Court Filings

PRESS Memorandum of Law to Gov - AG Re Tim Rasmussen

Categories
Published
of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
A package of documents including this Memorandum of Law supporting Criminal Complaints against Stevens County prosecutor were submitted to Governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Transcript
  Memorandum of Law in Support of First Amendment Criminal Complaint CrRU 2.2(a) and CrR 2.2(a) Black's Law Dictionary 6 th Ed. Defines Complaint In criminal law, a charge preferred before a magistrate having jurisdiction (no oath = no authority = no jurisdiction = no immunity) that a person named (or an unknown person) has committed a specified offense, with an offer to prove the fact, to the end that a prosecution may be instituted. The complaint can be taken out by the victim, the police officer, the district attorney, or other interested party. Although the complaint charges an offense, an indictment or information may be the formal charging document. Black's Law Dictionary 6 th Ed. Defines Complainant One who applies to the court for legal redress by filing complaint (i.e. plaintiff). Also, one who instigates prosecution or who prefers accusation against suspected person. Fair Warning Fair warning of Constitutionally protected Rights as interpreted by the united States supreme court, see U.S. v. Lanier (1997) 117 S Ct. 1219, 520 U.S. 259, 137 L Ed.2d 432, on remand 114 F.3d 84, on remand 120 F.3d 640, on remand 123 F.3d 945. The first amendment Right to file a criminal complaint with a reasonable basis is well settled in United States v. Hilton, 710 F.2d 1106 (1983) and Bill Johnson Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB 461 U.S. 731, 743, 103 S. Ct. 2161, 76 L Ed.2d 277 (1983), when they stated, Although Bill Johnson's Restaurants appears to be the most definitive statement on this issue, other cases have impliedly, if not expressly, held that the first amendment right to petition is broad enough to protect an individual's right to file a suit with reasonable basis in a state or federal tribunal. See Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 89 S. Ct. 946, 948, 22 L. Ed.2d 134 (1969). The courts are bound by all decisions of the supreme court of the United States. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-288 1997); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 2 (1997) ... , it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents. I The Washington supreme court has also ruled as to these interpretations. State v. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 826 P.2d 685 [No. 58076-0 En. Banc March 19, 1992J State courts must follow interpretations of federal constitution m de by the United States Supreme Court. I State v. Pavelich, 150 Wash. 411, 273 P 182 1928) -  The court has no authority to abrogate by rule a right guaranteed by the constitution. I The above case law confirms every Citizen has a Right to file a criminal complaint in any state or federal tribunal, under the interpretation given by the United States Supreme Court of the First Amendment Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievance. In Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB 461 U.S. 731, 734, 103 S. Ct. 2161, 76 L. Ed.2d 277 (1983), when they stated, ... the first Memorandum of Law in Support of First Amendment Criminal Complaints Page 1 of 10  amendment right to petition is broad enough to protect an individual's right to file a suit with reasonable basis in a state or federal tribunal. See Gregory v City of Chicago, 394 U S 111, 89 S Ct 946, 948, 22 L Ed.2d 34 (1969) A complaint is not the same thing as an information or indictment , a complaint can be taken out by the victim, prosecutor, police officer or an interested party. See Black's Law Dictionary 6 th Ed. Former RCW 10.16.010 was superseded, not repealed in 1984 by JCrR 2.02. When portions of a statute in conflict with court rule are superseded by the rule, other portions of the same statute dealing with matters upon which the comparable rule is silent are not overruled and remain in effect. Malott v Randell (1974) 11 Wash. App. 433, 523 P.2d 439. This case confirms th t it is still the duty of the judge to write the complaint and then have the complainant sign it. See - Author's Comments - CrRU 2.2 2 History of CrRU 2.2 CrRU 2.2 was adopted in 987 as part of a new set of criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction. [FN 117J When CrRU 2.2 was first proposed to the Supreme Court in 1986, the proposed was accompanied by the following drafter's comment. Task Force Comment to Rule 2.2. This rule is similar to CrR 2.2 incfuding several of the amendments proposed by the Court Rules and Procedures Committee and recentlv adopted bv the Supreme Court. It replaces existing JCrR 2.02. CrRU 2.1 c) only applies to misdemeanors upon which the prosecutor has discretionary authority, whereas under CrRU 2.2 and CrR 2.2 he has only ministerial duties. The next case relates directly to the words may and shall as used in Court Rules CrRU 2.2 a) and CrR 2.2 a). May should be construed as must or shall , where public interest or rights are concerned, and the public or private persons have de jure right which can be protected only by such construction. Buell v City of Toppenish, 24 P 431, 174 Wash. 79 (1933). When right of anyone under a statute depends upon giving word shaff an imperative construction, shaff is presumed to have been used in reference to that right or benefit, and it receives mandatory interpretation. Jordan v O'Brien, 486 P.2d 290, 70 Wash. d 406 (1971). One final note on filing an information or indictment, neither can be filed without some type of sworn statement by witness, Complainant . Memorandum of Law in Support of First Amendment Criminal Complaints Page 2 of 1  No Immunity Neither defacto, nor criminal usurpers at any level of government have immunity from civil or criminal liability. Only past acts of defacto officers are considered as valid, for the protection of innocent third parties, but does not protect a defacto officer or criminal usurper, when acting with knowledge, from civil or criminal liability. The people as complainants are presenting these Criminal Complaints and sworn declarations in support as natural born men and women according to their 1s t Amendment protected Rights as defined in United States v Hilton, 710 U S 1101 (1983), former RCW 10.16.010 which was superseded, not repealed by Court Rules CrR 2.2(a) and CrRU 2.2(a}, and interpreted by: Malott v Randall (1974) 11 Wash. App. 433, 523 P 2d 439 -  When portions of a statute are superseded by the rule, other portions of the same statute dealing with matters upon which the comparable rule is silent are not overruled and remain in effect. Since the United States supreme court has interpreted the 1st Amendment Right to redress of grievance as being able to file criminal charges with a reasonable basis in any State or Federal tribunal in United States v Hilton, 710 U S 1102 (1983), this case controls. Rulings of the United States Supreme Court construing the First Amendment are binding upon the state courts. Orians v James (1974) 84 Wash.2d 819, 529 P 2d 1063. State courts must follow interpretations of federal constitution made by the United States Supreme Court. State v Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 826 P 2d 685 [No. 58076-0 En Bane March 19, 1992]. Now, since both CrR 2.2 and CrRU 2.2 allow the filing of a complaint, and a complaint is defined in law in Black's 6 t as: In criminal law, a charge preferred before a magistrate having jurisdiction, that a person named (or an unknown person) has committed a specified offense, with an offer to prove the fact, to the end that a prosecution may be instituted. The complaint can be taken out by the victim, the police officer, the district attorney, or other interested party. The Washington supreme court has ruled as to which controls, the Constitution or a statute. The court has no authority to abrogate by rule a right guaranteed by the constitution. State v Pavelich, 150 Wash. 411,273 P 182 (1928). The federal supreme court has also ruled regarding conflicts between the federal constitutionally protected rights and state law. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. Davis v Wechsler, 263 U S 22 at 24 With regard t the U S Constitution, it is elementary that a right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority. Memorandum of Law in Support of First Amendment Criminal Complaints Page 3 of 10  Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540; Lafarier v. Grand Tryck R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'neil v. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. These complaints and declarations are submitted under penalty of perjury and stands as truth until rebutted by evidence of equal standing. Indeed no more than affidavit is necessary to m ke a prima facie case. U.S. v. Kis, 658 F.2d 536 CA7 1981) cert. den., 50 U.S.L.W. 2169 (1982); however a declaration may be used instead of an affidavit. Summers v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 776 F. Supp. 575, 577 D.C. 1991) 99. The Washington legislature and the courts ruled as to what constitutes a crime. RCWA 9A.04.030 - For purposes of RCW 9.01.050(1) (now 9A.04.030), which permits the punishment of any person committing any crime in whole or in part within the state, a crime is committed in part when any essential element of it as opposed to mere preliminaries is committed within the state. State v. Swanson (1976) 16 Wn.App. 179, 554 P.2d 364. RCWA 9A.04.040 In part - 1) An offense defined by this title or by any other statute of this state, for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized constitutes a crime. To constitute a crime, the act or omission must be forbidden by law and punishable on conviction. State v. Truak (1924) 130 Wn. 69, 226 P. 259, 33 ALR 1206. Attempt to commit crimes constitutes act or omission forbidden by law, within ambit of this statute. State v. Garman (1969) 76 Wn.2d 637, 458 P.2d 292. Definition of crimes and their elements, within constitutional perimeters, is a matter within the sound discretion of the legislative branch. State v. adam (1974) 83 Wn.2d 541, 520 P.2d 152, cert. den. 419 U.S. 1013,42 L Ed.2d 287, 95 S. Ct. 333. Whether or not an event is a crime within the meaning of RCW 9.01.020 (now 9A.04.040) is a question of law and is unaffected by policy considerations, age of the statute, or the frequency of enforcement of it. Helland v. King County Civil Service Com. (1975) 84 Wn.2d 858, 529 P.2d 1058. See also RCW 9A.04.070 -Who amendable to criminal statutes; and RCW 9A.40.080 Limitations of actions -(Public officers ten years). Black's Law Dictionary 6 t Ed. Defines Criminal malversion A broad category of corrupt official practices. Black's 6 th defines Dulocracy A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer. RCW 10.16.010 -Complaint -Arrest -Witnesses. Memorandum of Law in Support of First Amendment Criminal Complaints Page of 1

fpl-epa

Jul 23, 2017

projectmay.pdf

Jul 23, 2017
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks