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.
Case No. C01-5052 FDB
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO); TITLE 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988 (CIVIL RIGHTS).
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIAL
DONALD E. RAILSBACK
Plaintiffs,
ROBERT L. HARRIS, Individually, and as to his marital community; LEEANNE KUNZE, Individually, and as to her marital community; E. THOMPSON REYNOLDS, Individually, and as to his marital community; STEPHEN WARNING, Individually, and as to his marital community; ROGER A.BENNETT, Individually, and as to his marital community; JAMES E. RULLI, Individually, and as to his marital community; BARBARA D. JOHNSON, Individually, and as to her marital community; RICHARD GUY, Individually, and as to his marital community; GERRY ALEXANDER, Individually, and as to his marital community; C. J. MERRITT, Individually, and as to his marital community; RONALD R. CARPENTER, Individually, and as to his marital community; GEOFFREY CROOKS, Individually, and as to his marital community; GARY LOCKE, Individually, and as to his marital community EVERETT BILLINGSLEA, Individually, and as to his marital community; CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, Individually, and as to her marital community; SCOTT BLONIEN, Individually, and as to his marital community; DAVID W. MEYER, Individually, and as to his marital community DAVID W. CHRISTEL, Individually, and as to his marital community; BRIAN H. WOLFE, Individually, and as to his marital community BANK OF AMERICA, a Corporation under Washington Law; JAMES T. RAYBURN, Individually, and as to his marital community CRYSTAL RAMSTEAD, Individually, and as to her marital community; BRADLEY ANDERSON, Individually, and as to his marital community LORENA HOLLIS, Individually, and as to her marital community; JESS AMRAN, Individually, and as to his marital community; GARRY LUCAS, Individually, and as to his marital community; DAVID MCKAY, Individually, and as to his marital community; JANE JOHNSON, Individually, and as to her marital community; MIKE EVANS, Individually, and as to his marital community; ART CURTIS, Individually, and as to his marital property; SCOTT ANDERS, Individually, and as to his marital community; CURT WYRICK, Individually, and as to his marital community; DENNIS HUNTER, Individually, and as to his marital community; ROBERT SHANNON, Individually, and as to his marital community; MIKE DELL, Individually, and as to his marital community; RICK BUCKNER, Individually, and as to his marital community; MARY MCQUEEN, Individually, and as to her marital community; GIL AUSTIN, Individually, and as to his marital community; C.C. BRIDGEWATER, Individually, and as to his marital community; DAVID PONZOHA, Individually, and as to his marital community; DONALD G. MEATH, Individually, and as to his marital community; BETTY SUE MORRIS, Individually and as to her marital property; CRAIG PRIDEMORE, Individually and as to his marital property; JUDIE STANTON, Individually and as to her marital property; CLARK COUNTY WA, a political subdivision of the STATE OF WASHINGTON; THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: and JOHN DOES 1-150; Defendants.
This RICO and Civil Rights action had its birth in a relatively simple action to confirm/deny an arbitration award in a civil matter over approximately $40,000 and what one could only describe as another game of “Let’s screw the pro se” played by Defendants Judge Robert L. Harris and opposing counsel, Defendant David W. Meyer. These two and all the other individuals listed as defendants were or became associates-in-fact in a RICO enterprise in a conspiracy to deny plaintiff Donald E. Railsback (“Railsback”) of his Constitutional Rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington in order to protect Judge Harris and other associates-in-fact from both the civil and criminal consequences of their crimes in an effort to maintain control of the various courts and governments within the State of Washington. All defendants, through their actions and control of various government enterprises in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and in violation of Railsback’s Constitutional Rights and are causes of action under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988. The associates-in-fact range from private attorneys, local superior court judges, county commissioners, a county sheriff, county prosecutors; reach all the way to the offices of the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Washington; and even to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, including the current and recently retired Chief Justices, as well as more than one associate Justice, the Clerk and his assistant, and a Supreme Court commissioner, a position for which there is absolutely no constitutional or statutory authority and is used by the associates-in-fact to obstruct justice and cover-up criminal conduct by its members so as to hide the criminal acts from public notice or accountability. The associates-in-fact have been able to maintain their control of the enterprises only through their numerous violations of the federal and state RICO states and by constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Washington, and specifically those of Donald E. Railsback, and pose a long-term ongoing threat to the citizens of the State of Washington through their tyrannical control of two of the three branches of the government of the State of Washington.
Unfortunately for these defendants, their associate-in-fact RICO enterprise never took into account for the possibility of a mere citizen to be able to comprehend the law and rules of procedure so thoroughly, and to have the courage to confront them in such an open fashion. The arrogance of the defendants in this case led them to make numerous legal and procedural errors from which they can no longer recover, because to do so would be an admission by that individual that they were an associate-in-fact RICO enterprise.
One must only read the Declaration of Independence to recognize that it is a citizen’s right, and indeed, duty to confront the tyranny of enemies, both foreign and domestic. Donald E. Railsback, a citizen of the United States of American, and of the State of Washington, will not standby not tolerate tyranny in the government and courts of the State of Washington and allow this tyranny to continue unchallenged.
These tyrants were warned on numerous occasions, offered many opportunities to do what was just, and in each instance; chose to proceed with their criminal conduct.
These RACKETEERS “Have done messed with the wrong boy, this time!”
1. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(c) for (RICO) causes of action, and 28 U.S.C 1343 – Civil Rights and Elective Franchise for violations 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et. seq.
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b) and is supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1931(b) for RICO causes of action and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the Civil Rights causes of action.
3. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are residents or otherwise subject to the personal jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for Western Washington
4. Plaintiff Donald E. Railsback is a resident within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Tacoma Division.
5. All defendants are residents within the jurisdiction of The U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Tacoma Division or other wise subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this court.
6. All of the following defendants are, and were, at all times material, occupants of the positions listed immediately after their names unless other wise stated. The names of all defendants and their addresses are attached to this complaint as addendum “A” and is incorporated into this complaint by this mention.
7. Defendant ROBERT L. HARRIS (“Harris”), Superior Court Judge, Clark County (WA) Superior Court, Department 5.
8. Defendant LeeAnn Kunze (“Kunze”), Judicial Assistant to defendant Harris.
9. Defendant E. THOMPSON REYNOLDS (“Reynolds”), Superior Court Judge, Skamania County Superior Court, WA.
10. Defendant STEPHEN WARNING (“Warning”), Superior Court Judge, Cowlitz County, WA.
11. Defendant ROGER A.BENNETT (“Bennett”), Superior Court Judge, Clark County (WA) Superior Court, Department 1.
12. Defendant JAMES E. RULLI, (“Rulli”), Superior Court Judge, Clark County (WA) Superior Court, Department 7.
13. Defendant BARBARA D. JOHNSON, (“Judge Johnson”), Superior Court Judge, Clark County (WA) Superior Court, Department 6.
14. Defendant RICHARD GUY (“Guy”) Chief Justice, now retired, Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
15. Defendant GERRY ALEXANDER (“Alexander”), former Justice and now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington
16. Defendant C. J. MERRITT (“Merritt”), Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
17. Defendant RONALD R. CARPENTER (“Carpenter”), Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
18. Defendant GEOFFREY CROOKS (“Crooks”), holds the position of a “commissioner” of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. There is no constitutional or statutory provision for the position of “Supreme Court Commissioner” and therefore Crooks is not a “judicial officer” under the Constitution or statutes of the State of Washington.
19. Defendant GARY LOCKE (“Locke”), Governor of the State of Washington.
20. Defendant EVERETT BILLINGSLEA (“Billingslea”), General Counsel to the Governor of the State of Washington, Gary Locke.
21. Defendant CHRISTINE GREGOIRE (“Gregoire”), Attorney General of the State of Washington.
22. Defendant SCOTT BLONIEN (“Blonien”), Sr. Assistant Attorney General, Chief, Criminal Justice Division for the State of Washington.
23. Defendant DAVID W. MEYER (“Meyer”), Attorney for Dale and Casey Hackett, and a member of the Washington State Bar Association (“WSBA”)
24. Defendant DAVID W. CHRISTEL (“Christel”), outside counsel to Bank of America, a member of the WSBA, and a member of the Vancouver, WA, law firm of Blair Schaefer Hutchinson and Wolfe.
25. Defendant BRIAN H. WOLFE (“Wolfe”), outside counsel to Bank of America, a member of the WSBA, and a partner in the Vancouver, WA, law firm of Blair Schaefer Hutchinson and Wolfe.
26. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, a Corporation or Foreign Corporation under Washington Law and a resident of Washington;
27. Defendant JAMES T. RAYBURN (“Rayburn”), Assistant General Counsel to Bank of America.
28. Defendant CRYSTAL RAMSTEAD (“Ramstead”), head of Bank of America’s garnishment department, Seattle, WA.
29. Defendant BRADLEY ANDERSON (“Anderson”), Prosecuting Attorney for Skamania County, WA, to Skamania County Clerk, Lorena Hollis in her official capacity, and attorney for Reynolds in a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
30. Defendant LORENA HOLLIS (“Hollis”), Clerk of the Superior Court for Skamania County, WA.
31. Defendant JESS AMRAN (“Amran”), Superior Court Administrator for the Clark County, WA, Superior Court.
32. Defendant GARRY LUCAS (“Lucas”), Sheriff of Clark County, WA.
33. Defendant DAVID MCKAY (“McKay”), Deputy Sheriff (Sgt.) of Clark County, WA.
34. Defendant JANE JOHNSON (“Jane Johnson”), Undersheriff for Clark County, WA
35. Defendant MIKE EVANS (“Evans”), Chief Criminal Deputy Sheriff for Clark County, WA.
36. Defendant ART CURTIS (“Curtis”), Clark County Prosecutor.
37. Defendant SCOTT ANDERS (“Anders”), Deputy Clark County Prosecutor, selected by the Clark County Board of Commissioners to a position as District Court Judge in the Clark County, WA, Court and should be sworn in on or about January 31, 2001.
38. Defendant CURT WYRICK (“Wyrick”), Chief Deputy Prosecutor – Civil, Office of the Clark County (WA) Prosecuting Attorney’s office, Clark County, WA.
