongful
actions against Washington inhabitants, and having superior
knowledge of the
law,
Emerald
Towing
ABT
Towing
A-1
Towing
Each as
a licensed agent of State of Washington seizing private automobiles
without a
warrant and under color of law,
Defendant(s)
|
Cause
No.
COMPLAINT FOR:
1.
DAMAGES
FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
BY DEFENDANTS DBA: “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, as defined in the
Federal
Civil Rights Act (42 USC 1981, et seq.);
2.
DECLARATORY
RELIEF
(28 USC
2201);
3.
INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
, (28 USC
1651);
4.
RACKETEER
INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
(RICO) CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF,
(18 USC 1961, ET SEQ.);
5.
Class
Action
(
FRCP 23
(a), (b)(1)(A), (B)(1), (2) and (3));
and:
6.
NOTICE
OF REMOVAL OF
:
Cause #36751 MCR from SOUTH DISTRICT COURT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND,
Cause #YOC003263,
YOC003264, from DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
|
TO:
The
Clerk of The United States District Court for the Western District
of The State
of Washington at the City of Tacoma, and,
To
all Parities of record and their respective counsel; that
I, Kenneth Wayne, herein after referred to as Plaintiff,
declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of “The State
of
Washington” a republic established by the adoption and ratification
of the Constitution
of the State of Washington November 5, 1878 that the following is
true and
correct to the best of may knowledge understanding and beleif.
Plaintiff(s) makes the following allegations in support of
this complaint:
DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES
“Attachment ‘A’ ”,
incorporated
herein by this reference, are the definitions by which the reader
may determine
the meanings of certain words and phrases appearing herein.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,
or the writer of a specific document in pleading or process expressly
provides
otherwise, the words and phrases provided in Visiting Party’s definitions
control the meanings of such words and phrases in the pleadings and
process of
the above captioned action.
1.
The
claims made herein are asserted pursuant to the United States Constitution
(the
Monell, injunctive, claims); Civil Rights Act as codified at 42
USC 1981, et
seq. (civil rights, Monell, and injunctive, claims); Declaratory
Judgments Act
as codified at 28 USC 2201 (declaratory relief claims); The All
Writs Act as
codified at 28 USC 1651 (injunctive relief claims); The Racketeering
Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act as codified at 18 USC 1961, et seq.
(RICO
claims), and the jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant
to the United
States Constitution; 42 USC 1981, et seq.; 28 USC 1331; 28 USC 1332;
28 USC
1343.
2.
The
Plaintiff, through its duly recognized Relator, hereby expressly
grants the
above captioned court jurisdiction to exercise the judicial powers
provided for
at Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America,
AD
1787-1791, and as provided by congress under that Article III authority.
3.
The acts and /or omissions complained of occurred in
the Western District of Washington and some of those acts/omissions
occurred
within Pierce and Thurston counties, The defendant’s primary offices
are
located in Thurston county, within the Tacoma Division of the Western
District
of Washington, and therefore, venue lies in the Western District of
Washington
pursuant to 28 USC 1391, and in the Tacoma Division pursuant to Local
Rule CR
5(e).
STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF
4.
The Plaintiff is the
republic established by the People of the Territory of Washington
November 5th,
1878, and accepted into the union of the several united States of
America by
act of congress in 1889.
5.
The Plaintiff brings
this action to redress wrongs alleged to have been caused by Defendant(s)
on
behalf of the Relator and for other inhabitants protected by the
Constitutions
and laws of the United States of America and The State of Washington,
1878,
which victims Defendant(s) are alleged to have denied rights guaranteed
by said
constitutions and laws.
6.
The Relator is a natural
born inhabitant whose domicile includes but is not limited to the
geographical
area of “The State of Washington” at Pierce county, the Republic
established by the adoption and ratification of the Constitution
of the State
of Washington November 5, 1878, admitted in 1889 as the 42nd member
state of
the union of the several united States of America by the authority
of the
“Enabling Act of 1889”. The Plaintiff is, by treaty, a member of
and within the
jurisdiction of the United States of America and Relator’s domicil
is within
the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the United
States District
Court for the Western District of the State of Washington at all
times herein
alledged.
Relator has made inquiry of
several of those persons dba: State of Washington and occupying
the offices of
the ‘seat of government’ at Olympia as to the locations of the offices,
and the
identities of the officers, of the republic member of the union.
Each of the persons queried indicated that
they did not have any documentation responsive to the request for
identification of the officers of the Washington republic.
7.
The
Relator is a Inhabitant of “The State of Washington” in its original
jurisdiction of 1878 Walla Walla Constitution, a free white man
on the soil, as
defined and described in the Dred Scott case 19 Howard
60 US 393 A.D.
1856/1857.
8. That Relator is a not citizen of or resident of the Enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” or any political subdivsion thereof.
9. The Relator has the authority to bring this action in the name of The People of the State of Washington as recognized at Article(s) IX and X in Amendment ot the national constitution, and as provided at Article VIII § 17, and recognized at Article V § 1; § 9; § 16; § 24; and § 26 of the Constitution for the State of Washington established and ordained by the People of Washington and upon which their republic was admitted to the union.
STATUS OF THE DEFENDANT(s)
10. The Defendants are as follows: Those several persons dba: STATE OF WASHINGTON (aka: “State of Washington”), and all political subdivisions established under the authority of STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF PERSECUTING ATTORNEYS ; GARY LOCKE, current member of the Washington State Bar Association (inactive), and Governor of Defendant “STATE OF WASHINGTON”; JOHN G. SCHULTZ , Chairman of the Statute Law Committee; DENNIS W. COOPER, Secretary & Code Reviser of the Statute Law Committee; JAN ERIC PETERSON, current member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, a member of the Washington Bar Association, a policy maker for State of Washington; M. JANICE MICHELS, Executive Director and current member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, a member of the Washington Bar Association, a policy maker for State of Washington; John Ladenburg, a current member of The Washington State Bar Association, Prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County, a member of Washington Prosecutors Association; James Krider, current member of The Washington State Bar Association, Prosecuting Attorney for Snohomish County, and member of Washington Prosecutors Association; Annette Sandberg, fiduciary of the Office of Chief and primary policy maker and enforcer, Washington State Patrol an armed force of State of Washington; Sgt. Kerwin #142, a supervisor and policy implementer and enforcer for Washington State Patrol and as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence; Trooper Meenan #857, as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence; Trooper Depretto #351, as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence.
11. Plaintiff reserves the right to join such additional persons dba: State of Washington to this action as their identities become known to Plaintiff.
12. The Plaintiff states that t he Defendant, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and all political subdivisions established under the authority of STATE OF WASHINGTON hereinafter referred to collectively as STATE OF WASHINGTON. “State of Washington and/or State” is the dba for the “Territory of Washington” WSL 1890-90 p33 § 1. The Defendant STATE OF WASHINGTON, is operating under color of territorial law and private statute/code and a private constitution published in volume 0 of “The Revised Code of Washington”. The Defendant STATE OF WASHINGTON is a separate legal person from the republic of The State of Washington established by The Constitution of the State of Washington established ordained and ratified by election 1878 and admitted to the union in 1889 under the authority of the enabling act of 1889. RCW 82.04.200, under color of alleged defacto governmental authority as hereinafter more fully appears. The Plaintiff states that Defendant “Washington State Bar Association” (WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION) is an agency of Defendant “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” established in the year 1933 under the provisions of quasi-territorial legislation WSL 1933 c 94 § 1[RCW 2.48.010]. The Defendant “Washington State Bar Association” domicil is within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the United States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington as at all times herein alledged.
13.
The Plaintiff states that Defendant “WASHINGTON STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” is a private organization or
association doing
business within the geographical area of the republic of The State
of
Washington. The Defendant “Washington Association of Prosecuting
Attorney’s” domicil
is within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the
United
States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington
at
all times herein alledged.
14.
The Defendant(s) “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “Washington
State Bar Association”, “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY”,
are a private organization or association of the named individual
Defendant(s),
and the Defendant(s) unknown confederates, each operating under
one or more of
the collective names “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “State of Washington”,
“Washington
State Bar Association”, and “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY”, within the geographical area of the republic of “The
State of
Washington” and operating under color of territorial law and private
constitution statue/code, under color of defacto governmental authority.
The
Defendants “State of Washington”, “Washington State Bar Association”
and the
“Washington Association of Prosecution Attorneys” shall hereinafter
be
collectively or individually referred to as an “enterprise”.
15.
Each and every Defendant and their unknown
confederates, who is a natural person is named in his/her individual/personal
capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity if s/he had any
policymaking
and/or supervisory duty(s), function(s), or responsibilities with
respect to
the matters alleged herein, as members of the association of persons
doing
business as enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “State of Washington”,
“Washington State Bar Association”, and “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION
OF
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY”, within the geographical area of the republic
of “The
State of Washington”. The capacities for which each Defendant named
is more
fully set forth in the totality of the pleadings and previous sections.
All
Defendant(s) who are natural persons shall hereinafter be referred
to
collectively as Defendant(s) or as needed for clarification of individual
issues, individual Defendants will be referred to by individual
name.
16.
Reserved.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO MAKING CLAIMS FOR TORTUOUS CONDUCT OR
UNDER 42 USC §
1981 ET SEQ. AGAINST THE STATE OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
STATE HAVE
BEEN SATISFIED
17.
To the degree it may be determined applicable, Relator
declares that the statutory prerequisite, as per the Washington
Session law of
“STATE OF WASHINGTON” 1989 C 419 § 14; 1986 C 126 § 8; 1978 C 151
§ 4; 1977 ex.
S. c 144 § 3; 1963 c 159 § 4 [RCW 4.92.110] that sixty days are
to elapse after
the presentment of a claim to the risk management office has been
satisfied as
to Relator’s initial alleged damages.
18.
As the Relator is not in custody according to Spencer
v. Kemna, five justices expressed the view that a § 1983 plaintiff
who is no
longer in custody “may bring a § 1983 action establishing the
unconstitutionality of a conviction...without being bound to satisfy
a
favorable-termination requirement it would be impossible as a matter
of law for
him to satisfy.” 523 U.S. 1, 21 (1998) (Souter J., concurring).
The majority of
courts since Spencer
have
followed this reasoning. SEE: Haddad v. California, 64 F.
Supp. 2d 930,
937-38.
FACTS
COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
19.
Each and every
allegation set forth in each and every averment of this pleading
hereby is
incorporated by this reference in each and every other averment
and allegation
of this pleading, as though fully set forth therein.
