People Remind Washington Governor and AG on Fiduciary Duty

8/10/2019 People Remind Washington Governor and AG on Fiduciary Duty

1/23


2/23


3/23


4/23

ATTACHMENT ONE


5/23

COpy

ORIGINAL FILED

October 27 2014

O T

27 2 14

SUPERiOR COURT

STEVEN S

COUNTY,

WA

Actual Notice and Demand for Summoning a Grand Jury

RCW 10.27.030 - Summoning grand jury.

.... A grand jury shall be summoned by the court, where the public

interest

so

demands, whenever in its opinion there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity or

corruption within the county....

When right of anyone under a statute depends upon giving word shall'l an imperative

construction, shall'l is

presumed to

have been

used

in reference

to

that right or

benefit

l

and it receives mandatory interpretation. Jordan

v

O'Brien, 86 P.2d 200, 79

Wash.2d 406 (1971).

Black's Law Dictionary J1 Ed defines Public interest - Something in which the public,

the community

at

large has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their

legal rights

or

liabilities

are

affected.

Black's Law Dictionary

Ed

defines Discretion (sub title under Judicial

and

legal

discretion ) These terms are applied to the discretionary act of a judge or court,

and

means

discretion bound

by

the rules and principles of law, and not arbitrary, capricious,

or unrestrained.

It

is

not

the indulgence of a judicial whim, but the exercise

of

judicial

judgment, based on facts and guided by low, or the equitable decision

of

what is just

and proper under the circumstances. It is a legal discretion to

be

exercised in discerning

the course prescribed by law and is

not

to give effect to the will of the judge

l

but to

that

of

the low.

Black's Law Dictionary

Ed

defines Sufficient evidence

Adequate

evidence, such

evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will legally justify, the judicial or official

action demanded, according to circumstances,

it

may be prima facie or satisfactory

evidence. Sufficient evidence is

that

which is satisfactory for the purpose; that amount of

proof which ordinarily satisfies and unprejudiced mind, beyond a reasonable doubt. The

term

is

not synonymous with

conclusive ,

but it

may

be

used interchangeably with the

term weight of evidence .

Page 1

of


6/23

I have listed

the

essential elements

of RCW

10.27.030

that

relate

to

the matters

that

will

be covered in this demand for summoning a grand jury, along with the legal definitions to this

RCW.

There

has

not been anyone holding the people's public offices as judges, prosecutor,

auditor or

other

position in Stevens County, Spokane County,

or

on the state level that

has

disputed any of my evidence with anything

other

than State ex reI. Lyons

v.

Ruff, 4 Wash. 234,

29

Pac.

999 (1892) and State

v.

Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. 794, 808, 950

P.2d

38 (1998) and

personal opinions or intentional misrepresentation

of

the RCW s

or

redefining legislative

definitions of

the

words used in those RCW s.

Mr. Rasmussen, who is illegally usurping the office of STEVENS COUNlY PROSECUTOR,

contacted another illegal usurper, Bob Ferguson, illegally occupying

the

Attorney General's

Office,

to

request the Attorney General's Opinion regarding the filing of the oath of office.

An incompetent alleged attorney responded on July 9, 2014, claiming

to

be a Deputy

Solicitor General named Jeffrey

T.

Even. Mr. Even did not state under which RCW he was

appointed, as would determine

whether

he is required

to

have

an

oath of office,

RCW

43.10.060, appoints an office, or

RCW

43.10.065 as

an

advisor, but he seems to be incompetent

under either. The opinion Mr.

Even

gave was an informal opinion . I have called and left nine

messages for Mr.

Even

(360-586-0728),

but

he

has

never returned

my

calls.

Mr.

Even's six (6) page informal opinion contained nothing

but totally

false statements,

misquoted, misrepresented case law and even a misrepresentation regarding a case filed by

me, Clark

v.

Superior Court

of

Stevens County, No. CV-09-363-LRS, 2010 WL 457316, *1-2

(E.D.

Wash.

Feb. 3,

2010) (unpublished) (discussing

the

Stephenson case). I will address this

fraudulent case before the Grand Jury, but for now, back to Mr. Even's informal opinion.

Mr. Even quotes Lysons

v.

Ruff (supra) and State

v.

Stephenson,

as

leading cases, but

failed

to

check Official Attorney General Opinions , such

as;

Attorney General Opinion -

AGO

63-64, no. 17 The fact that the candidate Uudges and

all other elected and appointed officials - Petitioner's addition) is qualified at the time of his

election

is

not sufficient

to entitle

him

to

hold the office, If at

the time of

his commencement to

his

term of

office, or during

the

continuance

of the

term, he ceases

to

be qualified. Eligibility

to

public office

is

of

a continuing nature, and must subsist

at the

commencement

ofthe

term, and

during the occupancy ofthe office.

