Washington State Supreme Court to hear petition to recall Christine Gregoire

The Washington State supreme Court will be hearing my petition to recall Washington Governor Christine Gregoire - Supreme Court case No. 77345-9; around the end of February.

1. The trial erred by not finding Charge 1 to be factually and legally sufficient.

2. The trial court erred by not finding Charge 2 to be factually and legally sufficient

3. The trial court erred by not finding Charge 3 to be factually and legally sufficient.

4. The trial court erred by not finding Charge 4 to be factually and legally sufficient.

5. The trial court erred by not finding Charge 5 to be factually and legally sufficient.

This case is about exposing the longstanding corruption of the court of the state of Washington that reaches all the way into the halls of the Washington State Supreme Court and the judicial tyranny that the founders of the United States of America feared. Many citizens of the State of Washington believe the courts of the state to be tyrannical and corrupt. The only difference between a majority of the citizens and Don Railsback is that Don Railsback has far more than enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because he has been a victim of it; but unlike any other private citizen in this state made a decision not to tolerate it even though fighting for justice through the courts of the State of Washington has exacted enormous personal, financial, and relationship costs. As Edmund burke state, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

Isn’t it ironic that just up I-5 there are thousands of soldiers and airmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan willing to give up the comforts of the United States because they want to the Iraqis and Afghanis to be rid of tyranny, not realizing the tyranny that exists with the courts and executive branches of government in the state of Washington.

Railsback, having followed closely the workings of the courts of Washington for the past 5+ years, including the reading of every Supreme Court decision, understands that there are a few justices that have done what they can to protect Washington citizens from the tyranny of the courts, legislature, and the executive.

A few justices might even relish the opportunity to rule on this case in order reform the corrupt practices of the state supreme court. Railsback is well aware that any judge or justice in this state that might actually attempt to uphold the rights of citizens may be unjustly targeted by the Commission for Judicial Conduct in order to “keep them in line” or removed because actually think a prosecutor should have to do their jobs and establish proof that an accused has committed a crime. These same justices have also attempted to expose, through their dissents, the judicial abuses of their peers and the legislature. To those justices, my comments about corruption in the courts do not apply to you. The people of the state of Washington just who those justices are by the way they vote on this matter. The law and the evidence are so clear that any decision against Railsback must be entered corruptly.

Then there may be a few justices who might like to rule against Railsback in an attempt to continue to hide the corruption within the judicial and executive branches of government, but now that this case is in the supreme court, may accept the fact that they cannot ignore the undisputed facts and law; and will agree that the petition to recall Christine Gregoire is factually sufficient.

There may be a few justices who are simply so devoid of conscience, they will find the petition to be legally or factually insufficient.

For any person who thinks judges do not would make decisions for political reasons, I direct them to an article about a speech the Honorable Edith Jones gave at Harvard Law school (See exhibit ‘A’).

Unfortunately, the US Attorney for Western District of Washington, John Mckay and Assistant US Attorney for criminal, Jeff Sullivan, refuse to prosecute Washington CJ Gerry Alexander for what they admit are violations of federal civil rights and Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization statutes. They both admit that they are personal friends of Gerry Alexander and claim that prosecuting a state CJ for obstruction of justice and RICO crimes is not a high enough priority. When asked what could possible be more important, they fell silent. It was only a few years ago when the US Asst. AG-criminal, Michael Chertoff ordered a US attorney to prosecute the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania State Supreme court for obstruction of justice for making just one phone call to the trial judge handling his divorce. The FBI in the state of Washington has a similar disinterest in investigating judicial corruption in the state of Washington.

For those who don’t think the FBI and US Attorneys would not cover up or not prosecute public officials, one need only consider the prosecutions of FBI agents in Boston a few years ago who intentionally framed 2-3 innocent individuals who were released about 30 years after being wrongfully convicted. One should also consider the case of Edwin Wilson, the wrongfully convicted former CIA agent for selling arms to Libya (See the US District Court judge’s order vacating his conviction, Exhibit ‘B’). He served over twenty years in prison and the US Government knew all along that he was innocent.