20.
The
Plaintiff and its people, including but not limited to its Relator
in the
instant action, are deprived of interests protected by the constitution
and /or
laws of the United States of America, that each Defendant caused,
by the
commission or omission, or by conspiracy or RICO violation, The
Defendants
committed such deprivations while acting under color of State law.
21.
All acts
and/or omissions perpetrated by each Defendant, except any Defendant
only in
his/her official capacity, was engaged in maliciously, callously,
oppressively,
wantonly, recklessly, and deliberate indifference to the rights
allegedly
violated, despicably, and with evil motive and/or intent, in disregard
of the
rights of the Plaintiff(s), and under color of State law.
22.
Every
Defendant in both his/her individual and official capacity knowingly,
or
grossly negligently, or with deliberate indifference to the rights
allegedly
violated, caused to come into being, maintained, fostered, condoned,
approved
of, either before or after the fact, ratified, took no action to
correct, an
official policy, practice, procedure, or custom of permitting the
occurrence of
the categories of wrongs set forth in this pleading, and/or improperly,
inadequately, with deliberate indifference to the constitutionally
and/or
statutorily protected rights of the Plaintiff(s), grossly negligently,
with
reckless disregard to constitutionally protected rights, and protected
rights
under federal statute failed to properly train, to properly supervise,
to
retrain, if necessary to monitor, or to take corrective action with
respect to
police, prosecutors, attorneys, and judges with respect to the types
of
wrongful conduct alleged in this pleading, so that each one of them
is legally
responsible for all of the injuries and/or damages sustained by
the
Plaintiff(s) and its inhabitants.
23.
Decisions,
to pay for, defend, and/or to indemnify and hold harmless for, damages
for
misconduct assessed by juries against dba: “State of Washington”
officers all
make the Defendant(s) other than the police and prosecutorial Defendants
liable
for the police and prosecutorial misconduct in this case.
24.
Failures
by all Defendant(s) to prevent an association of individuals, collectively
known as “Washington State Bar Association” and “WASHINGTON STATE
ASSOCIATION
OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” from exercising authority and/or holding
office in
more than one department of Washington government, from creating
a defacto
government under color of territorial law, under the name “STATE
OF WASHINGTON”
(the dba for the “Territory of Washington”) establishing, without
authority of
the constitution established ordained and ratified by election November
5, 1878
by the people, upon which the republic of The State of Washington
admitted to
the union in 1889 as the 42nd state; false and private departments
of administration,
legislation, and judiciary “courts”, creating a private constitution
first
published in 1950 in volume 0 of the Defendant(s) Revised Code of
Washington,
administrative code, private legislation, false trials in private
courts, under
color of territorial law and perpetuating a scheme of simulating
process styled
in the name of “STATE OF WASHINGTON” the dba for “Territory of Washington”
which is contrary to the lawful process mandated by The Constitution
of The
State of Washington 1878, which is to be styled in the name and
under the
authority of “The People of the State of Washington” being based
upon false
testimony, “Testilying”, prosecutors providing testimony as an essential
witness to establish probable cause in cases where the prosecutor
is also acting
as counsel in violation of the “Rules of Professional Conduct” 3.7,
causing
false prosecutions without a finding by the grand jury of the county
as is
required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,
causing
imprisonments, concealing of evidence beneficial to the defense
in criminal
actions, and takings of property of innocent people, and of persons
not subject
to the Washington State Bar Association’s private law forums, under
color of
state law.
25.
Failures
by all Defendants to prevent an association of individuals, collectively
known
as “Washington State Bar Association” and in part “WASHINGTON STATE
ASSOCIATION
OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” through former and present members, from
taking
control of the offices of the government of the “Territory of Washington
dba
State of Washington and/or State” then perpetuating said control
to prevent the
papers records, administrative and judicial proceedings of the territory,
all
seals of the territory and of the supreme court of the territory
and all property
of the territory from passing to the jurisdiction and possession
of the
republic of The State Washington which joined the union as the 42d
state, based
upon the constitution adopted by its people November 5th
, 1878, and
submitted to Congress, as published at Senate Misc. Document #55,
and attached
to the acts which became the Enabling Act upon which Washington
joined the
union, and from using the offices of the Territory of Washington
under
color of territorial authority for the
profit and gain of the Defendant(s) and the enterprise, to deprive
the people
of republic of The State of Washington of life, liberty, and property
under
color of territorial law through simulated process of the Territory
of
Washington, falsification of records, impersonation of public officers,
false
testimony “Testilying”, and use of force and armed force, and threats
of force
and armed force to deprive the inhabitant’s of republic of The State
of
Washington from obtaining due process of law to enforce or protect
their protected
rights under the constitution and laws of the United States of America
and
access the republican form of government of the republic of The
State of
Washington.
26.
The
“Washington State Bar Association” “State of Washington” Attorney(s)
engaged in
improper conduct that went beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy
by, among
other things, improperly influencing and conspiring to improperly
influence
materially the decisions of those parties who control the legislative,
administrative, and executive office of the “Territory of Washington,
dba State
of Washington and/or State”, whether or not to indemnify “State
of Washington”
officials for damages awarded against them as Defendants in misconduct
actions,
by providing funds for the defense of such officials sued for clear
acts or
omissions in violation of clearly established law, by, among other
things,
suborning perjury, and/or obstructing discovery, and/or causing
cover-ups of
true and correct facts, and/or permitting or giving of testimony
and submission
of evidence and reports they knew, or reasonably should have known
to have been
false and/or misleading.
27.
In fact,
Washington State Bar Association member Norman Kim Maleng, also
a member of the
WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, told the Supreme
Court of
the United States that Washington prosecutors cannot “do their job”
unless they
have immunity from suit for committing perjury (Kalina vs. Fletcher).
28.
Washington
State Bar Association members Pamela Loginsky and Jeffrey Jahns,
acting for
Defendant Russell Hauge, in the name of the office of the Kitsap
County
Prosecutor, and in the name of the WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION
OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY published a series of three books entitled “FREEMEN Armageddon’s
Prophets of hate and Terror”, held seminars and conferences for
police and
prosecutorial officials, and taught then “HOW TO FIT A SQUARE PEG
IN A ROUND
HOLE” in selecting and preparing false charges to retaliate against
anyone who
brought a process to challenge the lawfulness of the dba: State
of Washington
enterprise, by conspiring with and soliciting the conspiracy of
the several
police officers and prosecutorial officials who where exposed to
the books and
training, and also solicited other executive, administrative and
legislative
officials, who were invited to participate in the afore mentioned
training and
willfully and maliciously providing intentionally false advice under
color of
‘legal advice’.
29.
Reserved.
30.
Reserved.
31.
Reserved.
32.
Reserved.
33.
In doing
the alleged unlawful acts they did, or in failing to do those things
they
legally should have done, all Defendants acted in deliberate indifference
to
Plaintiff(s)’ rights as protected by the Constitution for the United
States of
America for profit and gain for themselves and the enterprise.
34.
Failures
by all Defendants with the duty, power, and responsibility to do
so, to provide
civil government oversight of the enterprise “Territory of Washington
dba State
of Washington and/or State” and its armed forces, and follow the
requirements
of The Constitution of The State of Washington and pass all papers,
records and
administrative and judicial proceedings, seal and all property of
the
“Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” to
the
jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State of Washington
and/or
to prevent or aide in the prevention of the Washington State Bar
Association
members, past and present, who, as a continuous group, for gain
and profit for
themselves and the enterprise, have done the following enumerated
acts: taking
and maintaining control of the offices of the “Territory of Washington
dba
State of Washington and/or State” preventing all papers, records
and
administrative and judicial proceedings, seal and all property of
the
“Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” from
passing to
the jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State of
Washington;
controlling the under color of territorial law, the territorial
legislature,
administration and the courts; by controlling the legislature the
Defendant(s)
dba as the enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” established
special
privileges and immunities for themselves denied to anyone who is
not a member
of enterprise “The Washington Bar Association”; of planting evidence;
coercing
confessions; initiating and prosecuting retaliatory ‘charges”; coercing
waivers
of substantive due process rights; coercing guilty or no-contest
pleas to
‘criminal’ charges; lying in official reports; causing false records
of
conviction to be published; making illegal threats to suspects;
making illegal
threats to witnesses; making/causing false arrests; conducting illegal
searches; making illegal seizures; making false warrant applications;
using
excessive force, lying under oath, suborning perjury; lying as witnesses;
obstructing discovery of criminal conduct by persons holding official
position(s); and covering up evidence of crimes by persons holding
official
position(s); creating false “courts”, false trials, initiating action
styled as
criminal, styled in the name of the “Washington Territory aka State
of
Washington and/or State” as opposed to the constitutionally mandated
style for
process and criminal prosecutions enumerated in The Constitution
of The State
of Washington the 42 state of the union which process is to be brought
in the
name and under the authority of
“The
People of the State of Washington”, and perpetuating a scheme of
simulating
process based upon false testimony, “Testilying”, prosecutors, by
providing testimony as an essential witness to
establish probable cause in cases where the prosecutor is also acting
as
counsel in violation of the “Rules of Professional Conduct” 3.7,
causing false
prosecutions without a finding the grand jury of the county as required
by the
laws of the republic of The State of Washington; false imprisonments;
concealing evidence beneficial to the defense in criminal actions;
and takings
of property of innocent people, and of persons not subject to the
Washington
State Bar Association’s private law forums, under color of State
law;
35.
Failures
to investigate police, prosecutorial, and other officials misconduct
and /or
failure to discipline police, prosecutors, and other officials found
culpable
for misconduct, inadequate investigations and/or inadequate discipline
imposed
for police and prosecutorial misconduct, and /or a failure to investigate
police, prosecutorial, judicial, and other misconduct in this case
for the
alleged misconduct in prior cases and in this case, make all Defendants,
other
than police officers liable for the police and prosecutorial misconduct
in this
case.
36.
On January 7, 1994, a private “civil” action
styled as a criminal action, was commenced as cause number 29826,
filed in the
KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, ISSAQUAH DIVISION, and entitled CITY
OF ISSAQUAH,
Plaintiff v. LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE Defendant.
Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a lawful
warrant, without any written complaint by a victim who believed
any crime had
been committed, seized Plaintiff, imprisoned Plaintiff, and caused
Plaintiff to
involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon
a
“complaint” brought in the named of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”
signed
by an “Officer Maule”, without a finding of the grand jury of the
King county
as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,
based on a
certificate of probable cause of the prosecuting attorney, as a
necessary
witness while the prosecuting attorney was also acting as counsel
for the
enterprise STATE OF WASHINGTON contrary to the Rules of Professional
Conduct
3.7, causing false prosecution, imprisonment, wherein Defendant(s)
refused to
disclose the nature and cause of the action, or when the Defendants
claim of
jurisdiction was challenged, the Defendants refused to submit any
evidence to
the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, supporting
evidence that the court had the proper parties present to prosecute
the case,
that the court was provide subject matter upon which the court could
base jurisdiction
or that the court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties
by due
process of law.
Instead of disclosing
the nature and cause of the action the several members of the Washington
State
Bar Association who operated the ‘court’ caused repeated attacks
and
imprisonments of Relator while complaining that Relator’s efforts
to obtain due
process were “obstructing” the court’s ability to bring Relator
to trial
without disclosure of the nature and cause.
Washington State Bar Association “Judge” member Carol McRae recessed
the
court, approached Relator in the courtroom in her street clothes
(no judicial
robe) and threatened Relator with further retaliatory action if
Relator did not
‘co-operate’ in the Washington State Bar Association controlled
process.
37.
On or
about May 5th, 1999, another private “civil” action styled
as a
criminal action, was commenced and conducted by Washington State
Bar
Association members as cause number(s) CA12701FW and CA12702FW,
filed in the
KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, FEDERAL WAY DIVISION, and entitled STATE
OF
WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE Defendant.
Based upon the above described action,
Defendant(s) without a warrant, without any complaint by a victim
upon which to
believe any crime had been committed, seized Relator, imprisoned
Relator, and
caused Relator to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding”
based upon an a “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET” brought in the
name of the
enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, without a finding of the grand
jury of King
county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,
causing false prosecutions, imprisonments, wherein Defendant(s)
refused to
disclose the nature and cause of the action, and further when the
Defendants
claim of jurisdiction was challenged the Defendants refused to submit
any
evidence to the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction,
supporting evidence that the court had the proper parties present
to prosecute
the case, that the court was provided subject matter upon which
to base the
courts jurisdiction or that the court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction
over
the parties by due process of law.
Instead of providing proof of jurisdiction, STATE OF WASHINGTON
retaliated
against Relator by declaring a ‘failure to appear’ when Relator
was present,
and cause the imprisonment of Relator in its stated intent to compel
Relator to
confess to the identity of its named defendant, and to involuntarily
represent
such named defendant in an action for which it refused to disclose
the nature
and cause.
38.
On or
about May 28th, 2000, STATE OF WASHINGTON armed forces,
Defendants
Sgt. Kerwin #142, Trooper Depretto #351, and Trooper Meenan #857
seized the
Relator, acting under State of Washington license and in concert
with the
Defendants named in this paragraph Defendant Emerald Towing seized
the
automobile Relator was traveling in and demanded payment for its
release,
Defendants took several pieces of private property belonging to
Relator and
other persons, transported Relator to a facility called PIERCE COUNTY
JAIL and
demand $10,000.00 for the release of Relator.
Four days later STATE OF WASHINGTON released Relator without
charges.
At no time did any officer or
agent of STATE OF WASHINGTON identify any lawful authority for the
seizures.
Relator initiated
administrative action to recover damages and to provide STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Notice of its officers and agents wrongful conduct.
39.
Several
days later, on or about June 5, 2000 having failed to produce any
evidence of
authority for the prior seizure of Relator, Defendants Trooper Depretto
#351,
Trooper Meenan #857, and Sgt. Kerwin #142, again attacked and imprisoned
Relator, Defendant ABT Towing seized the automobile Relator traveled
in, and
seizing private property belonging to Relator and other parties,
Defendant
Depretto indicating that STATE OF WASHINGTON officers do not have
to prove any
authority to restrain Relator’s liberty because “we have the guns
and the
courts” and indicating that unless and until Relator proved in a
court that
STATE OF WASHINGTON and Depretto did not have authority to attack
and restrain
Relator’s liberties, the Depretto would consider Relator to be guilty
of a
‘crime’ any time Relator traveled on Washington roadways and attack
and
imprison Relator and seize any automobile in which Relator traveled.
40.
On or
about June 6th a private “civil” action styled as a criminal action,
was
commenced as cause number(s) YO0370712, YOC002193, YOC002195, filed
in the
DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, and entitled STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff v. KENNETH WAYNE LEAMING, Defendant.
Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a summons,
without any complaint by a victim upon which to believe any crime
had been
committed, served Relator a “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET” and
“complaint”,
warning Relator of intent to issue warrant of arrest of the Relator
for failure
to comply with the ‘process’, and caused Relator to involuntarily
participate
in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon a “complaint” brought
in the name of
the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” signed in the name of Defendant
John
Ladenburg, without a finding of the grand jury of Pierce county
as required by
the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,
solely based on a certificate of probable cause written by a
deputy prosecuting attorney acting in the capacity of John Ladenburg,
as a
necessary witness while Defendant John Ladenburg was also acting
as counsel for
the enterprise STATE OF WASHINGTON, contrary to the Rules of Professional
Conduct 3.7. The actions of the Defendant(s)
is causing a false prosecution, threat of imprisonment, wherein
Defendant(s), upon demand for disclosure of the nature and cause
of the action,
and submission of an offer of proof that the “Plaintiff” in that
action is not
the Washington republic, refused to disclose the nature and cause
of the
Defendant(s) action, or when the Defendant(s)’ claim of jurisdiction
was
challenged the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the
record of the
court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, evidence that the court
had the
proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was
provide
subject matter upon which to base the courts jurisdiction, or that
the court
lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of
law, causing
Relator to be falsely summoned, unlawfully prosecuted, and threatened
with
impending imprisonment, as a result of the above described bad conduct.
41.
On or
about October 19, 2000 having failed to produce any evidence of
authority for
the prior seizure of Relator, Defendants Trooper Depretto #351,
Trooper Meenan
#857, and Sgt. Kerwin #142, again attacked and imprisoned Relator,
Defendant
A-1 Towing seized the automobile Relator traveled in, and seizing
private
property belonging to Relator and other parties, Defendant Depretto
again
indicating that STATE OF WASHINGTON officers do not have to prove
any authority
to restrain Relator’s liberty and indicating that unless and until
Relator
proved in a court that STATE OF WASHINGTON did not have authority
to attack and
restrain Relator’s liberties, the Defendants would consider Relator
to be
guilty of a ‘crime’ any time Relator traveled on Washington roadways
and attack
and imprison Relator and seize any automobile in which Relator traveled.
42.
On or
about October 20, 2000 a private “civil” action styled as a criminal
action,
was commenced as cause number(s) YOC003263 and YOC003264, filed
in the DISTRICT
COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, and entitled STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff v.
KENNETH WAYNE LEAMING, Defendant.
Based
upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a summons,
without any
complaint by a victim upon which to believe any crime had been committed,
served Relator a “complaint”, warning Relator of intent to issue
warrant of
arrest of the Relator for failure to comply with the ‘process’,
and caused
Relator to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding”
based upon
a “complaint” brought in the name of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”
signed in the name of Defendant John Ladenburg, without a finding
of the grand
jury of Pierce county as required by the laws of the republic of
The State of
Washington,
solely based on a
certificate of probable cause written by a deputy prosecuting attorney
acting
in the capacity of John Ladenburg, as a necessary witness while
Defendant John
Ladenburg was also acting as counsel for the enterprise STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7. The actions of
the
Defendant(s) is causing a false prosecution, threat of imprisonment,
wherein
Defendant(s), upon demand for disclosure of the nature and cause
of the action,
and reference to the prior offer of proof that the “Plaintiff” in
that action
is not the Washington republic, refused to disclose the nature and
cause of the
Defendant(s) action, or when the Defendant(s)’ claim of jurisdiction
was
challenged the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the
record of the
court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, evidence that the court
had the
proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was
provide
subject matter upon which to base the courts jurisdiction, or that
the court
lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of
law, causing
Relator to be falsely summoned, unlawfully prosecuted, and threatened
with
impending imprisonment, as a result of the above described bad conduct.
43.
The
effect of the Washington State Bar Association’s activities in taking
over the
offices of the Territory of Washington dba: State of Washington,
and having
passed its enterprise off as if it were the Washington member of
the national
union has resulted in the corruption of the courts of the United
States of
America mistakenly relying on Washington State Bar Association’s
private laws
adopted under color of Territory of Washington dba: State of Washington
session
laws and “RCW” as if it were the law of the Washington republic,
and causing
the courts of the United States of America to deprive the inhabitants
of
Washington of due process of law under color of state law, and specifically
denying the inhabitants and their entities access to the courts
without first
obtaining “counsel” from the organized racketeering enterprise Washington
State
Bar Association, and manipulating and controlling litigation by
assuring that
Washington State Bar Association represents both sides of nearly
all litigation
in the district court and appellate courts of the United States
of America, and
may have exerted an influence on the judicial offices of the court.
44.
Reserved.
45.
Reserved.
46.
Reserved.
47.
All
Defendant(s) whose names are set forth in the caption hereinabove,
participated
and engaged in the same type of unlawful and unconstitutional conduct
as set
forth in the averments above, acting as a criminal enterprise and
conspiracy
from at least 1990 to the date of the filing of the complaint in
this action,
and did so in at least the following named and numbered cases: STATE
OF
WASHINGTON VS LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE, SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOUTH DISTRICT
COURT,
CAUSE #36751C MCX; CITY OF ISSAQUAH VS LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE, KING
COUNTY
DISTRICT COURT, ISSAQUAH DIVISION, CAUSE #29826; STATE OF WASHINGTON
VS KENNETH
WAYNE LEAMING, PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, CAUSE #YOO370712,
YOC002193, YOC002195, YOC003263,YOC003264; STATE OF WASHINGTON VS
SHAWN JAMES
FITZPATRICK, SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR PIERCE COUNTY,
CAUSE
#00-1-04060-3, 99-1-04379-2, 00-1-03845-5, and PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT
NUMBER ONE, CAUSE #YOC010475, 980232966, 980232966, 980251187; STATE
OF WASHINGTON
VS McGREGOR, CYNTHIA, PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, CAUSE
#YOC000875; RESERVED; hereto, and in other cases not yet
known to
Plaintiff.
(Plaintiff
against all defendants, 42 USC 1981, et. Seq.)
48.