39. Defendant DENNIS HUNTER (“Hunter”), Deputy Prosecutor – Civil, Clark County (WA) Prosecutor, and legal representative for the Clark County Sheriff.
40. Defendant ROBERT SHANNON (“Shannon”), Deputy Prosecutor – Criminal, Clark County (WA) Prosecutor’s office.
41. Defendant MIKE DELL (“Dell”), Clark County (WA) Deputy Sheriff.
42. Defendant RICK BUCKNER (“Buckner”), Deputy - Detective, Clark County (WA) Sheriff
43. Defendant MARY MCQUEEN (“McQueen”), Administrator, Office of the Administrator for the Courts (“OAC”), was supervised by Guy, prior to his retirement, and is now supervised by Alexander.
44. Defendant GIL AUSTIN (“Austin”), Manager, Court Services, Judicial Services Division, OAC.
45. Defendant C.C. BRIDGEWATER (“Bridgewater”), Chief Judge, Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II. (“COA”)
46. Defendant DAVID PONZOHA (“Ponzoha”), Clerk, COA.
47. Defendant DONALD G. MEATH (“Meath”), holds the position of a “commissioner” of COA. There is no constitutional or statutory provision for the position of “Appellate Court Commissioner” and therefore Meath is not a “judicial officer” under the Constitution or statutes of the State of Washington.
48. Defendant BETTY SUE MORRIS (“Morris”), Member of Board of Commissioners for Clark County, WA, a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
49. Defendant CRAIG PRIDEMORE (“Pridemore”), Member of Board of Commissioners for Clark County, WA, a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
50. Defendant JUDIE STANTON (“Stanton”), Member of Board of Commissioners for Clark County, WA, a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
51. ENTERPRISE – State of Washington Executive Branch of Government, specifically the offices of the Governor of the State of Washington, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington; The Judicial Branch of the State of Washington, specifically the Supreme Court of Washington, The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington – Division II, the Clark County Superior Court, the Skamania County Superior Court, WA, the Cowlitz County Superior Court, WA; the Office of County Prosecutor for Skamania County, WA; the Office of County Prosecutor for Clark County, WA, the Offices of the Board of Commissioners of Clark County, WA, and the Office of Sheriff for Clark County, WA.
52. All defendants, other than Clark County, WA, and the State of Washington, which have liability under the doctrine of respondent superior; are associates-in-fact of one or more Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. and are each and everyone of them liable for the crimes and acts of each and every other individual person that is a part of the associate-in-fact enterprise in that they knew or should have know that the acts committed by each and every member of the enterprise would be required, and therefore they agreed that they would be committed, in the furtherance of the maintenance and control of the enterprise.
53. Whether the enterprise(s) controlled and maintained by the defendants in a fraudulent manner for their individual and collective benefits consists of one or more legitimate enterprises are mere parts of a single all-encompassing enterprise, the enterprise element under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) is satisfied.
54. The enterprise(s) alleged are separate and distinct from the associates-in-fact enterprises and the defendants are able to maintain their positions and control of the enterprise(s) as a result of the fact that they hold and maintain positions in the enterprise(s) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
55. The one or more enterprises affect interstate commerce in that plaintiff’s business and the enterprise(s) make purchases from supplies and/or vendors located outside the State of Washington and the minimal impact on interstate commerce RICO element is met.
56. The defendants committed more than two predicate acts, to be set out with specificity required in compliance with FRCP 9(b) as required to meet this element to sustain a federal RICO action. Virtually all the evidence in support of the RICO and Civil Rights causes of action are contained in a number of court files in the Clark County Superior Court, Skamania County Superior Court, the Court of Appeals – Division II, and the Supreme court of the State of Washington. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants knew that the U.S. Mail would be used in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback, and that each document mailed or that could have been mailed act by all defendants was in violation of both 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud and deprived Railsback of his intangible right to honest service under18 U.S.C. § 1346.
57. All defendants are alleged to have denied Railsback his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America in that they each and everyone of them deprived Railsback of these rights under color of the laws of the United States and the State of Washington, the facts of which will be laid out later in this complaint. The blatant denial of Railsback’s Civil Rights under the Constitution of the United States was in furtherance of the maintenance and control of the associates-in-fact criminal enterprise as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.
58. On 2/5/99, Harris entered an order confirming an arbitration award against Railsback and in favor of Dale and Casey Hackett, in Clark County Superior Case. No. 99-2-00334-2.
59. On 2/18/99, Meyer obtained order from Harris to appear at a debtor’s examine on 3/5/99. This order was obtained in an improper ex parte between Harris and Meyer and furthermore was improperly served on Railsback.
60. On 3/5/99, a hearing on Railsback’s timely motion to vacate the arbitration award was heard. Harris continually interrupted Railsback in an attempt to prevent Railsback for arguing his motion and presenting evidence warranting vacation of the arbitration award. Meyer presented no argument nor did Meyer file a responsive pleading. Harris denied the motion to vacate even when presented evidence from a deposition of Hackett that entitled Railsback to an offset in the arbitration award. This was obstruction of justice and a denial of Railsback’ Constitutional Right to due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.
61. During the 3/5/99 hearing, Meyer stipulated that if Railsback were to obtain a judgment against D&D Corporation, a jointly held corporation of Hackett and Railsback, Railsback would be entitled to an offset in the amount of any judgement Railsback was able to obtain.
62. On 3/11/99, Railsback obtained the judgment stipulated to in the amount of approximately $62,000.
63. On 3/18/99, during an improperly noticed and ordered debtor’s exam, Railsback raised the issue of the offsets, whereupon Harris and Meyer looked at one another and then claimed that the judgment was “likely not valid” even though it was from a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Harris refused to enter an order related to the offsets to which Railsback was entitled to as a matter of law.
64. On 3/26/99, Harris refused to consider Railsback’s motion regarding the offsets because Railsback had not signed the motion and Harris declined to offer Railsback the opportunity to sign the pleading as required by CR 11.
65. On 4/9/99, at a properly noticed hearing, Harris once again refused to enter the order related to the offsets to which Railsback was entitled and stated that Railsback needed to “pierce a corporate veil” even though neither the law nor the stipulation agreed to in open court made any reference to such a requirement.
66. On 4/30/99, Harris entered an order denying Railsback’s motion for the offsets to which Railsback was entitled. Harris further ordered that Meyer was not required to respond to any further pleadings or motions filed by Railsback, an order for which Harris had no authority but did so in an effort to obstruct justice by discouraging Railsback from pursuing justice in the courts of Clark County.
67. On 5/3/99, Railsback filed and served a motion on Meyer for a motion to reconsider Harris’s order of 4/30/99 denying Railsback’s motion on the stipulation and also for an order either denying or granting Railsback’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, which had not been entered previously.
68. On 5/7/99, a hearing was held on the motion filed by Railsback on 5/3/99. Meyer did not attend the hearing and Harris refused to enter any order based on Railsback’s 5/3/99 motion. As of 5/7/99, there was no final judgment or order on either the arbitration award or the stipulation, and to this date, there is still none. Railsback also moved for Harris to recuse himself as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct based on his ex parte contact with Meyer on 2/18/99. Harris refused to disqualify himself as required.
69. On or about 5/10/99, Meyer filed writs of garnishment against two of Railsback’s personal; checking accounts and against Railsback’s employer (Railsback is self-employed). Railsback filed and served timely claims of exemption on 5/17/99. Railsback also filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy action on 5/24/99 in order to protect his assets. After a short time, Railsback realized that Hackett had failed to timely file objections to Railsback’s claims of exemption, the time for which expired prior to Railsback filing for the Chapter 13. In other words, there was no need for Railsback to have filed for a Chapter 13, because the time limitation period for Hackett to object to Railsback’s claims of exemption had already expired and as a matter of law, the court was required to dismiss the garnishments with prejudice.
70. On 6/18/99, because Hackett had failed to file timely objections to Railsback’s claims of exemptions, Railsback prepared and Harris signed orders vacating the writs of garnishment. Railsback then had his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition dismissed as it was no longer necessary. Railsback waited until after the writs of garnishment were dismissed because of past experience with Harris intentionally violating Railsback’s constitutional right to both substantive and procedural due process.
71. After delivering copies of the orders dismissing, the writs of garnishment, Bank of America refused to return the property to which Railsback was entitled, and instead, contacted Meyer to let him know that orders dismissing the writs had been entered. During this time, defendants Ramstead, Christel and Meyer conspired with Harris to deny Railsback his property to which is was entitled and in doing so, committed theft-1 pursuant to RCW 9A.56.030, a Class-B felony.
72. On 7/2/99, a hearing was held concerning the orders vacating the writs of garnishment in which Harris vacated his the orders in violation of CR 60.
73. On 7/5/99, Meyer served Railsback with an untimely motion for a hearing to be held on 7/9/99 on objections to Railsback’s claims of exemptions. Railsback objected to sufficiency of service and his motion was granted. There was no hearing on the claims of exemption on 7/9/99, and in fact, there was never a required hearing on the claims of exemption.
74. Over the next few weeks there were hearing related to the writs of garnishments and case law in reference to how federal bankruptcy law affected the garnishment procedure, even though it was clear that Hackett’s failure to timely object to the claims of exemption mooted the entire bankruptcy issue. During these hearings, Meyer and Harris were continually caught off guard as to the law and cases related to bankruptcy and garnishments, but obviously the law did not matter.
75. On 7/30/99, during a hearing on another of Railsback’s motions to vacate the arbitration award, Harris, after thumbing through the court file at least twice, stated that his order dated 4/30/99 was a final order denying the vacation of the arbitration award even though the order makes no mention of it and the pleadings leading up to the 4/30 hearing were solely about the offsets stipulated to, and on top of that, Railsback had filed a motion to reconsider the order on the stipulation, which has still not been acted upon. Harris, once again refused to enter an order either granting or denying the motion to vacate the arbitration award. He knew he and Meyer had been caught in a criminal conspiracy and theft-1 at that time.
76. On 8/30/99, Harris mailed or caused to be mailed a MEMORANDUM OF OPINION in which he caused to be mailed to Railsback an Meyer in furtherance of their conspiracy and in violation of the CR 52 requirement for the court to notify the defeated party five days in advance of entering a judgment or order against them, facts pointed out to Harris at a previously scheduled hearing on 9/3/99. This is mail fraud and obstruction of justice.