Clearly, a citizen has every reason to believe there are government officials that will do anything to protect themselves and those they associate with from the consequences of their criminal acts. Those who desire to understand why this happens can go on the Internet and read Fredrick Bastiat’s “The Law”; Fredric Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom; and Charles Colson’s Kingdoms in Conflict. In general, it is all about the accumulation of power and the compromises that so many people are willing to make to obtain and maintain that power. People in power come to believe that they are immune from accountability because so few people in power are held accountable. After all, who is going to hold them accountable; someone else who has skeletons to hide and would risk certain exposure by ‘doing the right thing’? Why have corrupt judges and other public officials gotten away with their corruption for so long. For too long they have had the comfort of believing that no private citizen would have the intellect, knowledge and willingness to simply NEVER give up. In other words, they never came across a Don Railsback.

Many people understand that there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the branches of government. In the state of Washington, we have a collusion of powers.

Many Washington citizens voted for Rob McKenna to be the State Attorney General, in part because of his promise to eliminate corruption in Olympia. In reading news accounts, it is apparent that many of his supporters question why he hasn’t done anything to prosecute what appears to many people to be serious crimes. McKenna’s claims that he has no authority to investigate and prosecute crimes on his own is either a knowing lie or total ignorance of his duties under the Washington constitution, the statutes and the common law. After all, that is what attorneys general are supposed to do. There is plenty of authority for him to prosecute crimes on his own.

In reading this brief, it will be apparent that at least a few justices will have to recuse themselves from this case because of their involvement or associations with some of the judges and other public officials associated with some of the underlying cases with Gerry Alexander being the most obvious.

I could go on, but I will add just one more statement. If people associated with the state supreme court, refuse to hear and enter a judgment that states that the petition to recall Christine Gregoire is legally and factually sufficient, I will make a citizens arrest of Gerry Alexander for violating any number of felonies as permitted pursuant to RCW 9A.16.020(2). While some may think such an act might carry some risk of prosecution, it is one I will take. There are at least 100 individuals, including some members of the state supreme court who would not enjoy being questioned by Railsback under oath.

Railsback’s federal complain in US District Court Case C01-5052 FDB is an accurate summary up to the time that case was filed and I direct the court to that complaint. Railsback also refers the court to the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reinstate All Defendants, Supplement to Original Complaint, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” in that same case.

Given that request, I will summarize briefly the underlying events to this petition to recall Christine Gregoire.

When asked ‘what is this case all about”, my general response is that it has many similarities to Watergate. What started out to be a relatively low level crime of obstruction of justice, fraud upon he court, and theft in a civil case by a drunken corrupt Clark County Superior court Judge, Robert L. Harris (Very shortly after I had mailed a letter to the CJ Richard Guy concerning reports from several attorneys about Harris occasionally being drunk on the bench, and confirmed to me by Clark County District Court Vern Schrieber, Harris cancelled his Friday docket for several weeks. Paul’s Elbow Room was mentioned more than once. When asking around the court why he did that and if it was because he was going through alcohol rehab, there were some interesting responses. While Railsback doesn’t have absolute proof Harris was in rehab, a reasonable person would certainly have suspicions) and his initial co-conspirator, attorney David W. Meyer, evolved into a cover-up that wound it’s way all the way up to the offices of former Governor Locke and then AG Gregoire; and individuals within the State supreme court, including former CJ Richard Guy and current CJ Gerry Alexander.

To keep this part relatively short, Railsback attempted to file a citizens report of criminal activity concerning crimes committed against Railsback by Harris and a few of his conspirators with the Clark County sheriff’s office. Even though required by law to take a report (confirmed to Railsback by Gerry Alexander on 8/12/02 in a personal meeting in Alexander’s chambers), the sheriff’s office refused to take a report and the sheriff’s department stated they would not investigate a judge.

After making several attempts to file a criminal report, Railsback filed a tort claim against the county in the amount of $1.2 million related to the sheriff’s refusal to investigate serious felonies by a judge and some local attorneys. Clark County (County) denied the claim even though they did not conduct an investigation. When Railsback later requested a copy of the investigation, the county said there was no report of an investigation. Railsback then properly served a summons and complaint on the County. The County failed to answer the complaint within the statutory time limitation period, so Railsback filed a motion and order for default judgment in Skamania County, a proper venue for an action against Clark County.

Skamania County Superior Court Judge E. Thompson Reynolds refused to enter the default judgment on several occasions, as he knew he was required to do by law since it was a ministerial duty requiring no discretion. Reynolds told Railsback to serve Clark County with a notice for entry of a default judgment. Railsback informed Reynolds that he had no obligation to notify Clark County and that if he did, Railsback would risk waiving his right to entry of a default judgment. After Railsback appeared in open court demanding entry of a default judgment and Reynolds refusing to perform that duty imposed upon him by law, Reynolds violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct by making an improper ex parte contact with Clark County. Reynolds only excuse for not entering the default judgment was “I don’t feel comfortable”, even after Railsback pointed out the court rules and cases that left him no option. Reynold’s made at least two other ex parte contacts with Clark County prior to a hearing on a Clark County motion to deny entry of a default judgment, which Reynold’s granted even though Clark County did not even attempt to argue there was excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. To this day, Clark County has never presented, to any court, a case of excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. It’s been over five years now.

Railsback then filed, with the state supreme court, a petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge Reynolds. Upon being served with the petition, Reynolds entered an order recusing himself from the case. If that is not the act of a guilty mind, I don’t know what is.

Reynolds acts regarding this case constitute several obstruction of justice violations as well as the code of judicial conduct. The Justices are required to file a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The justices on this court have no option with themselves also being in violation of the CJC. I will not go into my opinion of the Commission for Judicial conduct at this time.

This is as good time as any time to start going through just some of the documents associated with this case that are part of Clerks papers (CP ____).

The members of this court are also directed to Supreme Court Case No. 69891-1 – Donald E. Railsback v. Hon. E. Thompson Reynolds. It is important that the justices look closely at this file since it is directly related to this petition to recall Gregoire. It also contains some information that establishes that the justices of the Supreme Court were put on notice as to the violations of Railsback’s right’s to due process in that case. Any justice who failed to take any action to prevent those violations has some serious problems. Those problems would certainly at least mitigated by a decision that the petition to recall Gregoire is both factually and legally sufficient.

This letter from the court deputy clerk simply states that Railsback needed to have Judge Reynold’s served with the petition for a writ of Mandamus. It also states that RAP 16.2 is the relevant rule for petitions for writs of mandamus against state officers. Superior court judges are state officers for this purpose. There is nothing contained in this document that would be considered a crime.

This letter constitutes the crime of mail fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice. It was an attempt to deceive Railsback into thinking he was not entitled to a hearing before the entire court even though the supreme court had original jurisdiction. AJ Alexander admitted to Railsback on 8/12/02 that there is no legal authority for even the existence of Appellate Court Commissioners, and that RAP 16.2 controlled petitions for writs of mandamus.

Reynolds’ affidavit knowing omits substantive facts regarding Skamania Superior Court Case No. 00-2-00090-3. He intentionally omitted the fact that I met with him on June 30, 2000 for entry of the default judgment. He intentionally omitted the fact that I appeared before him in open court on July 3, 2000, for entry of the default judgment. He intentionally omitted the fact that the only reason Clark County filed a notice of appearance is because he contacted the Clark County Prosecutor’s office. And finally, he omitted the fact that he knew that a notice of appearance filed after the filing of a motion for an order of default and default judgment is not valid. His contact and conversations with Clark County was an obstruction of justice and mailing of this affidavit was mail fraud.

Letter from Clark County Superior Court Judge Roger A. Bennett to Railsback dated 9/14/00.

This letter is evidence of mail fraud and obstruction of justice. After Reynolds recused himself from Skamania Case No. 00-2-00090-3, The Skamania Clerk transferred the case to Clark County. Since Reynolds had recused himself from the case, his orders were void, especially since he engaged in obstruction of justice and violations of the CJC. Railsback presented the motion and order for default judgment to Judge Bennett. Even though he knew he had a ministerial duty to enter the judgment, hew refused to do so. If is also obvious from this letter that he discussed the case with Judge Harris, who had a blatantly obvious interest in obstructing justice in that case. His discussion with Harris and his refusal to perform a ministerial duty is obvious obstruction of Justice. Mailing the letter is obvious mail fraud.