As to State v. Stephenson (supra)

see

attached documents, Exhibit A, filed into this case,

that proves the Stephenson case is void, and would also be void because the appeals court

cannot overrule a supreme court ruling -

see

State

v.

Williams, 93 Wn. App. 340,969

P.2d

106

(December 4, 1998), such

as

State ex reI. Guthrie v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327 60

P.2d

245

Page 2of4


7/23

(1935); State ex reI. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wn.(2) 419, 367 P.2d 985 (1962) relating to RCW

42.12.010 - Causes of vacancy.

The official oath of office is a Federal Constitut ional mandate, Art. VI,

d

3 and

all

federal

law and case law control on this issue Art. VI,

d

2, over all state Constitutions and laws or case

law

to the

contrary.

State courts must follow the interpretations

of

the federal constitution made by the

United States Supreme Court . State v Laviollette, 8 Wn.2d 670, 826 P.2d 685

[no

58 76

-0 En Bane March 9 1992].

The leading federal case on the filing

of

the oath of office is Parker

v.

Overman, 59

U.S.

137,

15

l Ed. 318 (1855), which

has

not been overturned and states

in

part

as

follows:

The Court after concluding

that it

had jurisdiction over the action held

that

the deed to

the purchaser was void.

A

t the time the sheriffmade the sale, he had notfiled his oath

as assessor on or before January

1

th

as required

by

law. Although

he

filed an

oath

later, this was not a compliance with the law.

and

conferred no power on him to act as

assessor. By his neglect to comply with the law, his office as sheriff became ipso facto

vacated and any assessment made by him in that year was void,

and

could not

be

the

foundation of a legal sale. See also Martin v Barbour, 34 F 701 (1888).

RCW 1.16.065 defines officer

as

a person authorized by law, and the Washington

supreme court

went

into great detail regarding who is

an

officer when

it

interpreted it

in

Mcintosh v. Hutchinson (1936) 187 Wash. 61, 59 P. 1117; State ex reI. Johnston

v.

Melton

(1937) 192 Wash. 379, 73

P

1334; State ex reI. Brown

v.

Blew (1944) 20 Wash. 2d 47,145 P. 2d

554; State ex reI. Fitts

v.

Gibbs (1952) 40 Wash. 2d 444, 244

P.2d

241, and all

ofthese

cases

require the filing of

the

oath

as

part ofthe definition of an officer .

And, since the legislature defined the word filed in RCW 36.18.005

and

again in

RCW

65.04.015, in very clear language, they

left

no room for alternate interpretations

of

the term.

The issues above are

the

things that need to be officially determined by a grand jury,

because they would have no conflict of interest, unlike judges and

other

persons who failed to

duly qualify for a public office, and who could be required to give up the office they are

usurping and all the benefits that

go with that office.

There is also the issue that under Washington Court Rule ER-902(d} and ER 1005,

an

oath of office document, which is a public record cannot

be

legally submitted into evidence in

court, for the purpose of supporting a claim to a public office, unless

it

has actually been filed

and recorded according to law.

And, since a court can only acquire jurisdiction through proper parties and the plaintiff's

pleadings, any

case

heard

without

a judge authorized by law , a prosecutor authorized by

law , or a peace officer authorized by law , is subject to Court Rule CR 60 b) 5) as void.

Page

30f4


8/23

The longer this issue

is

covered up by criminal usurpers at every level of Washington

state

government the more the public s Right to Due Process, Redress of Greivance, Equal

Protection of

the

Law and

the

People s Right to a Republican form of Government, not a

defacto government remains

in

peril.

One

final quote from

State ex reI. Zempel (supra) regarding

the

public policy expressed

by the legislature regarding R W

42.12.010:

Removal from office is simply a consequence of a reasonable and sound public policy,

and a condition imposed upon a public official in furtherance of

the

public interest in

good

government

State

ex

reI

Guthrie v Chapman, supra. Officers are not elected

for

the benefit of the individuals, bu t for the benefit of the community State ex reI Lysons

v Ruff 1892), 4 Wash. 234, 243, 29 Pac 999. Public officials can and should be removed,

irrespective of detriment to

the

individuals involved if

the

interests of the community so

require. That is precisely the legislative policy and purpose of RCW 42.12.010, and the

reason

the statute

was enacted and has been continued on the books. Thus, the

statute

is an expression

of

public policy by

the

legislature, clearly within the ambit of the

constitutional prerogative of that branch ofstate government, pursuant to Art. 5 sec. 3

of

the

state

constitution.

The public policy as expressed by the legislature has stood unaltered for ninety-five years

- in fact, since territorial days. Basically the statute is a legislative statement of

qualifications for holding public office. One such qualification is that a public offiCial

convicted

of

any offense involving a violation

of

his official oath shall

not

hold a

position

of public trust.

This

court should

not

lightly brush aside determinations as

to

public policy duly

and

officially

made by the

legislative branch

of

government. Certainly,

in

the instant case we should not alter and revise qualifications established

by

the

legislature for public officers' qualifications which are so well recognized and

of

such

long standing.

Demanded by:

Jimmy Ellis, Clark

2567

Bodie Mountain Road

Colville, Washington

99 4

PH 509-675-5988

Page 4of4


9/23

This page not included in Governor/AG letter

ATTACHMENT TWOLinda Tompkins, a Superior Court judge from Spokane, who, herself, cannot

prove she has followed state law cited State v. Stephenson, an appellate court

decision, authored by two judges who did not have an oath on file with the

secretary of State during that term of office, and the third judge who subscribed

an Oath AFTER the time prescribe by law to take the Oath. All three were

impersonating judges at the time of the authoring of the Stephenson case.

Quoting

an

official

Attorney

General

Opinion

AGO

63

64,

no.

17:

"Thefact that thecandidate isqualifiedat the timeofhiselection isnot sufficient to

entitlehimtoholdtheoffice,if,atthetimeofhiscommencementtohistermofoffice,orduring

thecontinuanceoftheterm,heceasestobequalified.Eligibilitytopublicofficeisofacontinuing

nature,andmust subsistat the commencementof the term,andduring theoccupancyof the

office."

Everycandidateelectmustpreciselyfollowthelegislativemandatestodulyqualifyto

hold office. An Oath of Office must be taken [RCW 36.16.040], and bond secured [RCW

36.16.050],bothfiledwith theCountyAuditor [RCW36.16.060]for recording into theofficial

public records [RCW 65.04.015(2)], fee paid [RCW 65.04.030(3)], BEFORE assuming official

duties.Similarmandatesarerequiredfortheirofficialbond. Acandidateelectwithouthaving

duly qualified therefor, as required by law" has created a vacancy in the office [RCW

42.12.010(6)]andhas intruded intooffice[RCW42.20.030].Refusaltosurrenderthatoffice isa

GrossMisdemeanor.

[Google

these

RCWs.

Statutes

must

be

written

so

men

and

women

of

commonintelligenceallderivethesamemeaning.]

AGLO 1980 no. 2, also addresses and upholds the elements of RCW 42.12.010 as to

vacancyoccurring immediatelyupon thehappeningof thoseevents.Causesofvacancy.Every

electiveofficeshallbecomevacantonthehappeningofanyofthefollowingevents:(6)Hisorher

refusalorneglecttotakehisorheroathofoffice,ortogiveorrenewhisorherofficialbond,orto

depositsuchoathorbondwithinthetimeprescribedbylaw;


10/23

o COPy

RIG/NAL FILED

RECEIVED

STEVE.NS

COUNTY .

;JROSECUTING

:J.TTORNE y

Superior Court

Stevens County

The State of

Washington

Jimmy Ellis, Clark, Petitioner No. 2014-02-00355-1

v

Motion to Demand

Susan Harnash, Tim Gray, Mandatory Judicial

Steve Parker, Wes McCart Notice ER-201 d)

And

Don

Dashielt Respondents

Demand was made

for

Ms. Tompkins

or

any

other

person claiming authority

to

hear

or

rule on any

ofthe

issues contained in Petitioners Writ

of

Prohibition to produce lawful

authority to

do so by producing a lawfully executed and recorded official oath of office into the

case,

but she arrogantly refused to even address any jurisdict ional issues.

In Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457

U.S. 800 102

S.

Ct. 2727, 73 L Ed.2d 1982),

the

Supreme

Court held that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded

from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. /D At 818

102

S.

Ct

at

2738;

see

also Robison

v.

Via,

821

F.2d

913 920

(2

n

Cir.

1987).

The doctrine is not

however a license for lawless conduct and purpose

is

to force officials to hesitate in situations

where they should know that certain conduct will violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights. Mitchell 1055. Ct at 2814; Harlow 457 U.S. at 819, 102 S. Ct. at 2739.

Page

1 of


11/23


12/23

As

to

State v Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. 794 808 950 P.2d 38 (1998), in addition

to

the

fact that none of

the

three usurpers acting

as

judges had lawful oaths of office, they still had no

authority to overrule supreme court rulings.

A Supreme Court holding constitutes binding authority that

may

not be overruled by the

Court

of

Appeals. State

v.

Williams,

9

Wn. App. 340,

969

P.2d 106 (December

4, 1998 .

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in

the

face

of

clearly valid

statutes, expressly depriving him ofjurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin

v.

Howard, 101

S

Ct

2020,

451 U S 939,

68 L Ed. d 326.

Petitioner demands Ms. Tompkins produce lawful authority to occupy the office of

SPOKANE

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Judge and to receive its benefits or remove herself

from

this case and the people s public office.

Jimmy Ellis, Clark/Peti tioner

Page

3

of

3


13/23

ir of t e ~ r r e t r r r p of ~ t a t

~ l m l",pb, ~ p r r r t a r p of

~ t l 1 t

Crti

c te

I,

f),','/f'IIl >

f r ; / ~

in

;:ccorlLncl

\\'irh rhe

pr()\'i:,i()n::;

()f

Ch:mtcr - -O,

14.

R t T i ~ { : u

Code

of

V a ~ h . u 1 Q J J n

.

. ,

L

l:rtiE\ rh:n i

h;\\,1.:

cl;rnj'-:H",d the arl:lched C ) P ~ , or ~ p : c i f i c parr rhl.:rt:of, Listed belO\\', \I:irh rhe

n,:C!)rJ" in

ou

CLi:,r(,J::.

;\nd [h:tr

[h


14/23

ARCHIVES 3 RECORDS r . I A N . A . G E ~ i ~ E N T

OiVIS C)f\

1

1

29 W a S ~ l n Q W S t e 2 ~

Sf

PO

30:< 40238

O:ympia 1//,1..98504.-02:>8

Apri114 20l0

Jimmy Clark

2094 Onion Creek Road, Lot A

Colville, WA 99114

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for your patience. Attached please find the 1993 oath and 2003 oath for Elaine

M. Houghton as

Judge

ofthe

Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II These are the

only documents I can certify as being within the State Archives Although the archives does

hold Division oaths from 1988-2003, I was unable to find another Houghton oath.

Again, thank you for contacting the Washington State Archives.

f

_ I

BenjitR1in Helle


15/23

ARCHj\/ES < RECORDS

MANAGEMENT

DiViSiOj\)

,I

29

Washinqton

St,2& SE

PO Sox 40238

O ~ j m p j

{VA 98504-0223

-:ei:

36C.586.1L 2

.yV/I;\ .sees t


16/23

l

I

.l C-\.- - O,

t .t\1..(... c;;f=--rH

OA '(IP-\-:

~ t V 6 - S ..j tOL D

fH-

OF

APPEALS

. c . = e : : N ~ - r 6 c J u ~

f e . \ O ~ T O L ~ < : 8

F ILED

J N

5

1997

......

l_.

.

STATE

OF

WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON

COUNTY

OF

PIERCE

I JOYCE ROBIN HUNT, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution

of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and

impartially discharge the duties of the office of judge of the court of appeals of the State of

Washington to the best ofmy ability.

f J ~

ldJ

oyce RobIll Hunt

-

Subscribed and sworn to before me this IJ day of

a vz

A.D. 1997.


17/23

-

I

t 0

,

, -

J N

152003

SECRETARY OF STATE

ST 'TE OF WASHINGTON

O.-\TH OF

OFFICE

I do

solemnly

swear that I will support the Const itution of the United States and the

Constitution

of

the State

of\Vashington

and that

I

\vill faithfully and impart ially discharge the

duti;:s of the offie;: of

judge of

the court

of

appeals

of

the State of\Vashingtol1

t

the best

of

my

ability.

Administered by:

Dated:


18/23

F i

LED

SEP 16 1996

~ c \ ; I t :

/ ~ I l

-

SiATE OF W A S H I N G ; G ~ 1

RECElVED

Uri 18

993

ST TE

OF

WASHL."IGTON )

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

County of

j

I,

Elaine

M.

Houghton,

do solemnly swear that I will support

the

Constitution

of

the

United

States

and

the Constitution of State of \Vashington, and that I will

perform the duties as a Judge of the Washington State Court of Appeals,

Division II to

the

best of my ability.

- I

.

A D 9 ~

.

Notary lie

in and for the

state

of

ashington residing

at

My

commission expires: 1c9 /1 9S-

BC:EA33

j

Subscribed and sworn

to

before me this ~ d a y

of

9

U/Jt L/ ,

)


19/23

WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I I

F \ LED

JAN 15 997

O TH OF OFFICE

STATE OF

WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON

)

)

COU1\1fY OF PJERCE

I,

JOYCE

RO IN HUNT, do solemnly swear or affinn, that I will support the Constitution

of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and

impartially discharge the duties of the office of judge of the court of appeals of the State of

Washington to the

best

afmy ability.

~ f i / . 2 d J ~ ?dJ

Joyce Robm Hunt

-

Subscribed

and

sworn to before

me

this

I J

day

of t t--vzUdVl

, A.D. 1997.

[ ~ ~

Chief Judge, W a s h i n g t ~

of Appeals, Division Two


20/23

This page and Tompkins Order following, were not included in

Governor/AG letter

Tompkins Order Denying Writ of Prohibition and

Vacating Assignment citing State v. Stephenson


21/23


22/23


23/23

Documents

People Remind Washington Governor and AG on Fiduciary Duty