77. On 9/17/99, Harris entered a final judgment on the garnishment action even though Hackett had failed to timely object to Railsback’s claims of exemption, there had been no required hearing on the claims of exemption and not even a final judgment on the arbitration award underlying the garnishment action.
78. Throughout the entire arbitration award proceedings and the garnishment proceedings, Defendants Harris, Meyer, Christel, Wolfe, Bank of America, and Ramstead, conspired to deny Railsback his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process through the use of the Clark County Superior Court in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 –1968 as associates-in-fact in a RICO enterprise, though numerous acts of obstruction of justice and mail fraud related to the placing of documents in the U.S. Mail in furtherance of their scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback of his property in the amount of $43,000, the predicate acts for which will be listed in an addendum to this complaint and incorporated into this complaint by this mention.
79. Throughout the arbitration award confirmation process and the garnishment, the defendants named in paragraph 78 mailed or caused to be mailed documents related to the court proceedings such as motions, citations, declarations/certificates of mailing, letters, proposed orders, and other related documents as required by law or court rules.
80. On 9/7/99, Railsback filed a Notice of Appeal on the Garnishment Judgment and underlying arbitration matter for which there had been no final judgment entered.
81. On 10/7/99 defendant Ponzoha mailed a letter to Railsback regarding the appealability of the garnishment judgment, setting into motion an extensive series of motions, briefs and rulings regarding the appealability of the garnishment judgment and the underlying arbitration award matter. All the documentation for this portion of the RICO allegations and Civil Rights allegations are contained in Washington Court of Appeals- Division II, Case No. 25025-0-II, and Washington Supreme Court Case No. 69261-1 – Railsback v. Hackett.
82. By way of summary, defendant Meath, without authority of law and jurisdiction made a ruling that the garnishment judgment was appealable and the arbitration matter was not appealable. Railsback filed what the COA terms a motion to modify a ruling of the COA commissioner, and without being provided with an opportunity to be heard or provide with a written decision from a constitutionally authorized panel of judges, was denied appealability of the arbitration matter even though there was no final order entered on the arbitration award, The order denying the Motion to Modify was signed only by Bridgewater even though the matter was supposed to be heard by a three-judge panel. Railsback then filed a Petition for Review of an Interlocutory Decision of the COA with the Washington Supreme Court in which defendant Crooks, a supreme court “commissioner”, who also has no authority to make rulings or enter orders, entered an order denying the appealability of the arbitration matter despite Meyer conceding that Railsback’s argument “had some merit”. Railsback then filed a motion to modify the commissioner’s ruling, which was summarily denied without explanation by a panel of five Washington Supreme Court Justices in an order that was signed only by Guy, so there is no evidence in the record that a five-justice panel even considered the matter.
83. During this action in the COA and the Supreme Court, defendants Guy, Crooks, Bridgewater, Meath, Ponzoha, and Meyer conspired to deny Railsback his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process and through their use of the U.S. Mails, committed mail fraud in their scheme to defraud Railsback of a $3,500 illegally entered garnishment judgment and $40,000 in the arbitration matter.
84. The defendants named in paragraph 86 mailed or caused to be mailed documents, pleadings, briefs, rulings, orders, declarations/certificates of mailing, letters and other documents related to COA Case No. 25025-0-II and Supreme Court Case No. 69261-1.
85. On 3/2/00, Railsback went to the Central Precinct of the Clark County Sheriff’s Department and attempted to file a complaint, in the form of a declaration signed under the penalty of perjury, alleging criminal conduct by defendants Judge Harris, Meyer, Christel, Wolfe, and Bank of America. A copy of that DECLARATION is attached as addendum “B”, and incorporated into this complaint by this mention.
86. Defendant McKay, a Sergeant and a Clark County Deputy Sheriff, refused to accept the complaint and stated that there was no basis for any allegations of criminal conduct by Judge Harris and that he would not, under any circumstances accept a complaint, investigate it, or assign a case number. McKay stated specifically that he would not investigate a superior court judge, because “He’s a judge.” McKay made these statements before he even read the complaint. McKay claimed that he was making this decision on his own. At the end of a rather heated discussion, McKay did take the declaration after Railsback’s considerable efforts, but did not assign a case number. As of 1/23/00, a case number has still not been assigned.
87. Over the next several days, Railsback made several calls and faxed several letters and other documents to defendants Lucas, Jane Johnson, and Evans, inquiring as to when a case number would be assigned and a time for Railsback to review the evidence with an investigator. Defendant Evans mailed two letters to Railsback during this time in an effort to mislead Railsback into thinking there was no basis for the allegations and stating that he would not be conducting any investigation into the allegations related to Harris, Meyer, Wolfe, Christel, Rayburn and Bank of America. Defendant Evans somehow thought it was appropriate to send Harris copies of his correspondence to Railsback. This was certainly done in an effort to intimidate Railsback into dropping the matter. It didn’t work.
88. On 3/20/00, after realizing that defendants Lucas, Jane Johnson, Evans and McKay, were not going to investigate the allegations in Railsback’s 3/2/00 declaration, Railsback filed a tort claim against the county for damages in the amount of $1.2 million ($1,200,000.00) based on the Sheriff’s refuse to perform duties imposed upon him by law and the obvious conspiracy to shield Harris, Meyer, Wolfe, Christel, Rayburn and Bank of America from the criminal and civil consequences of their actions.
89. Approximately two months later, defendant Pavone cause a letter to be mailed to Railsback denying the claim, stating there was no basis for Railsback’s tort claim. This letter was sent despite the fact that no one at the county had reviewed the evidence in Clark County Superior Court Case No. 99-2-00334-2 or viewed the video tapes of hearings related to that case.
90. On 6/1/00, Railsback faxed a memo to defendant Dennis Hunter, who admitted on that date in a phone call that he had not reviewed the video tapes, to which was attached a summary of all the hearing related to Case No. 99-2-00334-2. Railsback notified him that if there was no resolution of the claim by 6/6/00, Railsback would be starting a lawsuit against Clark County shortly thereafter.
91. On 6/9/00, Railsback, in compliance with CR 4 caused a summons and complaint to be served on the Clark County Auditor claiming damages in the amount of $1.2 million.
92. On 6/30/00, Railsback filed the summons, complaint, and proof of service in Skamania County Superior Court as pursuant to RCW 36.01.050, a proper jurisdiction and venue for a lawsuit against Clark County. Railsback filed motions an affidavits for default judgment, along with a proposed judgment so the court could enter the judgment as required by CR 55(b)(1) because Clark County had failed to appear, answer or otherwise defend the action within the statutory time limitation period of 20 days. Entry of a default judgment when the claim is for a sum certain, or can by calculation be made certain, when the defendant has failed to appear, answer or otherwise defend, is a ministerial duty the court is required to perform.
93. Even though defendant Judge Reynolds was available, on 6/30/00, to enter the default judgment as he knew the law required, he refused to perform his duty imposed upon him by law.
94. On 7/10/00, Railsback returned to Skamania County in another effort to obtain entry of the default judgment from Reynolds. After a discussion with the Clerk’s office, and after a lady went to see Reynolds, Railsback was told that he would have to docket the motion and affidavit for a motion docket, even though Clark County was not entitled to notice of entry of a default judgment because they had failed to appear or otherwise defend prior to the statutory time limitation period or before the motion and affidavit for default judgment were filed. After getting nowhere with this reasoning, Railsback proceeded to make a written request to get on the 7/13/00 motion docket, to which the clerk said was impossible because I would have to give Clark County at least five days notice. I told her Clark County was not entitled to notice and I would not give them notice. She then stated that I was still too late to get on the 7/13/00 docket. At that point, I went to the law library downstairs to read the local court rules, and low and behold, Railsback had until 5:00 p.m. on 3/10/00, to get on the 7/13/00 docket. After filing the written request to get on the 7/13/00 docket, I was told that Reynolds would see me immediately in his chambers. During this meeting in Reynolds’s chambers, he told Railsback that he “felt uncomfortable entering this judgment without Clark County having been given notice” and that he would refuse to enter it until Clark County was noticed for a hearing. Railsback read the relevant portion of CR 55 concerning the requirements for notice in default cases and informed Reynolds that under no circumstances would Railsback give Clark County notice, because to do so would jeopardize Railsback’s “right to the judgment”. Railsback further told Reynolds that he had no authority to require that notice be given to Clark County. Reynolds’s only duty was to enter the judgment. Reynolds again refused to enter it and Railsback said he would be back on 7/13/00.
95. On 7/13/00, Reynolds once again refused to enter the judgment as required by law, and again ordered Railsback to give Clark County notice of a hearing on the matter. Railsback told Reynolds that he would not, under any circumstances give Clark county notice to which it was not entitled, and especially since I had no doubt that Clark county and the court would use that as an excuse to claim Railsback had waived his right to a default judgment. Railsback, once again reminder Reynolds that he was required to enter the judgment as a matter of law.
96. 7/14/00, Railsback fax what could be considered a terse letter demanding that Reynolds enter the default judgment as the law required and that Railsback would not give Clark County notice under any circumstances. To put it mildly, I was not the least bit interested in Reynolds “comfort” level, just that he obey the law whether he liked it or not. Later on the same day, I received a fax from Lizbeth Hermansen, who intercepted my fax, attached it to a letter addressed to Clark County and sent it that day to defendant Curt Wyrick in the Clark County Prosecutor’s office. Ms. Hermansen’s letter stated that she would not deliver the letter to Reynolds because she considered it to be an improper ex parte contact, but it was OK to send it to Clark County.
97. On 7/14/00, Clark County mailed a pleading to the court with what it termed to be an “Answer”, the gist of which was “we did nothing wrong and even if we did, our actions were in good faith”. Aside from the fact that “good faith” is not an available defense to a tort claim and a mere general denial is no defense at all, Clark County failed to obtain leave of the court to file an answer as required by CR 55(a)(2). Basically, Clark County had no defense. Furthermore, the “Answer” failed to 1. present a meritorious defense supported by affidavits; 2. demonstrate good cause, which requires both excusable neglect and due diligence; 3. Irregularity; and, 4. No prejudice to the non-defaulting party. Clark County argued none of this in their “Answer”.