The next day, Railsback returned to Judge Bennett with case cites stating that the recusal of a judge is treated as a mistrial. Bennett still refused to enter the judgment. Obviously, Judges Bennett and Harris must have discussed the matter further. Clearly, Harris and Bennett discussed the matter again and may have discussed it with other Clark County superior court judges. Either Bennett of Harris must have discussed the ‘problem’ with Reynolds. As an aside, there are no notices of recusal from any Clark County Superior Court judge. Why not? I think it’s rather obvious, this letter is clear proof of obstruction of justice and mail fraud. It is rather obvious that all these judges were conspiring to obstruct justice at this point. Judge Reynolds, having been recused from the case was not permitted to choose the next judge, but he did anyway. He chose Cowlitz County judge Stephen Warning. Obviously, because Warning had engaged in ex parte contact with a recused/disqualified judge, any order to be entered by Warning would be void.

Cover letter and order in Supreme Court Case No. 69896-1 dated September 19, 2000.

These are very interesting documents, especially when considered along with a letter from Ron Carpenter dated September 22, 2000.

The racketeer Geoffrey Crooks (now if that isn’t an appropriate name for Mr. Crooks), acting in the capacity of a position that does not exist, nor is provided for in the Washington Constitution or statutes enters a ‘ruling’ dismissing Railsback’s petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge Reynolds. There are several problems associated with this ‘ruling’. Even though I am confident that the justices on the state supreme court can identify a number of them, I will point out a few. The first one is that Crooks has no legal authority of any kind to exercise any judicial powers; absolutely none. Therefore, anything ruling he makes is void ab initio.

Another problem, if that wasn’t enough, is that the ruling fails to meet the requirements of due process. There is absolute no discussing of the facts and the law contained within the ruling. The only case Crooks cited in what is basically a one-page ruling is to a footnote contained in a writ of prohibition case.

The final major problem is that Crooks cites RAP 16.2 as the authority to dismiss the petition.

Obviously the mailing of these documents is mail fraud and is evidence of the continuation of obstruction of justice. There can be no other conclusion.

The justices need to closely read all the documents in the mandamus action. What is clear is that the facts and the law required that Railsback to have been granted the petition and entry of a default judgment against Clark County in the lower court action. Railsback has read every default judgment case going back to the territorial courts and there is nothing that would allow another result. In reading the documents associated with that case, it is clear that all the justices at that time knew of the unconstitutionality of appellate court commissioners.

When this letter is read in light of the Order dismissing the writ of mandamus (above), it is obvious that the obstruction of justice continued. Whereas the void ‘ruling’ dated 9/19/00 cites RAP 16.2(d), this letter makes no mention of RAP 16.2. The only people associated with the Supreme Court who can exercise judicial powers are the justices, themselves. I think this is rather obvious.

This might also be an appropriate point to note that the state supreme court is require to publish all their decisions in the Washington Reports. This would be especially true in a case where original subject matter jurisdiction is in the state supreme court. The justices should take note that there is no published decision on the mandamus action. Railsback can see where is would be rather embarrassing and troubling if the court published a decision that was unsigned by five justices, was basically one-half page, did not discuss the facts of the case or apply the law to the facts, and citing as the only legal authority, a footnote to a prohibition case. The failure to publish a decision in the mandamus case is solid evidence of obstruction of justice and an effort to further the obstruction of justice and the acts of a RICO enterprise.

This letter was in response to a demand by Railsback for findings of fact and conclusion of law required to meet the standards of substantive and procedural due process. Obviously the state Supreme Court never provided them. Failure to do so is obstruction of justice.

Railsback’s letter to C.J. Merritt, Clerk of the Supreme Court dated 10/25/00.

The letter speaks for itself and points out the requirements associated with an RAP 16.2 action against a state officer. It makes reference to a letter from Merritt to Railsback dated 9/29/00. Railsback basically points out that an RAP16.2 action cannot be handled under RAP 17 because RAP 17 procedures are not applicable to procedures on the merits of a case. This letter puts members of the state supreme court that the Supreme Court was in clear violation of the Washington Constitution, the RCWs and its own court rules. Failure to correct these problems is evidence of obstruction of justice by at least some of those associated with the state supreme court. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

Railsback’s motion for entry of default judgment speaks for itself. Obviously no action was ever taken on it.