Plaintiff
re-alleges specifically all allegations set forth hereinabove, and
by virtue
thereof, all defendants are liable to Plaintiff’s inhabitants and
specifically
Relator for damages pursuant to law as codified at 42 USC § 1981
et seq. for
violations of Plaintiff’s inhabitant’s rights protected by Article
§
4, and Article XIV and Articles IV, V, and
VI in amendment to, the Constitution of the United States of America.
(Plaintiff
against all defendants for conspiracy, 42 USC 1981, et. Seq.)
49.
Plaintiff
re-alleges specifically all allegations set forth hereinabove, and
by virtue
thereof, all defendants are liable to Plaintiff’s inhabitants, and
specifically
Relator for conspiracy identified in 42 USC 1985, to violate Plaintiff’s
rights
protected by Article IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XIV, in amendment to
the
Constitution of the United States of America as provided at 42 USC
1986.
The conspiracy consisted of the Defendant(s)
dba as the enterprise: Washington State Bar Association, WASHINGTON
STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, State of Washington, agreeing
to do,
understanding that they would do, and doing the underlying unlawful
acts
specifically alleged in this action to Plaintiff’s inhabitants,
and of all
defendants understanding and agreeing to do all the things alleged
against them
in this complaint, or some such act, in this case and in other cases
so far
identified, and in other cases not yet identified.
50.
The
wrongful conduct of the police and prosecutorial defendants, and
others in this
case, could not have occurred without either the participation of
the
non-police and non-prosecutorial defendants or their willful blindness
or their
deliberate indifference. The Defendant(s) are liable to the Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator for damages as provided in
42 USC 1983.
(Plaintiff
against all defendants, 42 USC 1981, et. Seq.)
51.
All
defendants are liable to Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically
Relator
because they had and have and foster, a policy, practice, procedure
and custom
of violations of the liberties protected at Articles XIV, IV, V,
VIII and VI in
amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America,
including but
not limited to the unlawful conduct in this case, and of planting
evidence,
coercing confessions, coercing guilty pleas to ‘criminal’ charges,
lying in
official reports, causing false convictions, making illegal threats
to
suspects, making illegal threats to witnesses, making false arrests,
conducting
illegal searches, making illegal seizures, making false warrant
applications,
using excessive force, lying under oath, suborning perjury, lying
as witnesses,
obstructing discovery of “official” criminal activity, covering
up “official”
criminal activity, concealing evidence beneficial to the defense
in actions
styled as a criminal action, participating in a ‘code of silence’,
and agreeing
and conspiring to do these things in this case and the other cases
listed
herein.
52. All the alleged acts of the Defendant(s) causes a custom of violations of rights protected by Articles XIV, IV, V, VIII and VI in amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America by and among the members of the Washington State Bar Association and those persons dba: State of Washington.
(Plaintiff
against all defendants, 42 USC 1981, et. Seq.)
53.
Defendants
are liable because they have a policy and custom of improperly indemnifying,
and conspiring to indemnify, police and prosecutorial defendants,
and other
members of the Washington State Bar Association and persons dba:
State of
Washington, for damages assessed against them for misconduct by
juries or by
settlement, and that policy is a moving force that caused, and causes,
continuing and repeated violations of Plaintiff’s inhabitants and
specifically
Relator protected rights as provided at Articles XIV, IV, V, and
VI of the
Constitution for the United States of America.
54.
style='font-family:Tahoma'>
With respect to these defendants, in addition to all
of the allegations against them set forth hereinabove, it is alleged
as
follows:
55.
Defendant
Washington State Bar Association, acting through its members as
Prosecuting
Attorneys and Attorney General, and the other attorneys in those
offices and
legislative and executive offices agreed and understood among themselves,
to
subvert the provisions of Territory of Washington “law”, WSL 1921
c 79 § 2 [RCW
4.92.070, et, seq.] (and similar codes for county and municipal
officials) by
seeing to it that police and prosecutorial officials are always
indemnified for
violations of rights as alleged hereinabove, and that defense counsel
and any agreed
or adjudged damages are paid for by the enterprises Washington State
Bar
Association and /or dba: State of Washington, through its Risk Management
office(s).
The result of the conspiracy
to prevent police and prosecutorial officials from accountability
and/or
liability for unlawful and unconstitutional activities encouraged
violations of
constitutionally protected rights and is evidence of a policy and
custom of
ratifying and condoning the specific types of overt acts contrary
to the
constitution.
The police and
prosecutorial officials felt that, no matter how badly and how frequently
they
violated and violate the Constitution for the United States of America,
they
would be and will be immunized from any civil or criminal penalties.
The communications through which the
Washington State Bar Association members and those legislative and
executive
officials who conspired to effect this organized effort to perpetuate
constitutional violations does not constitute the giving or receiving
of legal
advice.
56.
Specifically,
Defendants have a policy and custom of organizing, promoting, and
adopting
private session laws, which has been witnessed by Relator, knowing
such session
laws to be contrary to the constitution, yet ‘advising’ the legislators
that
they have no duty to prevent the adoption of unconstitutional laws,
instead
they are ‘advised’ by attorney lobbyists that ‘since the law is
presumed
constitutional if you pass it, it is up to a court of record to
overturn it,
and if someone knows how to get an unconstitutional law overturned
that one
case can be dismissed for other reasons by the trial court so that
a court of
record which has the authority to declare it unconstitutional will
not have an
opportunity to rule on it”.
57.
Reserved.
58.
Reserved.
59.
Reserved.
60.
Reserved.
61.
By
fostering an environment where police and prosecutorial officials
could feel
safe in committing constitutional violations, the enterprise Washington
State
Bar Association could create under color of territorial law, a comprehensive
system of simulated courts to which they could “summons” the people
who inhabit
the republic of The State of Washington, the members of the enterprise
Washington State Bar Association, receive profit, gain, and enrichment
from
prosecuting the case (prosecutor members of WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION),
profit gain and enrichment from judging the case (judge members
of WASHINGTON
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION), and profit, gain, and enrichment from defending
the
case (defense attorney member of WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION),
and
prohibit and deny in the Washington State Bar Association territorial
“courts”
any person from having counsel who was not receiving profit, gain,
and
enrichment from the perpetuation of the territorial “courts” under
color of
territorial law, and providing profit, gain, and enrichment to the
executive,
legislative, and judicial officials from the fines imposed, a portion
of which
is used to directly fund the judge’s, and other officials, retirement
funds.
62.
Defendant’s
process in the territorial “courts” are clearly not the process
of the
government established by the people of Washington November 5
th,
1878, as that constitution expressly provides:
Constitution of the State of Washington 1878 Article
VIII § 17 to wit:
The style of all
writs and process shall be “The people of the State of Washington”.
All criminal prosecutions shall be carried
on in the name and by the authority of the state.
63.
Based
upon the fact that Defendant(s) will not issue process in the name
provided for
in their published, Volume 0, RCW Constitution, Plaintiff alleges
that
Defendant(s) have knowledge that the Volume 0, RCW, Constitution
is not a
lawful constitution for the Washington republic member of the union,
and the
lawful government of the People of the State of Washington, as the
Volume 0,
RCW Constitution provides:
Constitution
of the State of Washington published in volume 0 of the RCW Article
IV § 27, to
wit:
The Style of all process shall be, “The State of
Washington,” and all prosecutions shall conducted on its name and
by it
authority.
64.
Plaintiff
alleges that if defendants were truly misled by the publication
of the Volume
0, RCW, Constitution, they would have styled their process exactly
as provided
in that “constitution”. By not styling the process in the exact
form required,
defendants, if the issue was raised on a case by case basis, claim
a simple
clerical error defect as it relates to the Constitution for the
State of
Washington as approved by the People November 5th, 1878,
where if
they used the exact process as provided in the Volume 0, RCW, constitution,
they would be culpable as having actually joined the conspiracy
to publish and
perpetuate the wrong constitution in the books published and represented
to the
People of Washington as the laws for the Washington republic.
65.
Plaintiff
alleges Defendant(s) dba as the enterprise “Washington State Bar
Association”
and the Territory of “Washington dba State of Washington and/or
State” through
its current and past members, have conspired as early December of
1889, during
the 1889-90 legislative session of the “Territory of Washington”
declaration of an emergency, to establish “State of Washington or
State” as a
dba for “Territory of Washington”
WSL 1890-90 p33 § 1,
to establish by a legislative act of the
Territorial Congress, a corporation having the name Supreme Court
of
Washington,
the process of this corporate “supreme court” is to run in
the name “State of Washington” WSL 1889-90 p.323 § 11.
66.
enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” and
the “Territory of “Washington dba State of Washington and/or State”
through its current and past members, conspired to take control
of the offices
of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State”
to prevent
other property
pertaining to the “Territory of “Washington dba State of Washington
and/or
State” to the jurisdiction of the republic of The State of Washington
established by The Constitution of the State of Washington established,
ordained and ratified by election by the people of the Territory
of Washington,
November 5, 1878, which said constitution was submitted to the Congress
of the
United States January 28, 1889, upon which the republic of The State
of
Washington was admitted as the 42 state of the union under the authority
of
“The Enabling Act of 1889”.
67.
enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” and
the “Territory of “Washington dba State of Washington and/or State”
through its current and past members, conspired to under color of
the
legislative authority of the territorial congress of 1933, to establish
the
Defendants for
profit and gain for themselves and the enterprise, special and exclusive
privileges and immunities which are denied to the Plaintiff’s inhabitants
and
specifically to Relator.
68.
enterprise “Washington State bar Association” and
the “Territory of “Washington dba State of Washington and/or State”
through its current and past members, conspired under color of the
legislative
authority of the territorial congress, and the judicial authority
of the
congress, the office of the territorial governor and the supreme
court of the
territory to conceal the Defendant(s) conspiracy, for the profit
and gain of
the Defendant(s) and the enterprise
“Washington State Bar Association”
and
the “Territory of Washington dba
State of Washington and/or State”.
69.
Plaintiff
alleges Defendant(s) dba as the enterprise “Washington State Bar
Association”
and the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or
State” through
is current and past members, have conspired to deprive Plaintiff,
and every
inhabitant of the Washington republic, access to the republican
form of
government guaranteed at Article IV § 4 of the national Constitution:
Constitution of the United States of America
Article 4 § 4 provides to wit:
The
United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican
form of
government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and
on application
of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot
be
convened) against domestic violence.
(Declaratory
Relief Against all defendants, 28 USC 2201)
70.
Pursuant
to the law as codified at 28 USC 2201, Plaintiff is entitled to
declaratory
relief that:
a)
There is
a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of Article IV § 4
of the national
constitution by those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association”
and “State of Washington and/or State” by controlling the offices
“Territory of Washington” dba “State of Washington;
b)
There is
a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of Articles XIV, IV,
V, VIII and
VI in amendment to the national constitution by those several persons
dba:
“Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington and/or
controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington, specifically
the
corporate supreme court;
c)
That
those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and
“State of
Washington and/or State” are controlling the offices of the “Territory
of
Washington” for profit and gain for themselves and the enterprise
State Bar Association” and “State of Washington and/or State”.
d)
That those several persons dba: “Washington
State Bar Association” and “State of Washington and/or State” by
the offices of the “Territory of Washington” are preventing the
papers, records
and proceedings of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or
State” from being passed to the jurisdiction and possession of the
government of
the republic of The State of Washington the 42nd member of the union
of the
several united States of America;
e)
That
those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and
“Territory of
Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” are controlling
the offices of
the “Territory of Washington”, and as such have no standing to bring
against an inhabitant of the republic of The State of Washington,
or of the
United States of America;
f)
That
those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and
“Territory of
Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” are controlling
the offices of
the “Territory of Washington” are not the government of the “Territory
Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” or the republic
of The State
of Washington, and as such any arrest, prosecution, conviction,
or other
appearance of process created thereby is void ab initio, and has
no validity in
fact or law;
g)
That
those several persons dba:
“Washington
Washington
and/or State” are controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”
have
conspired for profit and gain for themselves and the enterprises
“Washington
State Bar Association” and “Territory of Washington dba State of
Washington
and/or State” to create, under color of territorial law, a false
constitution,
legislature, administration, administrative and judicial process,
false courts,
and use criminal acts including, but not limited to, murder, intimidation,
extortion,
perjury, falsification, burglary, car-jacking, kidnapping, robbery,
riot,
assault, battery, impersonation of public officers, falsification
of “official”
records, and simulating process, under color of law for the profit,
gain, and
enrichment of the several members of the conspiracy, and agreeing
and
conspiring to do these things.
(Injunctive
Relief Against all defendants, 28 USC 1651)
71.
Pursuant
to the law as codified at 28 USC 1651, “The All Writs Act,” and
pursuant to the
court’s duty in law as codified at 42 USC 1986, Plaintiff is entitled
to, and
hereby requests, an injunction against all defendants enjoining
them from
engaging in the wrongful conduct enumerated hereinabove, because
it is alleged,
for the specific purpose of this count that:
72.
Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator who are also protected by the
Constitution
of the United States of America, are suffering ongoing, pervasive,
and
irreparable harm in the form of ongoing violations of Articles XIV,
IV, V, and
VI in amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and are at
risk for continued violations, as a result of the illegal customs
hereinabove
alleged, and there is a likelihood of substantial and immediate,
irreparable
injuries, which will be caused by intentional and/or willfully blind
and/or
deliberately indifferent conduct of defendants, through a pervasive
pattern of
misconduct as alleged herein, which flows from a custom or plan
as alleged
herein, all authorized, ordered, condoned, tolerated, acquiesced
in, approved
of, and ratified by defendants;
73.
There is
a direct link between the non-WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
non-WASHINGTON
STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Defendant’s conduct and
the
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION customs and practices, and the
injuries
suffered and continued to be suffered by Plaintiff’s inhabitants
and
specifically Relator, and others.
74.
The
incidents alleged hereinabove are of a kind chronically and continually
perpetrated by a very large group of WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
and
WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY who are not
describable as
“rogue” actors, but who exemplify the Washington State Bar Association,
WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, and those
persons dba: State
of Washington and its/their pattern and practice of constitutional
violations,
and such injustices and constitutional violations have been visited
on nearly
every inhabitant of Washington at one time or another, and upon
many
inhabitants numerous times;
75.
Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator have been and are the victims
of
misconduct by police and prosecutorial officials dba: State of Washington,
acting under the direction and control of the enterprise Washington
State Bar
Association and the enterprise WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, who continue to visit these violations upon Plaintiff’s
inhabitants
and specifically Relator;
76.
There
have been repeated instances over many, many, years of the sort
of conduct
alleged herein, and the enterprise Washington State Bar Association
and the
enterprise WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
who are in
charge of those persons dba: State of Washington have remained willfully
blind
to such instances, and tacitly or overtly condoned those instances;
77.
There are
continuing and present danger of the affects and effects of the
acts of the
enterprise Washington State Bar Association and the enterprise WASHINGTON
STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY activities, and they cause future
threatened injuries to be real and immediate;
78.
Plaintiff
alleges that defendants have and will continue to falsely and maliciously
prosecute Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator, who
attempt to
exercise constitutionally protected liberties, for acts which are
expressly
recognized by law as lawful activities;
79.
The
misconduct alleged is purposeful, and such misconduct is and has
been ordered,
authorized, approved of, acquiesced in, ratified, condoned, and
tacitly and
overtly trained by Washington State Bar Association and WASHINGTON
STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY as policy makers, supervisors,
and
oversight authorities of those police and prosecutorial officials
dba: State of
Washington;
80.
There is
a real and immediate threat of serious injury or death which presents
a
justifiable controversy;
81.
Therefore
injunctive relief is sought to prevent defendants from engaging
in the conduct
enumerated in the averments above, and specifically in the following
conduct:
a)
That
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” enjoining the Defendant(s) from
initiating
or proceeding with any prosecution styled as criminal or civil against
any
inhabitant or entity, which is brought in the name and under the
The Territory of Washington dba STATE OF WASHINGTON under the color
of
territorial law.
b)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” that the Defendants, without delay
pass all
papers, records and proceedings, seal, and all property currently
in the
jurisdiction and possession of the enterprise “State of Washington”
jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State of Washington.
c)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” preventing the Defendant(s)
from initiating
any prosecution styled as criminal against any inhabitant for any
jailable offense
without bringing the action in the name “The People of the State
as required by The Constitution of the State of Washington as established
ordained and ratified by election November 5, 1878, and without
first obtaining
an indictment or presentment (information) of a grand jury;
d)
That the
courts issue a “Writ of Prohibition” prohibiting the Defendant(s)
from
enforcement of any provision of the “State Bar Act”.
e)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to train
or provide
training, to properly instruct/train police and prosecutorial officials
regarding lawful constitutional due process and procedure, to establish
procedure to prevent or aide in the prevention of constitutional
which may adversely effect any inhabitant;
f)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to initiate
a
complete a thorough and public investigation into every allegation
of
constitutional wrongs by police, prosecutorial, and other officials,
sustainable, impose appropriate corrective or sanction action, including
but
not limited to termination and /or prosecution;
g) That the court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to providing legal defense services and/or Payment of damages claims for damages claims for constitutional wrongs brought by inhabitants;
h)
That the
court issue an “Injunction” enjoining the Defendant(s) from continuing
to
prosecute any “State Court” action in which the nature and cause
or
jurisdiction is questioned, and the “State Court” and/or the counsel
State of Washington as plaintiff in such action, fails to respond
to any and
all inquiries for proof that the action was brought in a court lawfully
established under the authority of The Constitution of State of
Washington
1878, proof of nature and cause or jurisdiction, and provide such
proof to the
record;
i)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” to the Defendants directing the
Defendant(s)
discharge from any restraint of liberty of any inhabitant who is
imprisoned or
otherwise restrained in his/her liberty based upon a “conviction”
the name or authority of “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State” and under color of territorial law, where the record
does not
show proof of lawful constitutional due process including but not
limited to,
that the charging instrument was brought in the name “The People
of the State
of Washington”, that the action was brought in a court constitutionally
established under the authority of The Constitution of the State
of Washington
1878, that the indictment [or information] is found by a grand jury
of the
county of the alleged offence as required by the state and national
laws and
constitutions, that the charging instrument purports that there
was a violation
of public law not violation of private code ie: RCW or territorial
law.
j)
Reserved.
k)
Reserved.
l)
Reserved.
COUNT SEVEN
(Against
all Defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18
USC 1961, et. Seq.)
82.
The
Washington State Bar Association, WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, State of Washington, are enterprises within the meaning
of the law as
codified at 18 USC 1961(4).
83.
The
activities of the enterprise Washington State Bar Association, affect
interstate commerce.
84.
The
activities of the enterprise WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, affect interstate commerce.
85.
The
activities of the enterprise State of Washington affect interstate
commerce.
86.
The
activities of the several Defendant(s) and their unknown confederates
dba: the
enterprises State of Washington, Washington State Bar Association,
WASHINGTON
STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY affect interstate commerce.
87.
Defendants
acquired and/or maintained control over said enterprises through
a pattern of
racketeering activities, as set forth hereinabove, contrary to the
law as
codified at 18 USC 1962(b).
88.
Defendants,
being associated with said enterprises, conducted and/or participated
in said
enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities,
contrary to
the law as codified at 18 USC 1962(c).
89.
The
pattern of racketeering activities included a continuous pattern
and practice
involving all of the activities set forth hereinabove, and involved
murder,
intimidation, extortion, perjury, falsification, burglary, car-jacking,
kidnapping, robbery, riot, assault, and battery, all chargeable
under state,
territorial, and/or federal law as felonies punishable by more than
one year in
prison, in that Defendants repeatedly committed assault and extortionate
conduct against Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator,
and the
inhabitants subjected to prosecution in the cases specifically identified
hereinabove, and as may be identified submitted to the record as
discovered in
the future, as police officer defendants made false arrests, and
prosecutorial
defendants filed false charges against Plaintiff’s inhabitants and
specifically
Relator and the inhabitants so identified, in some cases used grossly
excessive
force against such inhabitants, planted and/or fabricated evidence
against
Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator and said inhabitants
and
subjected them to extortion.
90.
The
pattern and practice of racketeering activities also include numerous
acts of
tampering with witnesses, and victims, as recognized at 18 USC 1512,
and
retaliating against witnesses as recognized at 18 USC 1513.
91.
Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator, were injured in their businesses
and/or
property by reason of the conduct set forth.
92.
Among
other forms of injury, Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically
Relator lost
employment and business/contract opportunities, wages and other
considerations
and benefits associated with such employment and/or business/contract
opportunities, in that Plaintiff and other inhabitants were unable
to pursue or
perform such employment or business/contract activities while defending
themselves against unjust charges and/or while unjustly imprisoned.
93.
Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator have suffered a material diminishment
of
their employment and /or business/contract prospects by virtue of
the unjust
and unconstitutional convictions they have sustained.
94.
Defendants
unlawfully have engaged in the racketeering activities set forth
in the
preceding averments and, on information and belief, on more than
1,000,000
occasions during the past 10 years, through a pattern of racketeering
activity
and have acquired directly or indirectly control of the named enterprises,
offices of the seat of government for the Territory of Washington
dba State of
Washington and/or State, and to some degree even the courts of the
United
States of America, and the United States government.
95.
The
Defendant(s) have routinely misled the supreme, circuit and district
courts of
the United States of America specifically the district court for
the District
of The State of Washington, and the United States government into
accepting the
activities and private “laws” of the Defendant(s) as acts of a lawful
the union, which have engaged in and affected interstate commerce.
96. The Defendant(s) did conspire for the profit and gain for the Defendant(s) and the enterprise, to secured and/or misappropriated federal funds under the pretence that the Defendant(s) where acting in the name and under the authority of the republic of “The State of Washington”.
97.
Defendants
and those unknown persons, who either are employed by /under, or
are associated
with those racketeering enterprises, have conducted those enterprises
through a
pattern of racketeering activities, as set forth herein-above.
COUNT EIGHT
(Against
all Defendants for conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 USC 1962(d), et. Seq.)
98.
Defendants
unlawfully have conspired, as set forth herein-above, to violate
the law as codified
at 18 USC 1962(b), (c), (d).
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
100.
Plaintiff’s
inhabitants are a member, and Relator is a duly representative member
of the
class of persons whose members have been harmed by the specific
actions as set
forth hereinabove, to wit; being set up on false “criminal charges”,
simulating process, planting or fabrication of evidence, intimidation
into
“plea Bargains” etc., by those persons dba: State of Washington,
Washington
State Bar Association, and WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, and who are or will be prosecuted by Defendants on false
process,
planted or fabricated evidence, and without due process of law,
and who will be
violated on paroles, probations, and subject to excessive sentences
based upon
the planted or fabricated evidence and false records of unlawful
convictions.
101.
The
membership of this class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is
impracticable, and also, because only defendants know the names
of many of the
class’ members, and are the only persons who have information sufficient
identify the members of the class, it is impracticable, or impossible
at this
time, to join each of the members of the victim class.
102.
There are
common questions of fact and of law with respect to the classes.
104.
The
Plaintiff(s) representative will fairly represent and adequately
protect the
interests of all class members, and will do so vigorously and zealously.
105.
Prosecution
of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk
of
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to class members,
which
would establish incompatible standards for parties opposing the
classes, and
defendants have acted and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable
to
the class and its members, and class questions predominate with
respect to the
class.
106.
Therefore,
these actions are maintainable under FRCP 23(a), (b)(1)(A), (B)(1),
(2) and
(3), inter alea.
107.
It is
impracticable to measure the size of the class, but it is guessed
to be
approximately 5,000,000 persons.
108.
That based on the forgoing allegations, the Plaintiff claims
that the Defendant(s) did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, for
profit,
gain, enrichment for themselves and the aforementioned enterprises
“STATE OF
WASHINGTON, “Washington State Bar Association” and “Association
of Washington
Prosecuting Attorneys”, in committing the aforementioned
conspiracy to commit statute violations, procedural violations,
constitutional
violations, rights violation, etc., in “Counts One, Two, Three,
Four, Five,
Six, Seven and Eight” worked on Plaintiff and the class members
by the
Defendant(s) in violation of the Federal RICO statute Title 18 USC
§ 1691 et
seq, resulted in the Plaintiff’s Relator and the class members being
injured by
the Defendants in the Plaintiff and the class members business and/or
property
in the amount of $250,000,000,000.00.
109.
That based on the forgoing allegations, t
he Plaintiff Claims that the Defendant(s) in
their individual respective official capacities in failing to prevent
or aide
in prevention of
the aforementioned
conspiracy as identified in 42 USC 1985, to commit statute violations,
procedural violations, constitutional violations, rights violation,
etc., in
“Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight” worked
on Plaintiff
and the class members by the Defendant(s) in violation of the Federal
RICO
statute Title 18 USC § 1691 et seq, and 42 USC § 1985(2)(3) are
individually
liable for all damages claimed by the Plaintiff for Relator and
the class
members under the provisions of 42 USC § 1986, in the amount of
$70,000,000.00,
per Defendant.
Claim 3
110.
That based on the forgoing allegations, t
he Plaintiff claims that as a direct and
proximate result the
aforementioned
conspiracy to commit statute violations, procedural violations,
constitutional
violations etc. in “Count One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
and Eight”
worked on Plaintiff and the class members by the Defendant(s) in
violation of
the federal RICO statutes which worked to unlawfully deny the Plaintiff
and the
class members under color of state law/code, custom and usage, rights
protected
by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution
of the
republic of The State of Washington, including but not limited to,
the right
to, equal protection of the law and prevented the Plaintiff and
the class
members from being able to enforce of the Plaintiffs right to due
process of
law for the protection of the Plaintiffs and the class members’
of liberty and
property, the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to claim
general
damages under 42 USC 1983 in the amount of $50,000,000.00 per Defendant.
Claim 4
112.
That
based on the forgoing allegations, the Plaintiff claims that as
a direct result
of the direct and ongoing and continued and persistent threat from
the
Defendants
conspiracy to commit statute violations, procedural
violations, constitutional violations, etc., in “Count One, Two,
Three, Four,
Five, Six,
Seven and Eight”
specifically on Plaintiff by the Defendant(s) in violation of the
federal RICO
statutes to unlawfully deny the Plaintiff under color of state law/code,
custom
and usage, rights protected by the Constitution of the United States
of America
and the Constitution of the republic of The State of Washington
the including
but not limited to, the right to, equal protection of the law and
prevented the
Plaintiff from being able to enforce of the Plaintiffs right to
due process of
law for the protection of the Plaintiffs of liberty and property,
the Plaintiff
and the class members are entitled
to
injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from engaging in the conduct
enumerated
in the averments herein, and specifically in the following conduct:
a)
That
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” enjoining the Defendant(s) from
initiating
or proceeding with any prosecution styled as criminal or civil against
any
inhabitant or entity, which is brought in the name and under the
authority of
The Territory of Washington dba STATE OF WASHINGTON under the color
of
territorial law.
b)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” that the Defendants, without delay
pass all
papers, records and
proceedings, seal,
and all property currently in the jurisdiction and possession of
the enterprise
“State of Washington” to the jurisdiction and possession of the
republic of The
State of Washington.
c)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” preventing the Defendant(s)
from initiating
any prosecution styled as criminal against of any inhabitant for
any jailable
offense without bringing the action in the name “The People of the
State of
Washington” as required by The Constitution of the State of Washington
as
established ordained and ratified by election November 5, 1878,
and without
first obtaining an indictment or presentment (information) of a
grand jury;
d)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” prohibiting the Defendant(s)
from
enforcement of any provision of the “State Bar Act”.
e)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to train
or provide
training to properly train police and prosecutorial officials regarding
lawful
constitutional due process and procedure, to establish procedure
to prevent or
aide in the prevention of constitutional violations which may adversely
effect
any inhabitant;
f)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to initiate
a
complete, thorough and public investigation into every allegation
of
constitutional wrongs by police, prosecutorial, and other officials,
and if
sustainable, impose appropriate corrective or sanction action, including
but
not limited to termination and /or prosecution;
g)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to providing
legal
defense services and/or Payment of damages claims for damages claims
for
constitutional wrongs brought by inhabitants;
h)
That the
court issue an “Injunction” enjoining the Defendant(s) from continuing
to
prosecute any “State Court” action in which the nature and cause
or
jurisdiction is questioned, and the “State Court” and/or counsel
the enterprise
State of Washington as plaintiff in such action, fails to respond
to any and
all inquiries for proof of nature and cause or jurisdiction, and
provide such
proof to the record;
i)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” to the Defendants directing the
Defendant(s)
to discharge from any restraint of liberty any inhabitant who is
imprisoned or
otherwise restrained in his/her liberty based upon a “conviction”
brought in
the name or authority of “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State” and under color of territorial law, where the record
does not
show proof of lawful constitutional due process including but not
limited to,
that the charging instrument was brought in the name “The People
of the State
of Washington”, that the action was brought in a court constitutionally
established under the authority of The Constitution of the State
of Washington
1878, that the indictment [or information] is found by a grand jury
of the
county of the alleged offence as required by the state and national
laws and
constitutions, that the charging instrument purports that there
was a violation
of public law not violation of private code i.e. RCW or territorial
law.
j)
Reserved.
k)
Reserved.
l)
Reserved.
113.
That
based on the forgoing allegations,
Plaintiff claims that as a direct
and proximate result of the
aforementioned
conspiracy to commit statute
violations, procedural violations, constitutional violations etc.
in “Count
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight” worked on Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members by the
Defendant(s)
in violation of the federal RICO statutes worked to unlawfully deny
the
Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members
under
color of state law/code, custom and usage, rights protected by the
Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the republic
of The
State of Washington, including but not limited to, the right to
equal
protection of the law and prevented the Plaintiff’s inhabitants
and
specifically Relator and the class members’ from being able to enforce
the Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members’ right
to due
process of law for the protection of the Plaintiff’s inhabitants
and
specifically Relator and the class members of liberty and property,
the
Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator, and
the class
members are entitled pursuant to the law as codified at 28 USC 2201,
to
declaratory relief that:
a)
There is a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of
Article IV § 4 of the national constitution by those several persons
dba:
“Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington and/or
State” by
controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”;
b)
There is a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of
Articles XIV, IV, V, VIII and VI in amendment to the national constitution
by
those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and
“State of
Washington and/or State” by controlling the offices of the “Territory
of
Washington, specifically the supreme court of the Territory;
c)
That those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association” and “State of Washington and/or State” are controlling
the offices
of the “Territory of Washington” for profit and gain for themselves
and the
enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington
and/or
State”;
d)
That those several
persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington
and/or
State” by controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”
are
preventing the papers, records and proceedings of the “Territory
of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” from being passed to the jurisdiction
and
possession of the government of the republic of The State of Washington
the
42nd member of the union of the several united States of America;
e)
That those several persons dba: by “Washington State Bar
Association” and “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State”
are controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”, and
as such have
no standing to bring any action against an inhabitant of the republic
of The
State of Washington, or of the United States of America;
f)
That those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association” and “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State”
are controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington” are
not the
government of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or
State” or the republic of The State of Washington, and as such any
arrest,
prosecution, conviction, or other appearance of process created
thereby is void
ab initio, and has no validity in fact or law;
g)
That those several persons dba:
“Washington State Bar Association” and “Territory of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” are controlling the offices
of the
“Territory of Washington” have conspired for profit and gain for
themselves and
the enterprises “Washington State Bar Association” and “Territory
of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” to create, under color of
territorial
law, a false constitution, legislature, administration, administrative
and
judicial process, false courts, and use criminal acts including,
but not
limited to, murder, intimidation, extortion, perjury, falsification,
burglary,
car-jacking, kidnapping, robbery, riot, assault, battery, impersonation
of
public officers, and falsification of “official” records, and simulating
process, under color of law for the profit, gain, and enrichment
of the several
members of the conspiracy, and agreeing and conspiring to do these
things.