98. On 7/19/00, Railsback traveled to Goldendale, WA, with yet another proposed default judgment, because after looking over the Clark County “Answer”, Railsback realized that even if the answer were permitted. Railsback was still entitled to the default judgment. For a variety of excuses, Reynolds once again refused to enter the judgment as required by law.
99. After leaving the Clerk’s office, Railsback was seated on a bench in a public hallway in the Klickitat County Courthouse reading the court rules when he was approached by a deputy Tallman, and another unknown deputy. In summary, they informed me that Judge Reynolds ordered then to arrest Railsback if he did not immediately leave the courthouse, even though Railsback was not disturbing anyone or anything. This is unlawful imprisonment under Washington law and the minute I got up to leave was a clear violation of my Constitutional Rights under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The fact that Reynolds was the source of this order was confirmed on 7/20 or 7/21, in phone calls by Railsback to Saundra Olson, Clerk of the Klickitat County Superior Court and Klickitat County deputy sheriff, Sgt. Keffler, Deputy Tallman’s supervisor.
100. On 7/20/00, Railsback faxed another proposed judgment to Reynolds, and attached to it, a memorandum of law regarding the failings in the Clark County “Answer”, including Clark County’s failure to request leave of the court to appear. So what does Reynolds do; he faxes copies of my documents to Clark County so they can respond.
101. On 7/20/00, and 7/21/00, at the earliest, Clark County mailed pleadings and other documents to the court and Railsback in an attempt to cover their deficiencies in their pleadings. This of course was done at, as Clark County put it, an “invitation” of the court. Clark County and some individuals have a real problem with the pleadings and other documents “dated” on the 19th of July, 2000. They are as follows: 1) The envelope these documents were mailed in has a postage meter date of “July 20’00” from Salem, OR; 2) A postage meter date is does not provide proof of when anything is mailed; 3) If this envelope was actually mailed from Salem on “July 20’00”, Mindy Lamberton has a perjury problem since certificate of mailing said it was mailed from Vancouver, WA, on July 20, 2000; 4) One would hope that if Ms. Lamberton mailed it from Salem, that she can prove she was there and identify the location of the postage meter so the meter number can be checked against the envelope; 5) Under the best of circumstances, one would have to conclude that the mailing was made no earlier than July 20, 2000, but that is not likely since it was not received until July 25, 2000. 6) I suppose it is possible that the Clark County Prosecutor's Civil division has two postage meters, one with a place of origin being “Salem”.
102. A reasonable person would have to conclude that Reynolds conspired with Clark County in an effort to obstruct justice by engaging in such blatant acts of fraud in an effort by Reynolds to protect Harris and other defendants from the exposure of and accountability for their crimes.
103. On 7/25/00, Railsback, in a public meeting of the Clark County Board of Commissioners, put defendants Morris and Stanton on notice that defendants Anders, Wyrick, Harris, Lucas, McKay, Evans, Jane Johnson, Anderson, and Reynolds were conspiring to obstruct justice and cover-up crimes committed by Harris and others from exposure and accountability by denying Railsback his right, as a matter of law, to the default judgment. Morris and Stanton were advised to seek independent outside counsel for the protection of the citizens of Clark County and themselves. This warning has been repeated to defendants Morris, Stanton, and Pridemore on several additional occasions in person and in writing.
104. On 7/27/00, a hearing improperly noticed by Clark County was conducted, and as a result, Reynolds entered an order allowing Clark County to answer, appear and defend the action, in spite of the fact that Railsback established that Reynolds would be committing, as a minimum, the crime of official misconduct if he failed to enter the default judgment as required by law. Even when confronted with his criminal conduct, Reynolds still refused to enter the judgment.
105. On 7/2700, immediately after the hearing, Railsback went to the Skamania County Sheriff’s office and filed a criminal complaint against Reynolds for official misconduct with Undersheriff Ed Powell, who attended the hearing at my request. Powell took a report, assigned a case number, and early the next week, referred it to the Skamania County prosecutor, defendant Anderson.
106. On 7/28/00, Railsback called defendant Anderson to give him a heads-up that he would be getting a criminal referral against Reynolds from the Skamania County Sheriff in the next few days and that Railsback expected Anderson to act on the complaint. Anderson stated that under no circumstances would he ever investigate or file charges against Judge Reynolds. I informed him that should he fail to do so, he would also be subject to a criminal complaint for official misconduct, as well. Anderson then told Railsback that Railsback was threatening him. Railsback was merely informing Anderson about a duty imposed upon him by law, which could not possibly be construed as a threat by a reasonable person.
107. On 7/28/00, Anderson mailed a letter to Railsback stating that Railsback had threatened him. Railsback informed Anderson that he should look up the legal definition of “threat”. This letter mailed by Anderson is a RICO predicate act of mail fraud.
108. On 7/28/00, defendants Anderson, Reynolds, Anders, Lucas, and Dell, caused a criminal referral to be made to the Clark County Prosecutor, alleging that Railsback committed the crime of intimidation of public officials, a Class B felony, without any reasonable basis or probable cause. There were no affidavits filed at the time and almost six months later, there are still no affidavits and no charge has been filed against Railsback. This was a blatant attempt at intimidation, obstruction of justice, extortion, criminal conspiracy, hindering a criminal investigation.
109. Defendant Bob Shannon, Deputy Criminal Prosecutor has refused to dismiss this complaint even though he has positive knowledge that there is no basis for it and with full knowledge that the individuals who attempted to have Railsback prosecuted for a crime they knew he did not commit are probably guilty of malicious prosecution. If found guilty, they would be subject to imprisonment for up to five years. Railsback alleges that the reason the charge against him has not been dismissed even though the time for trial has expired is because a dismissal would more readily expose the perpetrators of the malicious prosecution to criminal and civil liability. Thus, defendant Shannon has joined the associates-in-fact RICO enterprise.
110. On 7/30/00, Railsback was informed by Pastor Mitchell Burch and Deputy Michael Harris (no relation to Judge Harris), that Mike Harris had been told, or heard, that if Lucas got one more phone call about Railsback, then Railsback would be arrested. This was an implied or direct threat in an attempt to extort Railsback into dropping his right to a judgment to which Railsback was entitled.
111. On 7/31/00, Railsback faxed a letter to Sheriff Lucas that in summary stated, “If you think you have enough evidence to arrest me, just give me a call and I will come down to the Sheriff’s Department, but you will find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit that just would not stop.”
112. On 8/6/00, Deputy Hackett came to Railsback’s house to “talk to Don Railsback”. Railsback was not a home, but left a message for Railsback to give him a call. Based on Railsback’s discussions concerning Lucas, there was a real basis for being very worried about what Lucas may try to do.
113. On 8/7/00, Railsback met with Deputy Hackett, who tried to convince Railsback that Lucas, the sheriff’s department, or anyone else were not trying to threaten or intimidate. Railsback informed Deputy Hackett, that when Sheriff Lucas states, “If I get one more call about Railsback, I will have him arrested”, is clearly a threat and attempt at intimidation. Railsback also informed Deputy Hackett that Railsback was not a physical threat to anyone; definitely a legal threat, but not a physical one. Railsback asked if there was a sheriff’s report or any referral to the prosecutor. Hackett said there was no report nor a criminal referral. Deputy Hackett, as we can clearly see, lied.
114. On 8/9/00, Railsback filed an amended summons and petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge Reynolds pursuant to Wash. Const. Art. 4, Sect. 4, RCW 7.16.150, and RAP 16.2 in the Supreme Court of Washington. Supreme Court No. 69896-1 – Railsback v. Reynolds.
115. On 8/15/00, Reynolds entered an order recusing himself from Skamania County Superior Court Case No. 00-2-00090-3, which created a mistrial and supposedly vacated the order permitting Clark County to appear and defend. Railsback received a copy of this recusal on 8/18 in an envelope postmarked 8/17/00.
116. On 8/16/00, defendant Anderson mailed a notice of appearance on behalf of Reynolds, which arrived on 8/17/00. This seemed rather odd since if Reynolds recused himself, why does he need representation.
117. On 8/24/00 Reynolds signed an affidavit which admitted to all the facts that would require the Supreme Court to grant the mandate.
118. On 8/24/00, Railsback filed a $10.25 million dollar tort claim against the State of Washington because the Governor, the AG and individuals within their offices who had been put on notice, on several occasions, regarding government and judicial corrupt, refused to take actions or meet with Railsback to go over the evidence. As I was told by defendants Billingslea and Blonien on several occasions, they claimed that they had no authority or power to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by judges or public officials in political subdivisions of the State of Washington. As recently as mid January, 2001, both Mr. Blonien and Mr. Billingslea stated that they were either to busy or that they had no authority to take any action, even after Railsback pointed to the statutes and Constitutional provisions that required them to take action. They were even too busy to walk across a parking lot to look at one Supreme Court file. They both specifically stated they were not going to take any action to investigate. Both of these individuals have place letters in the mail in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud.
119. On 8/25/00, Anderson mailed an answer to Railsback’s petition in which he admitted that the facts were as Railsback alleged, but made some of the most blatant contortions of the law regarding default judgments one could possibly imaginable in an effort to argue that Railsback was not entitled to the default judgment. Other than generalized arguments that did not address the facts of this case, Anderson made no attempt to attack Railsback’s well founded arguments. Anderson had no authority to file an answer, since one would think that if everything was on the up-and-up, he and Reynolds would have had no vested interest in mandamus action. Obviously this was not the case.
120. On 8/28/00, Railsback filed his reply, which addressed each and every contention of Anderson’s with cites to the applicable case, statutes and court rules.
121. On 8/31/00, Clark county filed a MOTION TO INTERVENE in the mandamus action, along with what Clark County called an “Answer”. Obviously, Anderson, Reynolds or someone at the Supreme Court had informed Clark County about the petition for a writ if mandamus. Railsback sure didn’t, because Clark County was not entitled to notice of any subsequent proceedings after being in default.
122. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction for petitions against a state officer in the nature of mandamus. (See RAP 16.2(a)).
123. The Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court, defendant Carpenter even recognized that it was a RAP 16.2 action when he sent Railsback a letter date August 1, 2000, stating that it was an action filed pursuant to RAP 16.2.
124. Once individuals in the Supreme Court realized the implications for defendants Harris, Reynolds, and many of the other defendants if the Supreme Court were to comply with the requirements of RAP 16.2, hear oral arguments, and be required to publish an opinion in the Washington Reports, things changed dramatically. All defendants then embarked on a mission to obstruct justice and deny Railsback his constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. All of a sudden, what was a RAP 16.2 action became a mere motion to the Supreme court Commissioner under RAP 17. The only problem is that RAP 17.1(a) states, “A person may seek relief, other than a decision of the case on the merits, by motion as provided in Title 17. Since a RAP 16.2 action requires a decision on the merits, the only way for the members of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington to prevent the exposure of judicial corruption in Southwest Washington and exposure of the unconstitutionality of appellate court commissioners, was to make a malicious, intentional attempt, and without regard to the rights of Railsback, to hide these facts from the public in any way possible. In doing so, defendants Guy, Alexander, Merritt, Carpenter, Crooks, possibly other justices of the Washington Supreme Court, and all other defendants named in this lawsuit determined that in order to maintain their associates-in-fact RICO enterprise control of the executive and judicial branches of the government of the State of Washington, as well as the legislative branch of Clark County government, they would have to, and were willing to, sacrifice Railsback’s Constitutional Rights. This could only be done if Railsback was denied a constitutionally required hearing and written decision based on the law and, substantive and procedural due process, and that is exactly what they have attempted to do. They will not succeed.
125. Defendant Crooks, without any authority under the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution or laws of Washington entered a ruling on September 19, 2000, dismissing Railsback’s Petition for a writ of mandamus, even though the RAP he cited for justification also stated that that particular rule does not apply to RAP 16.2 actions.
126. After numerous efforts by Railsback to obtain a hearing as required by the Constitutions of the State of Washington and the United States, the Washington Court Chief Justice, Richard Guy entered an order that simply denied a motion to modify a ruling by a court commissioner. Railsback has no way of knowing if there was actually a five-justice panel that considered the petition for a writ of mandamus, even if it were proper to do so, because only Chief Justice Guy signed the order.
127. Since that time, Railsback has made numerous attempts to seek answer to questions for which the Supreme Court, the Governor, the Attorney General, or anyone else have no good answers. The actions of all defendants in the mandamus action conspired in a corrupt manner in their attempt to maintain control of the enterprise(s) consisting of the Executive and Judicial branches of government for their own benefit and the benefit of their associates-in fact and in doing so used the United States Mail in furtherance of their scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback and untold numbers of other citizens of the State of Washington. The conclusive evidence of these and other crimes are contained in the court files and video tapes of the cases mentioned in this complaint.
128. Railsback’s efforts included several letters directed to the attention of each of the Justices and even put all nine justices on notice that the failure of any one of them to take corrective action to ensure Railsback’s constitutional right to due process was protected would likely expose them to some liability under the federal RICO and Civil Rights statutes. Based on the fact that no Justice responded, one can only conclude that each one of them agreed with the corrupt goals of the enterprise and became associates-in-fact of the criminal enterprise.
129. While the Supreme Court was busy committing a wide variety of RICO predicate acts related to the mandamus action, since Reynolds’s recusal created a mistrial, Railsback embarked on what became a futile search for even one honest Superior Court Judge in SW Washington. When Reynolds recused himself, a copy of the order of recusal was sent to the Clark County Clerk, so Railsback proceeded to look for an honest Clark County Superior Court Judge.
130. Railsback first presented the required documents to defendant Judges Bennett, who happened to be the ex parte judge that week, on two occasions, September 12 & 13, 2000. On the first occasion, Bennett called Skamania County to discuss the case with someone, at least that is what his assistant said was taking so long. Bennett refused to enter the judgment because, “Judge Reynolds’s order denying the default judgment was still valid” and he would not enter an order on that basis. Railsback knew that this made no sense at all, but did not have any cases to the contrary immediately available. Not to worry, Railsback found 2-3 cases that basically agree that Bennett’s excuse was a crock. When the same documents were presented for entry of the default judgment the very next day, and after a bit of a delay, Bennett’s assistant appears with the unsigned default judgment and a letter stating that defendant Judge Harris, whose criminal conduct got all this stuff started in the first place, would assign a judge to the case. Included in the documents was a memorandum of law that stated that if he refused to enter the judgment, he would be at minimum, committing the crime of official misconduct.
131. Next up was defendant Judge Rulli. Railsback showed up at Rulli’s motion docket on Friday, September 15, 2000. Railsback has the video tape of that hearing, which involved a bit of verbal jousting concerning the law, during which Rulli commented, “Mr. Railsback, I’m sure you know the law better than most judges”, maybe not expecting Railsback to come back with, “When it comes to the law on default judgments, I certainly do!”. Railsback also remarked that he knew the rules of Civil and Appellate procedure, too. After successfully discounting all of Rulli’s lame excuses for not entering the default judgment, Rulli stated that he was recusing himself. Railsback pointed out that entry of a default judgment under the circumstances involved no discretion and that the court had a duty to enter the default judgment. Where there is no discretion involved, there is no excuse for not performing a duty imposed by law, and that his refusal to do so would also be official misconduct. When Rulli mentioned that other judges refused to enter the judgment, Railsback stated that other judges committing a crime is no defense to his criminal conduct. In the end, and as expected, Rulli refused to enter the judgment.
132. Next on the list was defendant Judge Barbara Johnson on September 18, 2000. This was and interesting situation, because as soon as I presented the documents to Judge Johnson’s assistant, a lady comes up to her and says there is an emergency in Judge Ladley’s chambers, but they go straight across the hall to Judge Poyfair’s chambers. This could have been a coincidence, but the net result was that Judge Johnson refused to enter the default judgment and she committed official misconduct. She also committed a predicate act of mail fraud by mailing the documents back to Railsback though the U.S. Mails. Railsback still has the envelope to prove it.
133. Apparently, Judge Harris and his associates-in-fact defendant judges in the Clark County Superior Court did not care for Railsback’s efforts in trying to locate another judge, because a few days later, Railsback gets a copy of a letter (mail fraud) from Judge Reynolds to Judge Stephen Warning asking Warning to personally take care of this case. At this point, Railsback figured “what the heck”, the worst thing that could happen was to identify one more RICO defendant, and that is exactly what happened. Railsback attempted to file a proposed judgment, along with a memorandum of law that basically said if he didn’t enter the judgment as required by law, he too would be committing official misconduct. The Clerk of the Cowlitz County superior Court refused to file it (obstruction of justice, extortion under color of law), so I then gave these documents directly to Judge Warning so he could file with the Skamania County Superior Court.
134. Railsback had thought that Reynolds and Harris were arrogantly corrupt, but compared to Warning, they are pikers. On September 27, 2000, Warning enters an order that not only denied entry of the default judgment, but imposed sanctions of $200 against Railsback for CR 11 sanctions. Warning’s reasoning was that Railsback had presented the default judgment to other superior court judges who had declined to enter the judgment, as if their criminal conduct was a valid excuse to impose sanctions against Railsback. Warning had another problem in that Reynolds’s letter specifically stated that all the Clark County Superior Court Judges had recused themselves (there are no notices of recusal from any Clark County judge), and if that was the case, each of their recusals created another mistrial. Based on the rules of procedure, this would make, in essence, the first time the judgment was presented. If this weren’t enough, already, Warning threw away the documents presented by Railsback for consideration in the entry of the default judgement, so there is no documentation in the court file that Railsback even presented Warning with a motion and affidavit for default judgment. This is a RICO predicate act of obstruction of justice. Warning placed a copy of his fraudulent order in the mail addressed to Railsback and thus committed the RICO predicate act of mail fraud.
135. Since the time of this so-called order of Warning, defendant Hollis, clerk of the Skamania County Superior Court has refused to file a motion to disqualify Warning for cause until Railsback pays the fraudulently imposed sanctions of $200. This is obstruction of justice and official misconduct since a Clerk is required by law to file all documents that are delivered to the Clerk’s office. Railsback, Hollis, and Anderson had an extended “discussion” about this matter. At the end of this discussion, Railsback informed Anderson and Hollis that the refusal to file the motion was obstruction of justice and extortion under the color of law.
136. The Office of the Administrator for the Courts, and specifically defendants McQueen and Austin, have obstructed justice in that they have refused to locate a superior court in which Railsback can go to enter the default judgment to which he is entitled by law, even though they have the authority to go to the Supreme Court to accomplish this task. This, of course has not been in the best interest of the recently retire Chief Justice Guy and the Current Chief Justice Alexander, so of course they weren’t going to do this. This is obstruction of justice and a RICO predicate act. Their latest excuse is that Railsback has to pay the $200 in fraudulently imposed sanctions. Railsback will use the money to file a RICO and Civil Rights complaint in U.S. District Court since giving $200 to a Washington superior court would simply be throwing money away.
137. Railsback filed a petition to recall Sheriff Garry Lucas (Clark County Superior Court No. 00-2-03930-5) on September 19, 2000, Railsback’s 27th wedding anniversary, and hopefully not his last, but time will tell. The main reason for filing the recall petition was because Lucas was covering up the crimes of Harris, Reynolds, Anders, Wyrick, Anderson, etc. Lucas also attempted to intimidate Railsback in late July, 2000, into abandoning his quest to obtain the default judgment to which he was entitled by law.
138. On 9/20/00, one day later, at the request of defendant Hunter or someone else, a copy of the Clark County Sheriff’s Case No. 00009219 was faxed to defendant Hunter, obviously with the intent to use the contents to discredit Railsback in his effort to recall Lucas. This is the file mentioned earlier in this complaint and alleged that Railsback had attempted to intimidate Reynolds and Anderson. There were no declarations or affidavits in the file, yet the sheriff’s office had made a criminal referral to the prosecuting attorney on the day this alleged complaint was received. I guess the Sheriff office can work quickly when they want to, but if they don’t want to do their job in any particular case, they get real busy with almost anything else.