Judge Warning’s order denying Railsback’s default judgment is void because while the petition for a writ of mandamus was pending at the state supreme court, the only action a trial court could take in the interim is to enter the default judgment. The fact that Warning had contacts with Reynolds regarding the Skamania county case disqualified Warning from being the judge on the case.

Railsback’s letter to Judge Warning points out why he had no authority to enter an order denying entry of a default judgment and why he was required to recuse himself. Warning obvious doesn’t care about following the law; and he has a great deal of company within the Washington judiciary.

Merritt continues with his attempts to claim that an RAP 16.2 action can be handled under RAP 17. He knew that wasn’t the case then and the members of the Supreme Court surely understand.

Letter from the State of Washington Office of Risk Management to Railsback dated 9/29/00 and Railsback’s tort claim filed with the Office of Risk Management filed on 8/25/00

These documents are interesting in that the tort claim clearly outlines the involvement of Gregoire, Locke and a number of other individuals. A person might think that the Office of Risk Management would at least talk to Railsback about the tort claim prior to sending a letter denying the tort claim. At a later time, Railsback requested a copy of the investigation of the tort claim, only to be told that it was exempt from disclosure. That is simply not the law. In a later conversation with the alleged investigator, Ronald Shurer, declined to state whether there was actually an investigation conducted or report written. One would find it rather difficult to conduct an investigation without talking to the complainant. A reasonable conclusion is that there either was never an investigation or if there was, the facts were so damaging, that any report of such an investigation would eventually be discoverable. Railsback suspects that there was no real investigation and no report written. So much for the state government being scrupulously honest with the citizens, as required by law and confirmed in Supreme Court opinions.

This document speaks for itself and once again puts Guy on notice as to his crimes if he did not take corrective action.

Certificate of Finality on Supreme Court Case No. 69896-1 petition for writ of mandamus dated November 7, 2000.

Just another example of obstruction of justice, violations of Railsback’s civil rights and mail fraud. Letter from former CJ Richard Guy to Railsback and Railsback’s letter to each of the justices of the state supreme court as of that date.

The letters speak for themselves and only one of two conclusions can be made from their contents. Either CJ guy lied in his letter to Railsback about distributing Railsback’s letter to each of the justices, and thus committed the crimes of mail fraud and obstruction of justice; or, each and every justice at that time was put on more than sufficient notice about criminal violations of Railsback’s civil rights pursuant to 18 us Code 241 and 242 and under 18 US Code 1962 – RICO and chose to do nothing, thus violating Sections 1962(c) and (d). Which is it? It might be possible that one or more of the justices attempted to do something. If so, those justices will want to rule that the petition to recall Gregoire is sufficient. Those who were not members of the state supreme court now have the opportunity to right a grave injustice NOW. Failure to do so, would be, at a minimum, a violation of 18 US Code 1962(d).

Mr. Blonien claims in this letter that the state AG has no legal authority to investigate or prosecute crimes, among other comments he makes. To state that the state AG has no independent authority to investigate and prosecute crimes is dishonest.

The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of public lands, and insurance commissioner, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation in substance as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability.

It is known that with a duty comes all the power and authority to carry out that duty or obligation. Clearly the AG has a duty to enforce the criminal laws of the state of Washington. If it isn’t clear based on the required oath of office, the common law provides all the justification needed for the state Attorney General to enforce the laws of the State of Washington. To pretend otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.

RCW 43.10.030(2) provides another basis for the state AG to investigate and prosecute crimes: “(2) Institute and prosecute all actions and proceedings for, or for the use of the state, which may be necessary in the execution of the duties of any state officer;

The State AG is a state officer, so the AG falls within the meaning of “any state officer”. The language is very broad and inclusive. The AG’s oath of office makes it his duty to uphold the constitution and laws of the State of Washington and who should be better qualified to make the determinations about prosecuting crimes in the state than the state AG?

Railsback’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Defendant Meyer in US District Court Case C01-5052 FDB ; Burgess’ Order denying reconsideration of order to dismiss Meyer dated 5/16/01; Order dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction dated 8/02/01.

This and the following two documents are relevant because they are evidence that US District Court Judge Franklin D. Burgess knowingly joined in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and mail fraud regarding that case.

In an earlier order, Burgess dismissed attorney Meyer from the federal complaint on the basis that as an attorney, he was not a state actor. Note that on page ‘4’ of Railsback’s motion related to attorney Meyer.

Railsback cites Dennis v. Sparks, 449 US 24, 28-29 (“Although the attorney defendants are themselves private actors, private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in conjunction with the judge’s performance of an official judicial act are acting under color of law for the purpose of sect. 1983, even if the judge himself is immune from civil liability.”)

In Burgess’ order dismissing attorney Meyer, he only cites a portion of Local rule 7(e) “motions for reconsideration are disfavored and ordinarily denied.” Only a corrupt judge would enter such an order after being informed of a US Supreme Court decision that was obviously contrary to his initial order. This is obviously fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice and the mailing of such an order is mail fraud.

Burgess was equally dishonest when he corruptly entered an order dismissing the federal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He cited a portion of a State Supreme Court decision by what we all know is an unconstitutional court commissioner as the basis.

Burgess’ corruption is evidenced by the fact that there was no final determination of anything in the state Supreme Court that almost all of the facts related to the federal complaint occurred after 4/26/2000. As a matter of fact, Railsback did not have a federal cause of action until after that date. Obviously, that was also a corruptly entered order designed to obstruct justice, and the mailing of it was mail fraud.

The court can read the other documents related to this case and understand how they all fit together. It isn’t difficult.

Railsback recognizes that Brian Buchholz, asst. AG did an admirable job of drafting the “Ballot Synopsis for the Recall of Christine Gregoire as Washington State Governor” and the “Attorney General’s Memorandum of Law”.

The only problem with the “Memorandum of Law” is that is states on page ‘2’ “the Attorney General takes no position on the merits of the specific charges.” If that is the case why is Ms. Gregoire being represented by the office of the Attorney General when there is no legal authority for the AG to do so? Responding to the recall of an elected official is not an official duty of that elected official. It is an action against that elected official in their personal capacity. When asked that question, AG Rob McKenna did not have a good answer.

The hearing in the trial court did not get off to a good start. After a paranoid Judge Hicks expressed his displeasure at Railsback for taping a few charts to the filthiest windows Railsback has ever seen, Judge Hicks then proceeded to state the hearing by stating that Railsback may have a “serious mental health issue”. If there is a more blatant violation of the CJC regarding the treatment of a party by a judge in open court, I can’t imagine what it might be. Railsback demanded that Judge Hicks recuse himself. He obviously refused, even though he must have known he was required to do so.

If nothing else, one knows he has a solid case when a government official makes unfounded claims as to a citizen’s mental health. Apparently at least some Washington courts are no different that the former Soviet Union in that regard. If Railsback did not have a great case in this matter there would have been no purpose for Hicks’ remarks. I trust that members of the State Supreme Court will file a complaint with the CJC based solely on Hicks’ comments, as required by the Code of Judicial conduct.

Obviously, Hicks must have discussed this case in detail with someone, or he would not have made such comments about Railsback’s mental health. Railsback’s mental health is just fine, but I do worry about the mental health of Hicks; and so should those who appear before him. Either that or he is hopelessly corrupt; or maybe both.

Hick informed Railsback that he would only get 15 minutes of so to present his case. Not allowing a party sufficient time to present their case is also a violation of the CJC. To have properly presented a case, Railsback would have needed at least two hours and possibly much more. Hicks knew it and yet refused to allow a proper amount of time. Apparently Judge Hicks does not understand the definition of voir dire. He was supposed to ask me questions about my personal knowledge of the facts alleged. He never did. In fact, he never administered an oath to Railsback.

It was readily apparent that Hicks was going to dismiss the petition no matter what the facts and the law required him to do.