114.
That
based on the forgoing allegations,
Plaintiff claims that as a direct
and proximate result of the
aforementioned
conspiracy to commit statute
violations, procedural violations, constitutional violations etc.
in “Count
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight” worked on Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members by the
Defendant(s)
in violation of the federal RICO statutes worked to unlawfully deny
the
Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members
under
color of state law/code, custom and usage, rights protected by the
Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the republic
of The
State of Washington including but not limited to the right to, equal
protection
of the law and prevented the Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically
Relator
and the class members from being able to enforce the Plaintiff’s
inhabitants
and specifically Relator’s right to due process of law for the protection
of
the Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class
members of
liberty and property, the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s inhabitants and
specifically
Relator and the class members are entitled pursuant to the law as
codified at
42 USC § 1988, the Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator
and the
class members are entitled to all cost of litigation including but
not limited
“attorneys fees”.
RELIEF
DEMANDED
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff based on the allegation and the statement of claims of
the Plaintiff,
Plaintiff’s inhabitants and specifically Relator and the class members,
requests relief on the Plaintiffs own behalf, oin behalf of Plaintiff’s
inhabitants and specifically Relator, on behalf of the class members,
and on
behalf of the class, as follows, and according to the proof, against
each
defendant:
Demand
for relief 1;
Based on Claim 1, Damages of $250,000,000,000.00 to
be trebled for the RICO claims against each defendant in a total
amount of
$750,000,000,000.00;
Demand
for relief 2;
Based on Claim 2, Damages for failure of each
Defendant to prevent or aide in the prevention of the wrongs alleged
in the
amount against each Defendant in the amount of $70,000,000.00;
Demand for relief 3;
Based Claim 3
General damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00;
Demand for relief 4,
Based on Claim 4, Punitive
damages against each defendant in the amount of $10,000,000.00;
Demand for relief 5;
Based on Claim 5 Injunctive
relief, as follows;
That the Defendant(s) be enjoined from
engaging in the conduct enumerated in the averments above, and specifically
in
the following conduct:
a)
That
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” enjoining the Defendant(s) from
initiating
or proceeding with any prosecution styled as criminal or civil against
any
inhabitant or entity, which is brought in the name and under the
authority of
The Territory of Washington dba STATE OF WASHINGTON under the color
of
territorial law.
b)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” that the Defendants, without delay
pass all
papers, records and
proceedings, seal,
and all property currently in the jurisdiction and possession of
the enterprise
“State of Washington” to the jurisdiction and possession of the
republic of The
State of Washington.
c)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” preventing the Defendant(s)
from initiating
any prosecution styled as criminal against any inhabitant for any
jailable
offense without bringing the action in the name “The people of the
State of
Washington” as required by The Constitution of the State of Washington
as
established ordained and ratified by election November 5, 1878,
and without
first obtaining an indictment or presentment (information) of a
grand jury;
d)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Prohibition” prohibiting the Defendant(s)
from
enforcement of any provision of the “State Bar Act”.
e)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to train
or provide
training to properly train police and prosecutorial officials regarding
lawful
constitutional due process and procedure, to establish procedure
to prevent or
aide in the prevention of constitutional violations which may adversely
effect
any inhabitant;
f)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to initiate
a
complete, thorough and public investigation into every allegation
of
constitutional wrongs by police, prosecutorial, and other officials,
and if
substitutable, impose appropriate corrective or sanction action,
including but
not limited to, termination and /or prosecution;
g)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Defendant(s) to providing
legal
defense services and/or payment of damages, claims for damages claims
for
constitutional wrongs brought by inhabitants;
h)
That the
court issue an “Injunction” enjoining the Defendant(s) from continuing
to
prosecute any “State Court” action in which the nature and cause
or
jurisdiction is questioned, and the “State Court” and/or the counsel
enterprise
State of Washington as plaintiff in such action, fails to respond
to any and
all inquiries for proof of nature and cause or jurisdiction, and
provide such
proof to the record;
i)
That the
court issue a “Writ of Mandamus” to the Defendants directing the
Defendant(s)
to discharge from any restraint of liberty of any inhabitant who
is imprisoned
or otherwise restrained in his/her liberty based upon a “conviction”
brought in
the name or authority of “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State” and under color of territorial law, where the record
does not
show proof of lawful constitutional due process including but not
limited to,
that the charging instrument was brought in the name “The People
of the State
of Washington”, that the action was brought in a court constitutionally
established under the authority of The Constitution of the State
of Washington
1878, that the indictment [or information] is found by a grand jury
of the county
of the alleged offence as required by the state and national laws
and
constitutions, that the charging instrument purports that there
was a violation
of public law not violation of private code i.e. RCW or territorial
law.
j)
Reserved.
k)
Reserved.
l)
Reserved.
Demand
for relief 6;
Based on Claim 6
Declaratory relief as follows;
That;
a)
There is a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of
Article IV § 4 of the national constitution by those several persons
dba:
“Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington and/or
State” by
controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”;
b)
There is a custom, pattern, and practice of violations of
Articles XIV, IV, V, VIII and VI in amendment to the national constitution
by
those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and
“State of
Washington and/or State” by controlling the offices of the “Territory
of
Washington, specifically the supreme court of the Territory;
c)
That those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association” and “State of Washington and/or State” are controlling
the offices
of the “Territory of Washington” for profit and gain for themselves
and the
enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington
and/or
State”;
d)
That those several
persons dba: “Washington State Bar Association” and “State of Washington
and/or
State” by controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”
are
preventing the papers, records and proceedings of the “Territory
of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” from being passed to the jurisdiction
and
possession of the government of the republic of The State of Washington
the
42nd member of the union of the several united States of America;
e)
That those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association” and “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State”
are controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington”, and
as such, have
no standing to bring any action against an inhabitant of the republic
of The
State of Washington, or of the United States;
f)
That those several persons dba: “Washington State Bar
Association” and “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or State”
are controlling the offices of the “Territory of Washington” are
not the
government of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington
and/or
State” or the republic of The State of Washington, and as such any
arrest,
prosecution, conviction, or other appearance of process created
thereby is void
ab initio, and has no validity in fact or law;
g)
That those several persons dba:
“Washington State Bar Association” and “Territory of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” are controlling the offices
of the
“Territory of Washington” have conspired for profit and gain for
themselves and
the enterprises “Washington State Bar Association” and “Territory
of Washington
dba State of Washington and/or State” to create, under color of
territorial
law, a false constitution, legislature, administration, administrative
and
judicial process, false courts, and use criminal acts including,
but not
limited to, murder, intimidation, extortion, perjury, falsification,
burglary,
car-jacking, kidnapping, robbery, riot, assault, battery, impersonation
of
public officers, and falsification of “official” records, and simulating
process, under color of law for the profit, gain, and enrichment
of the several
members of the conspiracy, and agreeing and conspiring to do the
afore alleged
acts.
Demand for relief 7;
Based on Claim 7 Costs
of suit, including but not limited to “attorneys fees”;
Demand for relief 8;
Such other relief as may be warranted or as
is just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Trial by Jury of all
issues is demanded.
Plaintiff re-alleges all allegations set forth above;
WHEREFORE:
Comes Now Relator, as an natural born inhabitant within the jurisdiction of the court grants the United States District Court the jurisdiction of the this Notice of Removal to provide the relief requested by the Plaintiff herein-above and hereby submits this “Notice of Removal” of cause number #36751 MCR from SOUTH DISTRICT COURT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND, Cause #YOC003263, YOC003264, from DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON to United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, at Tacoma. The Plaintiff submits this Notice of Petition for Removal pursuant to Law as articulated at 28 USC 1441(a)(b)(e), and 1443(1) in compliance with the requirements of 28 USC. § 1446. The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction in Law as articulated at 28 USC 1330 and/or 1331 and/or 1343(a)(3), Plaintiff removes the action filed in cause number #36751 MCR from SOUTH DISTRICT COURT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND, Cause #YOC003263, YOC003264, from DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
The
Plaintiff alleges that based upon the decisional case law, the courts
are to
look to the substance of the issue and not rely of mere form:
"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are
they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty ‑‑
indeed
they are under a solemn duty ‑ to look at the substance of
things,
whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has
transcended
the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported
to have been
enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial
relation to
those objects or is a palpable
invasion
of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of
the courts to
so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger
vs.
Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.
and...
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful
for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy
encroachments thereon" Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Supreme Court of the United States of America held that it is not relevant that the state case could have been commenced in the Courts of the United States to effect the removal of a civil or criminal action commenced in state court to the district court of the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States in
Charles Kern, Plff. In Err., v. Frederderick W. Huidekoper et al.
S.C. 13 Otto,
485-494
(Jan 31, 1881)
held to wit:
Upon the question of removal, it is entirely
immaterial whether or not the suit, as an original action, could
have been
maintained in the Federal Court.
DUTY OF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT AS PER
Potter
v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1970)
and
the following decisional case law.
The courts have
consistently held that the claims and allegations of the Plaintiff
are to be
considered true for the purposes of determining the right of removal
and if the
Defendant(s) desires to controvert the Plaintiffs claims and allegations,
the
Defendant(s) must do so in the Federal court.
“... the allegations of the removal
petition must, for the purpose of determining the right of removal,
be taken as
true by the state court, and if the plaintiff desires to make an
issue as to
their truth, he must do this, in the Federal court, which latter
alone has
jurisdiction to try such issue.
Where,
admitting the averments of fact made in the removal petition to
be true, they
make a proper case for removal, the application ipso facto works
the transfer
to the Federal court and deprives the state court of its jurisdiction
to
proceed further.
Stone v. South
Carolina, 117 U.S. 430;
Carson v.
Hyatt, 118 U.S. 279; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421; Burlington
& c. R’y
Co. v. Dunn,
122 U.S. 513; Crehore v.
O. & M.R’y Co., 131 U.S. 240; Kansas City R’y Co. v. Daughtry,
138 U.S.
298; Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. Eastin, 214 U.S. 153; Ill. Cent.
R’y Co. v.
Sheegog, 215 U.S. 308, 316. . . . it is thoroughly settled that
issues of fact
arising upon a petition for removal are to be determined in the
Federal court,
and that the state court for the purpose of determining for itself
must accept
as true the allegations of fact in such petition.
“ CHES. & OHIO RY. v. COCKRELL, 232 U.S. 146, 147,
148, 154 (January 19, 1914).
And;
“The allegations of fact in a petition for
removal must be accepted by the state court as true, because an
issue on such
allegations can be tried only in the Federal court.”
(Citing numerous cases) ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. v.
SHEEGOG, 215 U.S. 308, 309 (December 20, 1909).
In Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087 (9 th Cir. 1970) The Plaintiff has the right to a hearing on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims and allegations over which the court has jurisdiction. The court cannot determine whether the Plaintiff has properly stated a claim for which relief can be granted or whether the Plaintiff could or could not amend the Plaintiffs removal to state a claim without hearing the Parties, that is the Plaintiff and the Defendant(s). The court under the provisions of Title 28 USC § 1445(c) and 1447(a) has the authority to issue all necessary orders and process to bring before it all proper parties whether served by process or otherwise.
In Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1970) the court quoted Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir.1962) to wit:
“The claim may be, as appellees assert, entirely spurious. The complaint may well not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It may be that appellant cannot amend to state such a claim. But those are not the questions before us. The court cannot know, without hearing the parties, whether it may be possible for appellant to state a claim entitling him to relief, however strongly it may incline the belief that he cannot... The right to a hearing on the merits of the claim over which the court has jurisdiction is of the essence of our judicial system, and the judge’s feeling that the case is probably frivolous does not justify by-passing that right. Appellant is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard.”
Reversed and Remanded.
The Defendant(s) under the provisions of
Title 28 USC § 1447(c) must file a motion to remand the case on
the basis of
any defect in removal procedure within 30 days after the filing
of the notice
of removal under section 1446(a).
NOTICE AND DUTY OF DEFENDANT(S) AND “STATE COURT”
Plaintiff notices the Defendant(s)
and the clerk of PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE that cause
no.
YOC003263 and YOC003264; SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOUTH DISTRICT COURT cuase
number
36751C MCX has been removed to the United States District Court
for the Western
District of The State of Washington at Tacoma under the above captioned
cause
number. Upon receipt of this “Notice of Removal” PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT
NUMBER ONE and SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOUTH DISTRICT COURT has lost jurisdiction
of
the referenced cause numbers unless or until there is a final order
and
judgment of remand.
NOTICE: While removal is pending,
any proceedings including but not limited to trial, conviction (criminal),
judgment (civil), are null and void and must be vacated:
Lucille Moore v.
INTERSTATE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Gulf Life Insurance Company and
Paul Mooney
Cite as 717 F. Supp 1193(S.D. Miss. 1989) (June 9, 1989)
; When case is removed from state
to federal court, entire action, including all parties and all claims,
is
transferred to federal court, and state court may not proceed further
unless
and until case is remanded; federal court acquires full and exclusive
jurisdiction over case as though it had commenced in that forum.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Charles Kern,
Plff. In Err., v. Frederderick W. Huidekoper et al.
S.C. 13
Otto, 485-494
(Jan 31, 1881) held to wit:
If a
cause is removable from State to Federal Court and the statute for
its removal
has been complied with, no order for its removal is necessary to
confer
jurisdiction on the Court of the United States, and no refusal of
such an order
can prevent that jurisdiction from attaching.
The fact that a party has, after the removal, contested the
suit in the State Court, does not, after judgment against him in
such court,
constitute a wavier, on his part, of the question of the jurisdiction
of the
State Court to try the case.
The State
Court being without jurisdiction, its subsequent proceedings and
judgment were
absolutely void.
Asking for leave to plead to the jurisdiction is, in
effect, a withdrawal of a plea to the merits.
Weldon Thomas FOSSEY v.
STATE of Indiana; 258 N.E. 2d p 616 (May 28, 1970) to wit:
State court loses
jurisdiction at the very latest when service of removal petition
is made on
state court and plaintiff and where it is served prior to trial.
While petition for removal
is pending, any subsequent proceedings in state trial court are
void until
cause is remanded by federal court.
Where the Defendant in state
prosecution filed petition for removal on the day state case was
set for trial
but before trial actually commenced, conviction obtained when state
proceeded
with trial was void even though case was ultimately remanded to
state courts.
“In view of the fact that the question
is a Federal one, and that the state court is given no right to
review or
control the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Federal court,
we think that such Federal judgment cannot
be ignored in the state court as one absolutely void for want of
jurisdiction,
and that such judgment, until reversed by a proper proceeding in
this court, is
binding upon the parties, and must be given force when set up in
the action. .
. . Mr. Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, said (123 U.S.
559):
“Whether in such as case the suit could be removed was a question
for the
Circuit Court to decide when it was called on to take jurisdiction.”
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. v. McCABE,
213 U.S. 207, 220 (April 5, 1909).
And;
“... the allegations of the removal
petition must, for the purpose of determining the right of removal,
be taken as
true by the state court, and if the plaintiff desires to make an
issue as to
their truth, he must do this, in the Federal court, which latter
alone has
jurisdiction to try such issue.
Where,
admitting the averments of fact made in the removal petition to
be true, they
make a proper case for removal, the application ipso facto works
the transfer
to the Federal court and deprives the state court of its jurisdiction
to
proceed further.
Stone v. South
Carolina, 117 U.S. 430;
Carson v.
Hyatt, 118 U.S. 279; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421; Burlington
& c. R’y
Co. v. Dunn,
122 U.S. 513; Crehore v.
O. & M.R’y Co., 131 U.S. 240; Kansas City R’y Co. v. Daughtry,
138 U.S.
298; Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. Eastin, 214 U.S. 153; Ill. Cent.
R’y Co. v.
Sheegog, 215 U.S. 308, 316. . . . it is thoroughly settled that
issues of fact
arising upon a petition for removal are to be determined in the
Federal court,
and that the state court for the purpose of determining for itself
must accept
as true the allegations of fact in such petition.
“ CHES. & OHIO RY. v. COCKRELL, 232 U.S. 146, 147,
148, 154 (January 19, 1914).
And;
“The allegations of fact in a
petition for removal must be accepted by the state court as true,
because an
issue on such allegations can be tried only in the Federal court.”
(Citing numerous cases) ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. R. CO. v. SHEEGOG, 215 U.S. 308, 309 (December 20,
1909).
And;
Under 1949 amendment of statute providing for removal
of cases, as case is removed f rom the jurisdiction of state court
for all
purposes upon compliance with the procedural steps for removal set
forth in
statute regardless of removability of the case, and no valid proceedings
can be
taken in state court at any time following such removal unless and
until the
case is remanded, and any action taken in state court before
case is
remanded will have no force or effect. . . .any such proceedings
in the State
court under the present act are not sanctioned; they are prohibited.”
HOPSON v. NORTH AMERICAN INS. CO.,
233 P.2d 799, 802 (July 5, 1951).
And;
“We hold that under 28 U.S.C.A. section 1446, a case
is removed from the jurisdiction of the State court upon compliance
with the
procedural steps therein set forth for all purposes until and unless
it is
subsequently remanded to such State court; that until and unless
the case is
remanded no valid proceedings can be taken in the State court at
any time
following the filing of such petition and bond and giving notice
thereof to all
adverse parties and filing a copy of the petition with the Clerk
of the State
court; furthermore, that any action so taken in the State court
thereafter and
prior to remanding the cause to such State court, will have no force
or
effect.” ...It is the duty of the state court, in such cases,
to defer all action until such issues have
been passed upon by the federal court.
The state court must accept as true all allegations of fact in the
petition for removal [cases cited] Frazier v. Hines, 8 Cir., 260
F. 874 at page
878. . . . 1146(e) should be held to operate as a statutory stay
upon state
court proceedings.
Any further
proceedings in the state court would be a nullity, unless the
Defendant
thereafter appeared and contested the right of the state court to
proceed
further.”
Moore’s Commentary on the
U.S. Judicial Code 276-277 (1949).”
STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jack P.F. GREMILLION, Attorney General,
v.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al.
, 90
SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 884, 886, 887, 888 (November 26, 1956).
And;
“Removal to a federal court
halts all further proceedings in state court, which
thereon loses jurisdiction unless and until the
case is remanded. . . . any proceedings in a state court after removal
of a
case to federal court are null and void and must be vacated.”
Styers v. Pico, inc., 223 SE 2nd. 656
(Feb. 11, 1976).
And;
“
Upon the
filing,
and service of a verified
petition for removal by a Defendant in a
state
criminal prosecution the state court loses
jurisdiction over the prosecution and jurisdiction lies only with
the federal
court unless and until the case is remanded back to the state court.
Chesimard v. Kuhlthau, 370 F. Supp.
473 (Feb. 7, 1974).
And;
“Once
removal procedure has been carried out, action in state court is
automatically
stayed and any proceedings
there prior
to federal remand order are absolutely void,
despite
subsequent
determination that removal petition was ineffective.”
Vendetti v. Schuster, 242 F. Supp. 746 (June 14, 1965).
And;
“Removal
to a federal court halts all further proceedings in the state court,
28 U.S.C.
section 1446(e), which thereupon loses jurisdiction unless and until
the case
is remanded.
Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d
432 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 842, 78 S.Ct.
65, 2 L.Ed.2d
52 (1957);
Reines Distributors, Inc. v.
Admiral Corp., 182 F.Supp.
226
(S.D.N.Y. 1960) (Metzner, J.), rev’d on other grounds, 319 F.2d
609 (2d Cir.
1963); Fire Ass’n v. General Handkerchief Corp., 304 N.Y. 382, 107
N.E.2d 499 (1952).”
Ira J. SANDS, Plaintiff, v. James A.
GELLER and Harold Webb, Defendants.,
321 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 558, 559 (Feb. 2, 1971).
And;
Pursuant to 28 USC 1446(5)(d) the State court clerk shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.
Done this the _____ day
of the ______ month of 2000.
The People of the State of
Washington,
By:
________________________________________________________
Kenneth Wayne, Relator.