139. Apparently after much discussion, of which I was kept in the dark, but not Lucas’s attorney; a proposed three judge panel of Clark County Superior Court Judges to hear the petition was discarded. Judge Harris was “in control” of the case and made statements to this effect to the media. Apparently, Harris did not think that his active involvement in this process was a problem even though his criminal conduct got this entire mess started and he had a very personal interest in seeing that the petition to recall Lucas was dismissed.
140. Guess what? Harris requested that the Administrator for the Courts locate a judge from another county to conduct this recall hearing in a letter dated October 4, 2000. This letter was received by the Administrator for the Courts on October 6, 2000, yet Chief Justice Guy signed an order that was filed on October 5, 2000. Obviously, Harris and Austin had discussed this matter in advance and undoubtedly decided that Warning would fit the bill if the outcome of the hearing was going to be to the satisfaction of the enterprise. Warning accepted this assignment even though he knew that he was at that time a current subject of a criminal investigation by the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s office for obstruction of justice and official misconduct related to the default judgment matter. Apparently, that was of no concern since the enterprise probably has “control” of that case as well.
141. Warning was supposedly appointed to hear this matter pursuant to RCW 2.56.030, which construed with the Washington constitution, required that five justices must agree on a judge when one is requested for a particular case. That is not a problem, because when Warning shows up for the hearing, he said he was there pursuant to RCW 4.12.040 or .050. Go figure.
142. This hearing was fixed from the get go, which worked out just fine, because in the process, Lucas admitted through a declaration and his attorney that there had never been an investigation of the allegations in neither Railsback’s 3/2/00 declaration, the tort claim, nor in the Skamania County Case No. 00-2-00090-3 – Railsback v. Clark County. The fact that the sheriff nor the prosecutor’s office ever looked into Railsback’s allegations of criminal conduct was confirmed by Lucas’s attorney, Joseph Quinn, a few weeks after the hearing.
143. For some reason, the Clark County Superior Court did not see a need to notify Railsback of the date and time of the hearing, although every one else seemed to know well in advance. Railsback learned about it in the newspaper two days before the hearing. This among other reasons is why Amran is a defendant.
144. On top of all this good fortune, Judge Warning committed perjury in the first degree during the hearing, the facts which support this crime are contained in Clark County Prosecutor’s Case No. 2000-11811. Currently, the Clark County Prosecutor does not seem to think perjury by a judge is a crime worthy of any attention, and is why defendant Curtis is a defendant in this action. He has been put on notice, on several occasions regarding the criminal conduct of Judge Harris, Lucas, Reynolds and others, but must have more important things to do than prosecute public officials who commit crimes.
145. Defendant Buckner has been named as a defendant because he is totally disinterested in meeting with Railsback to go over evidence that connects Warning’s perjury to all the other criminal conduct by members of the RICO enterprise. This is hindering a criminal investigation.
146. This is keeping in line with the opinions and level of concern clearly expressed by Governor Locke and AG Gregoire and their staffs, which is why they are named as well. Locke and Gregoire had been put on notice as to public and judicial corruption in SW Washington as early as March, 2000, and have done nothing to address it or investigate it. Quite frankly, this comes as no surprise.
147. All allegations in paragraphs 1-146 are re-alleged under each cause of action below as if alleged in each cause of action.
148. Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) against all defendants. All defendants are associates in fact of an enterprise as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), have invested moneys through the collection of taxes, fees, and committed more than two RICO predicate acts, including mail fraud and extortion under color of law (18 USC 1451(b)) which have affected interstate commerce and have committed these crimes in order to acquire control of the Clark County Government, the Judiciary of the State of Washington, the Offices of Washington Attorney General and Office of the Governor of the State of Washington. Direct evidence establishing the RICO predicate acts of mail fraud can be found in Supreme Court Case Nos. 69261 –1 – Railsback v. Hackett and 69896-1 – Railsback v. Reynolds; Court of Appeals Case No. 25025-0-II; Clark County Superior Court Case Nos. 99-2-00334-2 – Hackett v. Railsback and 00-2-03930-5 In Re: The Recall of Garry Lucas, Clark County Sheriff; Skamania County Superior Court Case No. 00-2-00090-3 – Railsback v. Clark County. Every pleading, order, or other document filed in each of these cases was part of a scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback in violation on 18 USC 1961(a) that provided funds to invest in the various enterprise(s) necessary to obtain and maintain control of them, specifically the $1.2 million default judgment to which Railsback is entitled to as a matter of law. The associate in fact enterprise is an ongoing threat to the citizens of Clark County and the State of Washington.
149. Violation of 18 USC 1962(b) by all defendants. All defendants are associates in fact of an enterprise as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), have directly or indirectly acquired or maintained an interest in or control of an enterprise that affects interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity in that the associates in fact enterprise has committed more than two RICO predicate acts, including mail fraud and extortion under color of law (18 USC 1451(b)) which have affected interstate commerce and have committed these crimes in order to acquire control of the Clark County Government, the Judiciary of the State of Washington, the Offices of Washington Attorney General and Office of the Governor of the State of Washington. Direct evidence establishing the RICO predicate acts of mail fraud can be found in Supreme Court Case Nos. 69261 –1 – Railsback v. Hackett and 69896-1 – Railsback v. Reynolds; Court of Appeals Case No. 25025-0-II; Clark County Superior Court Case Nos. 99-2-00334-2 – Hackett v. Railsback and 00-2-03930-5 In Re: The Recall of Garry Lucas, Clark County Sheriff; Skamania County Superior Court Case No. 00-2-00090-3 – Railsback v. Clark County. Every pleading, order, or other document filed in each of these cases was part of a scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback in violation on 18 USC 1961(b) that provided funds to invest in the various enterprise(s) necessary to obtain and maintain control of them, specifically the $1.2 million default judgment to which Railsback is entitled to as a matter of law. The associate in fact enterprise is an ongoing continuous threat to the citizens of Clark County and the State of Washington.
150. Violation of 18 USC 1962(c) by all defendants. All defendants are associates in fact of an enterprise as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), are persons employed by or associated with an enterprise(s) affecting interstate commerce conducted or participated in the affairs of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt in that the associates in fact enterprise has committed more than two RICO predicate acts, including mail fraud and extortion under color of law (18 USC 1451(b)) which have affected interstate commerce and have committed these crimes in order to acquire control of the Clark County Government, the Judiciary of the State of Washington, the Offices of Washington Attorney General and Office of the Governor of the State of Washington and if it were not for the positions in these enterprises, the defendants would not be in a position to control them through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts. Direct evidence establishing the RICO predicate acts of mail fraud can be found in Supreme Court Case Nos. 69261 –1 – Railsback v. Hackett and 69896-1 – Railsback v. Reynolds; Court of Appeals Case No. 25025-0-II; Clark County Superior Court Case Nos. 99-2-00334-2 – Hackett v. Railsback and 00-2-03930-5 In Re: The Recall of Garry Lucas, Clark County Sheriff; Skamania County Superior Court Case No. 00-2-00090-3 – Railsback v. Clark County. Every pleading, order, or other document filed in each of these cases was part of a scheme and artifice to defraud Railsback in violation on 18 USC 1962(c) that provided funds to invest in the various enterprise(s) necessary to obtain and maintain control of them, specifically the $1.2 million default judgment to which Railsback is entitled to as a matter of law. The associate in fact enterprise is an ongoing threat to the citizens of Clark County and the State of Washington.
151. Violation of 18 USC 1962(d) against all defendants. All defendants have conspired to violate 18 USC 1962(a),(b), and (c) in that all defendants actually agreed to commit at least two predicate acts or agreed that others would commit the predicates to further the affairs of the enterprise, affected interstate commerce and are a continuing threat to the citizens of Clark County and the State of Washington; and specifically, Railsback.
152. Violation of Railsback’s rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by all defendants.
153. Violation of Railsback’ right to due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
154. $40,000.00 for violation of 18 USC 1962(d) associated with the arbitration action against all defendants, and trebled pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c)
155. $3,500.00 for violation of 18 USC 1962(a), (b),(c) and (d); 42 USC 1983, 1985, against all defendants related to the fraudulently obtained garnishment judgment, and trebled pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c).
156. $1.2 million against all defendants for default judgment in Skamania County Case No. 00-2-00090-3 to which Railsback is entitled to by law pursuant to Washington Rule of Civil Procedure(CR) 55 against.
157. $2.4 million for the trebled amount of the $1.2 million default judgment for violation of 18 USC 1962(a),(b),(c) and (d) pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c)
158. $300,000 for damage to business and lost income as a direct result of the time and money required to litigate actions against all defendants, to be trebled pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c).
159. $1.5 million against all defendants for damage to reputation resulting negative publicity and ridicule by family, friends, associates, and the general public initiated in an intentional and malicious manner by all defendants.
160. $10.0 million for numerous violations of Railsback’ s constitutional right to procedural and substantive due process, and especially outrageous because of the malicious and intentional nature of the violations by the very branch of government entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens of the State of Washington.
161. $2.0 million against all defendants for malicious prosecution in Clark County Sheriff’s Case No. 00-9219.
162. $1.3 million, against all defendants for unlawful imprisonment of Railsback on July 19, 2000 on the order of defendant Judge Reynolds at the Klickitat County Courthouse rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
163. $5.0 million against all defendants in punitive damages for violations of Railsback’s constitutional rights secured under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
164. All other relief to which the Court deems to be appropriate in law and equity.
Dated this 24th day of January, 2001
________________________
Donald E. Railsback
Pro Se for Plaintiff
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct:
Vancouver, Washington on January, 2000.
___________________________
Donald E. Railsback
The lawsuit is filed in the U.S. District Court and I should be receiving the summons from the U.S. District Court clerk in the next few days and then will proceed to have the defendants served.
The last 2.5 years have been a living hell for my wife and I. She does not understand why I did not just accept an injustice and move on, but I couldn't. These people are tyrants and they will do anything to keep their power. I know of at least two people former public employees who were fired, and then charged and covicted of crimes they did not committ simply because they were viewed as threats to expose public corrupt.
We are also on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, but I will not let these people get away with this tyranny, even if I have to sleep in a cardboard box. When the Declaration of Independence mentioned "Enemies, foreign and domestic", this is exactly what they were talking about.
There are a few other legal surprises awaiting many of these individuals.
I would like to express my appreciation for Freepers who have encouraged me and have prayed for me and my family.
I would be remiss for not specifically mentioning Bonaparte, who is a valued friend and advisor.
I have litigated and fought these people as a pro se, mostly because I could not afford an attorney and even if I could, there is no way to be surs an attorney in this area would be working for you or against you.
Pro Ses are not entitled to attorney's fees, so if there are any kick-ass Freeper litigators who might be interested in helping with this case, I have no problem with getting more money from these corrupt officials and the state. All the difficult discovery necessary has been done. Once requests for admissions are sent and returned, it will be over for them, if it isn't already. FReepmail me if interested.
Is there a quick summary of what this all means?
"...another game of 'Let’s screw the pro se.' "
I think you are changing attitudes.
You should write a small book on the pro se approach for others who might wish to follow your example.
Good luck.
This is the quick summary! I means that these corrupt government officials will have to answer for their criminal conduct. There is a vast quantity of evidence I did not even mention in the complaint. Every substantive allegation is in verious court records that when piled up would be at least 24".
Thanks for your encouragement.
I don't recall ever responding to any of your posts concerning this suit but I have been keeping up with what you are doing.
I sincerely hope you manage to stick it where the sun don't shine and break it off.
I'm sick of lying, corrupt officials who feel they are above the law.
update
update
update
update
I commend you in the highest degree for your efforts in this case.....but, I agree with "Geek Master".....
...If you want to get the Freeper rank and file involved you need to give us an "executive" summary.
God bless and good luck.
What the heck is pro se, and after the first three thousand words my eyes started to blur. Please cut to the chase so I can understand before bedtime.
update
update
Bump
update
I was hoping you were done with all of this, is there any hope it may wind up in the near furure, good luck to you.
Kick some major hiney, and the very best of luck to you!!
Us Texans need and explanation - what did he say?
It means every from Governor on down is in deep dodo. It couldn't happen to a better bunch of Socialist anywhere!
Good Job!!!!!!!! You will eventually win!
Keep me updated! Full steam ahead.
Speak for yourself Redeye. This Texan understood it. After filing against Florida for the attempted vote theft I learned a hell of a lot about the law. Connectthedots has spent many hours in the law library to get this far and I, for one, hope he sinks these DemocRAT Socialist bast@rds.
What the heck is pro se, and after the first three thousand words my eyes started to blur. Please cut to the chase so I can understand before bedtime.
Pro(For) Se(Self) = For Self. i.e. without an attorney.
The first paragraph is a general overview. Basically the courts in Washington are corrupt, even the Supreme Court; the governor and the AG know it and have refused to take any action becvause they are part of the corruption.
I got screwed in a civil case involving approx. $40,000 and I would not tolerate it; I had the evidence that the judge and opposing attorney had conspired to commit fraud and it simply mushroomed from there when I tried to recourse in the appellate courts and all they did was try to cover-up and try and force me to go away so they could continue on with their Racketeering Enterprise; and I just simply refus to give up, EVER!.
going after them under RICO, eh? You must have spent a LOT of time doing research. I wish you the best of luck.
Thanks for the encouragement, "Top". I spent for years in the Army, '75-'79, and My father (since passed away) spent 30 years in the US Navy. He did not make those sacrifices to protect facism and tyranny; he fought against tyranny.
I live just north of Clark County in Grays Harbor County, in Aberdeen. Locke can best be described in word one here...
IDIOT!!!!
His environmental"policies" are on the verge of giving US HERE in WA State the same things the Californians have down there.... i.e. ROLLING BLACKOUTS and SKY HIGH ELECTRICAL RATES!!!.. A word to ALL you people out there
DON'T LET THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL YOUR STATE HOUSES OR YOU WILL see BIG GHASTLY AND UNSEEMLY RATE HIKES THAT MAY CAUSE PEOPLE TO RAISE UP!!!.
Don't give up! Regards.
Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I have spent a lot of time learning the law, and if I do say so myself, I think I've "lernt it pretty good".
Have you kept track of how much time you spent? Are you doing all of the research? I skimmed through your suit and get the gist. What was the original $40,000 suit about?
Me thinks this is the beginning of the end for these corrupt officials.
All my assets, whats left of them anyway, are protect from attachment; so, tell me how this "lis pendens" thingy works. hehe
I got screwed in a civil case involving approx. $40,000
A little more background please? What specifically, in Freeper terms, not legal ones, happened to get you screwed?
What was the original $40,000 suit about?
A simple contract claim related to a business that will become a disaster to all these corrupt officials.
In a way, it is a little bit like Watergate, which started out as a small time theft that Nixon knew nothing about and grew to monstous proportions as more and more people involved themselves in the cover-up; and they got caught. Same thing here!
Have you filed this in federal court yet? What judge has been assigned?
Please tell me what the judgement was for in the first place. Why the $40K garnishment? Were any Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed by the judge and made a part of the record? If so, how about posting them?
I lived in Federal Way when Locke was Mayor of Seattle. I saw what was about to happen and came home to Texas. I spent more than a little time in the law library in Seattle while stationed at Pier 91. I won that one so you should be able to win this one.
Asking about what the $40,000 lawsuit that started it all is much like focusing on just why the Watergate burglers broke in to the office of the Democratic Party. The big story is the coverup, not the original crime.
I've spent more than a little time in Grays Harbor. The kids live in Kent, Renton and DeMoin. They are about ready to pack it up and head to Texas to rejoin the family here. They have had about all the Socialism they can stand.
Have you filed this in federal court yet? What judge has been assigned?
Yes I have, the case number is near the top of the complaint. Judge Burgess is the judge. Talked to a few people and he said if you lay out your case well and you lead him to the proper conclusion, he will follow the law. Sounds like what a judge should do. If this is what he does im my case, I will win. the law has not been a problem in my case, corrupt judges are the problem here.
Thank you, and good luck.
Thanks for the update. I can't believe that this is still dragging on. You have been through anawful lot with this, I hope that you have a favorable outcome.
Asking about what the $40,000 lawsuit that started it all is much like focusing on just why the Watergate burglers broke in to the office of the Democratic Party. The big story is the coverup, not the original crime.
If we never knew about the break-in, there would have been no story. What is being covered up? I realize you may just not want to tell and that's okay. Please don't dodge the question - either answer it or tell me it's none of my business. (I hate how rude that sounds - it just didn't come out right)
I think you meant when locke worked for king county.
The original judge simply ignored what he knew was the law and even when I pointed it out to him, he went ahead and did it anyway. The question a reasonable person must ask is, if I was wrong about the law in the $40,000 case, why would so many people attempt to cover-up something that was not a crime in the first place. Even corrupt officials and judges would have no reason to cover-up a non-crime.
The real issue is corruption; not why there is corruption.
Good luck on this issue, BUT didn't Father Abraham (Lincoln) give a warning to those who appear in court "pro se"?
Then again, I'm sure you're better informed and smarter than the average Illinois farmer from the 1850's.
Your comment about lawyers resonates. When Don and Teri Adams were railroaded by the corrupt Philadelphia courts, Clarity flew to Philly to come to the rescue.
We need a directory of FReeper lawyers, with their specialties, on this site for those who need a lawyer to pursue FR's goals, especially that goal about eliminating corruption.
Jim Robinson and Clarity ought to spearhead this.
Ah, but the original crime was hatched by the same person(s) responsible for the cover-up. Or was it?
If you are going to successfully appeal a case, the reviewing court will depend upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to determine why a certain ruling was made by the lower court, along with the entire transcript of the proceedings. It is not likely that they will reread the appeal as prepared by the pro se appellant umpteen times to figure out what happened. They will first want to see why the judge ruled the way he did.
While the lengthy verbiage of the pleadings contend that this is a RICO lawsuit, the District Court may just determine that this is just a case of the plaintiff having "sour grapes" and that he did not perfect his appeal within the statutory time limits. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law may shed some light on whether that is the case or not. They may even indicate that the RICO lawsuit in fact has merit.
We are also on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, but I will not let these people get away with this tyranny, even if I have to sleep in a cardboard box.
Easy, CTD, easy! It sounds to me like you are going over the edge here. Maybe you need to step back and see whether this is really good for you and especially your wife. I don't think it is.
GO GO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good luck!!!
I hope you don't need any dumb Luck and avoid bad Luck. From what I see of your efforts you will be making your own luck.
Push hard as you are doing and the corrupt ones will always make a mistake and more - that is called making your own luck and is what separates the winners from the losers.
Now if you can just fill-in the rest of us here on Free Republic you might be able to make more luck for yourself by enabling us to help you.
You are obviously a smart guy, but the passion you have increases your IQ by another 40 points - something that the corrupt ones get surprised by when facing a committed person like yourself.
Believing in yourself can move the world. Do not give any special deference to the so-called EXPERTS but believe in your inner voice.
We are all geniuses in our own special way, but 99.99% of us lock up that genius in a jail in our mind behind the jail bars of the rules and inhibitions that we are taught from the day we are born. Believing in your self and passion are ways of unlocking that genius.
If it is possible to talk-out the particulars of the case out with others you may find that you can reach certain revelations that you might not have reached by yourself. I have always found this to be true for myself.
True. As they say, "The formula for Success = 10% inspiration + 90% perspiration."
Thanks for the update. May God bless you in all you do and insure that justice is done
Stick it to em but good.
God Save America (Please)
Wow - what great timing.
In law school we are studying "civil pleas" in civil procedure class. And in our Torts class we are studying "government immunity" to civil tort claims.
The problem I see here is that gov't officials exercising their discretionary authority are immune from suit, as is the gov't (since the officials are ostensibly exercising their duty, regardless of how corruptly they might be doing it).
I think I am going to circulate this plea amongst my classmates for a giggle or two.
Right on, CTD! I am sorry for the toll this has taken on you and admire you all the more. Most folks would have quit in the face of the great machine of goverment. Keep up the good fight.
In the State of Washington, not all government employees are immune, per statute and per recent case law. That is why it would be enlightening to read the Findings & Conclusions, and of course, a concise statement of facts from the plaintiff as to how he ended up with a $40K judgement against him. Just saying that everyone from the governor on down is liable without stating precisely why and how makes for a difficult case to win.