Trusting that the court can read the transcript, Railsback will cover a few of the highlights. By the way, the transcript of the hearing does not reflect what actually occurred in the courtroom and the court reporter admitted it to be the case. The court reporter has refused to provide Railsback with a digital copy of the hearing. The court reporter stated to Railsback on several occasions that he is an employee of the judge and is an at will employee of the judge. The reporter also informed Railsback that there is a local superior court rule that permits the judge to change the verbatim transcript of a court proceeding. There actually is such a local rule; and it is obviously fraught with danger and there can be no good purpose for such a rule. It invites corruption and is, of course, unconstitutional and illegal on its face. The only thing it does is to put a façade of legitimacy on efforts to obstruct justice. The court reporter claims the digital recording of the hearing is his personal property and therefore does not have to produce it to a party. The digital recording is the property of the court and must be made available to a party who wants a copy of it. Especially since the court reporter is a public employee while in the courtroom.

Since Railsback was not going to be allowed to make a complete presentation as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, Railsback had to present the most important facts first.

The elements of a violation of 18 USC 1962(c) are (1) the conduct of an (2) enterprise, (3) affecting interstate commerce (4) through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO predicate acts include violations of 18 US Code. It is a violation of section (d) to conspire to violate section (a), (b) or (c).

1503 – Obstruction of justice, elements of which are that the defendant “knew of a pending judicial proceeding and intended to impede its administration” US v. Aguilar and violations of 18 US code 1341 – Mail Fraud, the elements of which are (1) scheme to defraud and (2) placing documents in the mail in furtherance of that scheme. Documents referred to earlier in this brief outline many, many violations of these and other RICO predicate acts, as well as civil Rights violations under 42 US Code 1981-1988. There is no need to repeat them all here.

Railsback went over the first three elements of RICO and how they were applicable to Gregoire. When Railsback asked Judge Hicks if he agreed that those elements had been met regarding Gregoire, he refused to answer. Silence is an admission. Railsback then went over the following documents:

Clark County Sheriff’s Report 00014966 regarding perjury and obstruction of justice committed by Judge Stephen Warning during a hearing of a petition to recall Clark County Sheriff Garry Lucas.

The sheriff’s report confirms Railsback’s allegations against Judge Warning and was referred to the prosecutor’s office. Even though Judge Stephen Warning’s name is mentioned nine times, the name of the suspect listed in the prosecutor’s computer system is listed as “First Name: NONE; Last Name: NONE”. There is only one conclusion regarding this fact. The Clark County Prosecutor was obstructing justice and attempting to cover up the crimes committed by a number of other individuals. Clearly, if Judge Stephen Warning’s name had been entered in the prosecutor’s computer system, Judge warning would have been forced to go on administrative leave until the charges against him were resolved. Once on administrative leave, the public would have learned of his participation in a RICO enterprise.

Railsback’s declaration dated September 2, 2002 regarding a meeting Railsback had with CJ Gerry Alexander in his chambers on August 12, 2002.

The declaration speaks for itself. When Railsback went over this declaration in front of Judge Hicks, did not question Railsback’s knowledge of the events. Railsback was at the meeting, so of course had personal knowledge. Shortly after the meeting with Alexander on 8/12/02, Railsback had conversations with US Attorney John McKay and his chief criminal deputy Jeff Sullivan. Both of them told Railsback that CJ Alexander was obstructing justice, but they would do nothing about it. CJ Alexander has known about this declaration for a considerable length of time and has never refuted it. Christine Gregoire has also known about it for a long time and has never made any attempt to discredit it. It must be accepted as fact.

Railsback also went over the two letters from Judge Bennett and how they were evidence of mail fraud and obstruction of justice.

In every case Railsback has been involved with in an attempt to obtain justice, no one fact has been controverted by even one defendant. Why not? It’s because every defendant in every case knew Railsback could prove every allegation. Another reason is because they reasonable thought that they could rely on other corrupt public officials and judges to simply do nothing, believing Railsback would eventually go away. It hasn’t happened and anyone who thinks Railsback will is sadly mistaken.

Gregoire’s defense to this petition is not a denial of the facts. It is primarily that Railsback filed a petition to recall her when she was the attorney general and had the petition dismissed at the trial court. Railsback did not pursue an appeal in that case because Supreme Court clerks Merritt and Carpenter told Railsback that Railsback would not get a hearing in front of the Supreme Court. The obvious implication was that any appeal would be sent to the judicial black hole by again having an illegal appellate commission rule on any appeal and thus hide what was going on from the public so that corrupt public officials and judges could continue controlling their enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity. It was nothing more than a promise that I would not get justice if I appealed that trial court decision.

Unfortunately for Ms. Gregoire, criminal conspiracies do not end until they are exposed. Given this fact, Judge Hicks’ dismissal of Charges 2-4 on the basis of res judicata is indisputable error.

As for Charge 1, Gregoire’s defense is that there is no basis for a claim that it is illegal unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to create the position of Supreme Court commission and to allow that person to exercise judicial power. The fact is, there is no provision for appellate court commissioners in the Washington Constitution and that is enough to settle that question.

Gregoire also argues that the governor has no authority over the Supreme Court. Ms. Gregoire is dishonest in this claim. As she must know, it can never be the duty of a judge to commit a crime and judges who commit crimes do so in their individual capacity. If one were to accept the argument of Gregoire, a justice on the state supreme court could commit a murder and Gregoire would claim that there is nothing the state could do to prosecute said justice.

Judge Hicks’ oral ruling as to Charge 1 was that Supreme Court commissioners are unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has the inherent power to create the position. In other words, Hicks ruled that is was constitutional for the state supreme court to violate the Washington Constitution. There is no basis in the federal or state constitutions, or federal or state law that grants criminal immunity to judges, but that is exactly what Gregoire is arguing. The court must reject such an absurd claim and find Charge 1 to be legally and factually sufficient.

Finally, it must be noted that Judge hicks did not make a single finding of fact in his order and barely made what could be considered a conclusion of law. General broad denials are no denials at all when confronted with specific facts such as those presented by Railsback.

The order signed by Judge Hicks did not address the first charge and Gregoire’s attorney made no reference to it in his proposed order. How could they? To rule that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to violate the Washington Constitution was too much; even for them.

The Arguments are provided in the documents that are a part of this case. They are laid out in more than sufficient detail and duplicating them here would be a waste of paper.

At this point, the only difference between Richard Nixon and Christine Gregoire is that President Nixon had the decency to resign. There is no reason for her to not resign now. The same is true for CJ Alexander. If a majority of the justices decide, as they must do based on the facts and the law, that the charges are legally and factually sufficient, there can be no doubt that she would lose a recall election. If a majority of justices, or at least those who aren’t compelled or forced to recuse themselves, make a mockery of justice by claiming the Charges aren’t legally and factually sufficient, CJ Alexander can look forward to being arrested by Railsback.

As I mentioned earlier in this brief, at least 100 do not want to testify under oath with Railsback asking the questions in front of a jury.

All of the charges are clearly factually and legally sufficient. There is no doubt. If this were a motion for summary judgment, an honest court would be compelled to rule for Railsback on every point. There is not a single declaration or affidavit disputing a single allegation of fact, so everything Railsback alleged must be accepted as true; and Gregoire and CJ Alexander know it.

If you want to get the background on this action, you can go to HERE

It's a long, but interesting story.

Might want to ping the WA list.

This is going to be a real battle, and there are some justices on the state supreme court who will do just about anything to prevent me from having a hearing the court is required to conduct.

One way or another, the corruption of Gregoire and the corruption within the state supreme court is going to be exposed for all to see.

Some background here:

Rossi v. Gregoire: How Elections Are Stolen
various FR links & stories | 01-13-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319819/posts

To: Libertina; paulat; Jack Black; Salmonslayer; elder5; Checkers; Brian Allen; lkco; phantomworker; ...

Thanks to connectthedots for the ping.

Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

4 posted on 01/28/2006 9:59:13 AM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Libs: Celebrate MY diversity! | Iran Azadi 2006 | Is it February yet?)

If anyone has questions or comments, I will be more than happy to address them late this afternoon when I can get back to a computer.

Well, I wish you luck... BUMP for reading through later this evening...

6 posted on 01/28/2006 11:08:49 AM PST by Libertina (Liberals are precisely what they accuse us of being...)

7 posted on 01/28/2006 4:53:32 PM PST by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")

Great read, I've been looking forward to this for a long time!

8 posted on 01/28/2006 5:19:42 PM PST by 4woodenboats (The GOP was created by those opposed to Southern Democrat Plantation Slavery...)

Yep lots to read here, BTTT for later.

10 posted on 01/29/2006 1:36:08 AM PST by Phyto Chems (Newsweek lied. People died.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.