Were any Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed by the judge and made a part of the record? If so, how about posting them?
I've tried to answer three times, but got bumped off line just as I was finishing, so I will be very brief.
There was no "final judgment on the arbitration matter, so the garnishment action was not only illegal, it was improper. There are no findings or conclusions regarding the confirmation process related to the arbitration.
there was no hearing on my timely filed claims of exemptions to the writs of garnishment and the opposing party failed to timely object or schedule a hearing on the claims of exemption, timely or otherwise. As a mater of law, the judge was required to dismiss the writs of garnishment, with prejudice on the one for my "wages" (don't ask why, it's complicated, but trust me on that one). As for findings and conclusions on the garnishment, the combination of the corrupt acts and procedural irregularities make describing what happened is difficult in a short space and in retrospect, "hillarious". If you know Civil procedure, you would be shaking you head in disbelief. Will try to lay it out in another post later, you won't believe it.
May be. It's been awhile since I lived there.
Good luck on this issue, BUT didn't Father Abraham (Lincoln) give a warning to those who appear in court "pro se"?
There are exceptions to most addages. I would suggest I am one. Have you heard the one, "You screw with connectthedots at your own peril".
Then again, I'm sure you're better informed and smarter than the average Illinois farmer from the 1850's.
Noting that you said "average", the answer is yes!
While the lengthy verbiage of the pleadings contend that this is a RICO lawsuit, the District Court may just determine that this is just a case of the plaintiff having "sour grapes" and that he did not perfect his appeal within the statutory time limits.
I perfect the appeal in the one case that had a "final judgment" within the statutory time limitation period, so that argument won't fly. I told you, I'm good.
The problem is not that I don't know the law and the rules; the problem for these corrupt officials is that I do.
You might start learning more about this by reading this and then start searching. All motions have been posted and updated.
So, what became of the appeal?
Has it been published in the Wa. App.? And, if so, would you please provide the volume and page #? I am intrigued and would like to follow your case.
I, for one, would believe almost anything about a corrupt justice system. I will tell you this...if you let them win once, they have won forever. Fight the good fight and NEVER stand down. Lock and load!
Thanks.
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law may shed some light on whether that is the case or not.
Would the fact that the judge claimed he did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law in his "memorandum of law" in the garnishment action strongly suggest much more than a mere "error of law". (I've got this on a certified copy of the video tape of the hearing)
As for the underlying arbitration confirmation process (please lets not get into the procedures law regarding arbitration. Believe me, I've got that law down cold; and it would only cause confusion amongst non-lawyers, and many lawyers, as well), What findings and conclusion; in fact, what final judgment? Ahemmmm, there are none! This could be a clue.
I'm not worried. When a man goes to war, sacrifices must be made; and this is a war.
I don't have a clue about what's going on, but keep fighting the good fight connectthedots. You've got guts!
Ahem, if there is no judgement, how can there be garnishment? I guess I just don't get it CTD.
If it is possible to talk-out the particulars of the case out with others you may find that you can reach certain revelations that you might not have reached by yourself.
Wise advice. Yes, I have been doing this every step of the way.
BTW, I like your attitude about "experts". Thanks for the encouragement.
Thanks for the update. I pray you and your family will succeed, and that it will be worth the ordeal you've been going through. God bless you.
In law school we are studying "civil pleas" in civil procedure class. And in our Torts class we are studying "government immunity" to civil tort claims.
RICO is an entirely different animal than most civil pleas. In a RICO action, you do no sue the enterprise (i.e. an inanimate), you sue the individuals who operate/manage/control/participate. The enterprise these associates in fact work for may respondent superior liability. FYI, the State of Washington has statute that waives sovreign immunity and can be sued like any other person. It is only of the most "liberal" states when it comes to suing the government.
The problem I see here is that gov't officials exercising their discretionary authority are immune from suit, as is the gov't (since the officials are ostensibly exercising their duty, regardless of how corruptly they might be doing it).
This is not a problem, since this type of imminity is only available in the formulation of "policy" which one must assume impliments legal policies. The operations aspect and those who impliment "policy" in a corrupt manner have no immunity. There are no "good faith" defenses available for violations of RICO or Civil Rights laws. In fact, a person who violates anothers civil rights after consulting and following a recommendation from their attorney can still be convicted of the crime. It may be mitigating factor on the punishment, but it is not a defense.
Judges have civil immunity in Civil Rights actions, but not always in RICO actions, since it can never be the policy or within anyones duties to commit crimes. There are occasions that even when a judge has civil immunity, they could still be liable for their portion of the plaintiff's attorneys fees.
I think I am going to circulate this plea amongst my classmates for a giggle or two.
Why not your professors, they might be interested as well. In a way, this whole case is funny, but there is also a lesson for all attorneys and judges the next time they might think about screwing over a pro se. I assume there is no need to elaborate.
Ahem, if there is no judgement, how can there be garnishment? I guess I just don't get it CTD.
BINGO! It's right there in front of your face. CTD has been illegally garnished because there was no judgment. See it?
Just saying that everyone from the governor on down is liable without stating precisely why and how makes for a difficult case to win.
A fair comment, but I do have conclusive evidence regarding the Gov. and AG. Primarily accomplice liability, but it makes them liable just the same. Check out 42 USC 1986, and any doubts about their liability will be erased.
Your comment to another poster re: liability of government employees is generally correct, but RICO adds in some additional factors.
Thanks for making that link.
So, what became of the appeal?
All that stuff will be placed on the back burner until the federal action is concluded. Once the federal case is resolved the WA COA case will most likely be moot. All the action will now shift to the federal court.
I, for one, would believe almost anything about a corrupt justice system. I will tell you this...if you let them win once, they have won forever. Fight the good fight and NEVER stand down. Lock and load!
This is the exact reason I will never give up. If I can't prevail against these criminals, no one else would ever have a chance.
"Ahem, if there is no judgement, how can there be garnishment? I guess I just don't get it CTD."
PP, But, there WAS!! Now, you begin to understand. The county {state} is corrupted by "homeboys". Peace and love, George.
Go Get Them Dot's!!!!!!
CTD has been illegally garnished because there was no judgment. See it?
I suspect PPaul's problem may be that he has erroneously assumed judges obey the law. It may just be an innocent mistake, but he'll learn.
I was hoping to read a quick, thumbnail introduction prior to your summary. What happened? How did it happen, who is involved, what are the damages suffered, what are you looking to gain, what is the linch pin to nail the defendants, etc. Simple one liners will help in reading the miriad of pages on Post #1.
I hope you will excuse my asking, I have not seen anything on this, but I am interested. Thanks.
Mom said when she heard that the people in Eastern WA was seriously considerring breaking away and forming a new state there that she would SERIOUSLY considerring moving back there if they did... She was in FACT born in Okanongan in '42 and has always loved that part of the State
She said she could understand why the Eastern Part of the state was so unhappy, ESPECIALLy when you have to realize there are NO Supreme Court Judges from that part os the state on it....
Also these Wetlands Regs are so BIZARRE that it wouldn't be all that shocking to see the Olympic Penninsula along with the counties on the Coast INCLUDING Clark and Waikaikum Say BYE BYE and form there OWN state as well!!! Perhaps THEN the people in Puget Sound might learn a thing or too...
Check the link on post #60, or serch for articles posted by me, and you will find lots of stuff.
ESPECIALLy when you have to realize there are NO Supreme Court Judges from that part os the state on it....
That may change in the not too distant future.
An AP writer in Olympia, Hunter George, is reading this thread as I am typing this reply.
Sic em! It's tough to get such high officials, but the mighty fall hard!
You're assuming there is a capacity for learning anything more complicated than a Socialist protest chant.
forgot to include you in the update
This is the exact reason I will never give up. If I can't prevail against these criminals, no one else would ever have a chance.
My step sister was arrested by the government using the RICO law for protesting too close to an abortion clinic. She is the kindest, most gentle person on the face of the planet.
They used her affiliation with the Anti-Abortion movement to literally blackmail me personally. I don't know if you or anyone else here has paid much attention to most of the posts I've made, but anyone from Pittsburgh should remember when dozens of anti-abortion protestors were dragged away from abortion clinics and many were arrested and held in jail. My sister was one of them. She had just lost her own daughter to brain-cancer.
It was the anti-climax to a fight I have been fighting for years before and years since. It was that which brought me to a dead halt for several years and put me in fear for my life. It isn't funny and the government will not ever stop until every last shred of anything you ever had is gone.
They threatened to charge her and make sure she did up to five years in jail even though she had nothing to do with what MY fight was about. But that is how they stopped me when they did.
I can only tell you that it isn't over. It might never be. They are corrupt to the core and the good guys do it for the paycheck...some out of fear for themselves...and some just opt out.
I don't know how we ever got this way, and I don't know how to bring it down alone. So we do what we can one at a time, praying all the while that somehow they will beat themselves. It takes a lot of guts to do what you are doing. Bless you for it.
The main thing to do is remain the aggressor. Never give the government thugs a chance to take a breath. On eof the best things you can do is to immediately file Civil Rights and RICO charges against theses government and civiliam thugs. RICO is a two way street.
Was was threatened with arrest on two occasions and the subject of a ctiminal referral. I immediately confronted these criminals and dared the prosecutor to press charges, because if he had, I would have hauled 10 supoerior court judges, 6 prosecutors, the sheriff, county commisioners and a number of other people in front of a jury and had them asserting their 5th amendment rights within 10 minutes each. They knew I would do it, and they knew I would not hire a defense attorney. They would have to deal directly with me and not some lawyer would might very well work more for them than for me.
I also have a RICO lawsuit filed against the state of Washington, filed in the United States Federal Court for the District of New Mexico on June 20, 2000. We have named nearly 150 defendants, including Gary Locke, Christine Gregorie, and Donald Meath. Our pleading can be viewed at http://www.hometown.aol.com/majiklee/RICO.html. Also I am working with the United Citizens for Legal Reform, Legal Justice Network to bring a Class Action Lawsuit against Washington State for Constitutional Rights Violations, Civil Rights Violations, and Racketeering Crimes. There is power in numbers, if you are interested in combining efforts, contact me at Karen@miscarriagesofjustice.intranets.com
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |