News Web Reader

Logout
User: Pass:

Username:
First name:
Last name:
Email:
Password:
Confirm password:


 

FW: PROOF THAT ROD CLASS & CARL WESTON ARE INCOMPETENT PATRIDIOTS!!!! Luis Ewing <rcwcodebus...@gmail.com> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:16:22 -0800 (PST)
The California Medical Board has currently scheduled incompetence and misconduct hearings against Kan and Rashkis. Anonymous <christel-von-der-p...@eurovibes.org> Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:08:20 +0200
FW: Pro-se Winners: <http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/120418> TALK SHOE! Luis Ewing <rcwcodebus...@gmail.com> Fri, 25 May 2012 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
FW: Pro-se Winners: <http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/120418> TALK SHOE! Luis Ewing <rcwcodebus...@gmail.com> Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Indiana Lemon Law Indian Lemon Law <indianalemonlaw....@gmail.com> Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Florida lemon law attorneys | Florida lemon law Florida Lemon Law <floridalemonlawattorneys....@gmail.com> Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
California Lemon Law Daniel Robert <calemonlaw....@gmail.com> Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Illinois Lemon Law Illinois Lemon Law <illinoislemonlaw....@gmail.com> Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
FW: <www.prossewinners.net> A NEW WEB SITE CHAT FORUM FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO WIN CASES! Luis Ewing <rcwcodebus...@gmail.com> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
FW: CPS SOCIAL WORKERS CAUGHT ROBO-SIGNING CHILD STEALING! Luis Ewing <rcwcodebus...@gmail.com> Tue, 14 May 2013 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sharp-practices by banks? Unknown <...@gmail.com> Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:37:40 +0000 (UTC)
Was this matter re-tried? Avoid9...@gmail.com Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:32:39 +0000 (UTC)
Re: Was this matter re-tried? jdewetmil...@eurthlynk.net Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:03:27 -0500
Simple legal interpreation? Avoid9...@gmail.com Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:39:03 +0000 (UTC)

FW: CPS SOCIAL WORKERS CAUGHT ROBO-SIGNING CHILD STEALING!


From Luis Ewing at [rcwcodebuster (at) gmail.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) live.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) yahoo.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) aol.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) mail.com] or [selfhelplegalnetwork (at) yahoogroups (dot) com] or telephone: (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or call me on SKYPE at [luisewing]


To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (347) 215-9477 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . BLOG TALK RADIO . . . and Search for . . . “Pro-se Winners” . . . or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners]


Blog Talk Chat:
[http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashchat/chat.aspx?HostUserURL=pro-se-winners]


Pro-se Winners Chat Board: [http://www.prosewinners.net/]


Free Flyers: [http://www.prosewinners.net/flyers.html]


Pro-se Winners is now on Facebook:
[<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pro-se-Winners/482394011791575?ref=hl>]


Self Help Legal Network Yahoo Groups:
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selfhelplegalnetwork]


See my new web sites: [http://www.StoptheIRS.net] or [http://www.luisewing.com] or [http://www.ultimateusers.com] or [http://www.rcwcodebuster.com] [http://www.IRSbuster.com] or [http://www.IRSslayer.com]


GODS LAW as written in the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at [http://www.americanvision (dot) com] says:


“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6

“And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4

“Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, We ought rather to obey God than men.” Acts, 5:29

“Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purge your hearts, ye double minded.” James 5:8

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served (that were beyond the flood) or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but I and mine house will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

“No servant can serve two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and love the other: or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and riches.” Luke 16:13

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God.” Romans 13:1

“Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation.” Romans 13:2

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions?” Colossians 2:20

“As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.” Colossians 2:21

“Which all perish with the using, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men.” Colossians 2:22

“And putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the cross, . . .” Colossians 2: 14.

“That we henceforth be no more children, wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and with crafttiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive.” Ephesians, 4:14

“And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Timothy, 1:8

“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.” Mathews 5:17.

“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.



SUBJECT: I CAN HELP YOU GET YOUR CHILDREN BACK AND I CAN HELP YOU PUT YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER AND JUDGE IN PRISON FOR FEDERAL RICO VIOLATIONS AND YOU CAN SUE THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUDGES AND THE PROSECUTORS AND THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983, AND YES, YOU CAN BEAT YOUR OWN CASES WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY!!!!


Note: God’s law at Luke 22:36 and Luke 22:38 Requires Everyone to buy guns and ammunition, and to teach your children to shoot guns at II Samuel 1:18, and Gods’s law also further requires everyone to buy heirloom seeds, organic seeds and start Johnny Apple Seeding all around your houses, in the empty lots or alleys or woods behind your houses, buy a chicken coop, buy some chickens and just let them loose in your back yards, throw some extra chickens in the alleys or woods behind your house and let them multiply at Genesis 1:26 through Genesis 1:30 and Genesis 9:3.


“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” Revelation 1:3


“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.


PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASAP!!!!


“RCW 4.24.500 Good faith communication to government agency--Legislative findings--Purpose.

Information provided by citizens concerning potential wrongdoing is vital to effective law enforcement and the efficient operation of government. The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state, or local agencies. The costs of defending against such suits can be severely burdensome. The purpose of RCW 4.24.500 through 4.24.520 is to protect individuals who make good-faith reports to appropriate governmental bodies. [1989 c 234 º 1.]” And;

“RCW 4.24.510 Good faith communication to government agency--Immunity.

A person who in good faith communicates a complaint or information to any agency of federal, state, or local government regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency shall be immune from civil liability on claims based upon the communication to the agency. A person prevailing upon the defense provided for in this section shall be entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in establishing the defense. [1989 c 234 º 2.]” And;


* * *


NOTE: THIS WRITING WILL 100% ABSOLUTELY PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT THE ENTIRE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS AND ALL OF THE JUDGES IN ALL OF THE FAMILY COURTS AND ALL OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR MEMBER ATTORNEYS WHO “PRACTICE LAW” BEFORE THESE COURTS ARE ALL EITHER GROSSLY INCOMPETENT AND IGNORANT OF THE LAW . . . OR . . . THAT THEY ARE ALL ENGAGED IN A MASSIVE STATEWIDE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT . . . CHILD STEALING . . . AND . . . CHILD SELLING.


THIS WRITING WILL PROVE TO ALL OF YOU THAT ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE IN FACT AND LAW . . . “A SYSTEMATIZED SYSTEM” . . . OF . . . “CHILD STEALING” . . . AND . . . “CHILD SELLING.”


PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO EVERY NEWSPAPER REPORTER E-MAIL ADDRESS IN EVERY MAJOR NEWSPAPER!!!!


Luis Ewing is the son of former Teamster Local 174 Union Leader Gary Ewing at:
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2723


* * *



GUESS WHAT FOLKS????


I have discovered the . . . EVIL BEGINNINGS . . . of how . . . THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL . . . got started!!!!


I HAVE DISCOVERED . . . “A SYSTEMATIZED SYSTEM” . . . OF . . . “CHILD STEALING” . . . AND . . . “CHILD SELLING.”


IT IS . . . THE PERJURED . . . & . . . FORGED . . . RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . THAT ALLOWED . . . “THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL” . . . TO HAPPEN!!!!


I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE JUDGES WHO APPROVED ALL . . . “THE PERJURED” . . . AND . . . “FORGED” . . . DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . WERE IN FACT . . . JEWISH JUDGES????


THEY NEVER FIXED THE PROBLEM WITH . . . “THE PERJURED” . . . & . . . “FORGED” . . . RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . THAT CAUSED . . . “THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL” . . . TO HAPPEN!!!!


I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT EVERY SINGLE . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . IN . . . KITSAP COUNTY . . . aka . . . KIDNAP COUNTY . . . IS A COMPLETE FORGERY!!!!


I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT 99.99% OF ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . IN . . . THE STATE OF WASHINGTON . . . ARE A COMPLETE FORGERY!!!!


THAT’S RIGHT!


EVERY SINGLE . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . IS A FAKED UP DOCUMENT!!!!


THAT’S RIGHT!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE FAKED UP COMPLAINTS!!!!


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=13.34.040


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . are . . . “NOT VERIFIED.”


The top of the 2nd page on every . . . “RCW DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . says it’s a verified complaint, but it’s . . . “NOT VERIFIED” . . . before . . . “A JUDICIAL OFFICER” . . . in open court in direct violation of RCW 5.28.010.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.28.010


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.44.010



IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT . . . “RCW 42.44.010 (5)” . . . PROVIDES THAT . . . “[V]ERIFICATION UPON OATH OR AFFIRMATION" MEANS A STATEMENT BY A PERSON WHO ASSERTS IT TO BE TRUE AND MAKES THE ASSERTION UPON OATH OR AFFIRMATION ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 5.28 RCW.


“RCW 5.28.010 Who may administer.

Every court, judge, clerk of a court, state-certified court reporter, or notary public, is authorized to take testimony in any action, suit or proceeding, and such other persons in particular cases as authorized by law. Every such court or officer is authorized to collect fees established under RCW 36.18.020 and 36.18.012 through 36.18.018 and to administer oaths and affirmations generally and to every such other person in such particular case as authorized.

[2010 c 98 § 1; 1995 c 292 § 1; 1987 c 202 § 124; 2 H. C. § 1693; 1869 p 378 § 1; RRS § 1264.]

Notes:

Intent -- 1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.

Oath of witness in superior court to be administered by judge: Rules of court: Cf. CR 43 (d).

Powers of courts, judicial officers to administer oaths: RCW 2.28.010, 2.28.060.”



A NOTARY IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.28.010


http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CR&ruleid=supcr43


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=2.28.010


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=2.28.060



It is undisputed that RCW 5.28.010 at the Notes at the bottom of the statute provides 1st, that the . . . “OATH OF WITNESS IN SUPERIOR COURT” . . . is . . . “TO BE ADMINISTERED BY JUDGE: Rules of court: Cf. CR 43 (d)” . . . and 2nd, that . . . “THE POWERS OF THE COURTS” . . . provides that it’s . . . “JUDICIAL OFFICERS” . . . are to . . . “ADMINISTER OATHS” . . . citing both RCW 2.28.010 and RCW 2.28.060.


IT SAYS THE POWERS OF THE COURTS!!!!

IT DOES NOT SAY THE POWERS OF THE NOTARY!!!!

A NOTARY IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!


It is undisputed that only a judge or the court can administer . . . “A JUDICIAL OATH” . . . in the due and regular course of judicial proceedings as contemplated by CR 43 (d), RCW 2.28.010 and RCW 2.28.060.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “judicial oath” as:


“judicial oath. An oath authorized by law and administered in the due and regular course of judicial proceedings. State v. Bowman, 90 Me 363. The qualifying oath of a judge.” Ballentine’s Dictionary, at page 685.


RCW 2.28.010 reads:

“RCW 2.28.010 Powers of courts in conduct of judicial proceedings.

Every court of justice has power -- (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or body empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments, decrees, orders and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein. (5) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto. (6) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action, suit or proceeding therein, in the cases and manner provided by law. (7) To administer oaths in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties.

[1955 c 38 § 12; 1909 c 124 § 2; RRS § 85.]

Notes:

Compelling attendance of witnesses: Chapter 5.56 RCW.

Oaths, who may administer: RCW 5.28.010.”


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.28.010



RCW 2.28.010 (7) clearly provides that only a judge, a pro-tem judge or a court commissioner in a court of justice has the power . . . “ADMINISTER OATHS IN AN ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING PENDING THEREIN, AND IN ALL OTHER CASES WHERE IT MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES.”


WHEREVER, THE INCOMPETENT JUDGES DIDN’T DO THEIR DUTY, WE CAN CHARGE THEM WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT!!!!



RCW 2.28.060 reads:

“RCW 2.28.060 Judicial officers — Powers.

Every judicial officer has power:

(1) To preserve and enforce order in his or her immediate presence and in the proceedings before him or her, when he or she is engaged in the performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by law;

(2) To compel obedience to his or her lawful orders as provided by law;

(3) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a proceeding pending before him or her, in the cases and manner provided by law;

(4) To administer oaths to persons in a proceeding pending before him or her, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of his or her powers and the performance of his or her duties.

[2011 c 336 § 40; 1955 c 38 § 13; 1891 c 54 § 6; RRS § 57.]

Notes:

Compelling attendance of witnesses: Chapter 5.56 RCW.

Oaths, who may administer: RCW 5.28.010.”


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.28.010


A NOTARY IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!

RCW 2.28.060 (4) clearly provides that . . . “EVERY JUDICIAL OFFICER HAS POWER” . . . “TO ADMINISTER OATHS . . . to persons in a proceeding pending before him or her, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of his or her powers . . . AND THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES.


EVERY JUDICIAL OFFICER HAS POWER TO ADMINISTER OATHS!!!!


A NOTARY IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE NOT VERIFIED . . . because they are . . . NOT SUBSCRIBED TO . . . AND . . . NOT SWORN TO UNDER OATH!!!!



At the bottom of the 2nd page of every . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . it fraudulent claims that it’s . . . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO UNDER OATH” . . . but it is in fact and law . . . NOT SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO UNDER OATH” . . . IT’S A TRICK . . . IT’S A SHAM . . . WE ARE ALL BEING TRICKED AND FOOLED . . . INTO BELIEVING THAT ALL RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS ARE LEGITIMATE AND USING PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS TO BE LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURT, BUT THEY ARE NOT!!!!



All RCW 13.34.040 CPS Social Workers Dependency Petitions are perjured & forged documents because they are NOT . . . “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO” . . . “UNDER OATH” . . . before . . . “A JUDICIAL OFFICER” . . . in open court in violation of . . . “RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(a)(b)(c)(3) . . . which reads in part:


“RCW 9A.72.010 Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
. . .
(2) "Oath" includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:
(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or

(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW 9A.72.085.

(3) An oath is "required or authorized by law" when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths; . . .” And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.010



THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT WANT TO SIGN THEIR PERJURED AND FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE LYING!!!!


THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT WANT TO SIGN THEIR PERJURED AND FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE COMMITTING PERJURY!!!!


IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS VIOLATE . . . “RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(a)(b)(c)(3) . . . AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO UNDER OATH!!!!


WE ARE ALL BEING SCAMMED BY CPS!!!!


IF ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER TOLD YOU THAT YES, THEY DID IN FACT . . . VERIFY THEIR COMPLAINT” . . . IN THEIR RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION . . . AND FURTHER, IF ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER ALSO SAYS . . . “YES, IT’S SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO UNDER OATH” . . . THEY JUST LIED TO YOU BY PROVIDING YOU . . . “A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT.”



“RCW 9A.72.010 Definitions.
. . . (1) "Materially false statement" means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law; . . .” And;




IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT EVERY CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO HAS EVER . . . “FILED” . . . “A RCW 13.34.040" . . . DEPENDENCY PETITION IN ANY COURT IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . “AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY” . . . OF . . . RCW 9A.60.020 FORGERY.”


“RCW 9A.60.020 Forgery.

(1) A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to injure or defraud:

(a) He or she falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or;

(b) He or she possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he or she knows to be forged.
. . .
(3) Forgery is a class C felony. . . .” And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.020


* * *

CONTACT CURT BAGGET . . . IF YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER CLAIMED THAT HE OR SHE DID NOT SIGN THE PERJURED & FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION:

Handwriting Expert
(As seen on CNN, CNBC & Texas Justice)

Call Curt now at: 1 - (972) 644-0285

http://expertdocumentexaminer.com/


* * *


THE ELEMENTS OF A FORGERY IN WASHINGTON ARE CLEARLY DEFINED AT:


“RCW 9A.60.010 Definitions.

The following definitions and the definitions of RCW 9A.56.010 are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Complete written instrument" means one which is fully drawn with respect to every essential feature thereof;

(2) "Incomplete written instrument" means one which contains some matter by way of content or authentication but which requires additional matter in order to render it a complete written instrument;

(3) To "falsely alter" a written instrument means to change, without authorization by anyone entitled to grant it, a written instrument, whether complete or incomplete, by means of erasure, obliteration, deletion, insertion of new matter, transposition of matter, or in any other manner;

(4) To "falsely complete" a written instrument means to transform an incomplete written instrument into a complete one by adding or inserting matter, without the authority of anyone entitled to grant it;

(5) To "falsely make" a written instrument means to make or draw a complete or incomplete written instrument which purports to be authentic, but which is not authentic either because the ostensible maker is fictitious or because, if real, he or she did not authorize the making or drawing thereof;

(6) "Forged instrument" means a written instrument which has been falsely made, completed, or altered;

(7) "Written instrument" means: (a) Any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent; or (b) any access device, token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification.

[2011 c 336 § 381; 1999 c 143 § 38; 1987 c 140 § 5; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 12; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.60.010.]

Notes:
Reviser's note: The definitions in this section have been alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k).
Effective date -- Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.” And;



IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS FALSELY MADE AND COMPLETED A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND UTTERED, OFFERS OR OFFERED AND PUTS OFF AS TRUE . . . A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT (A RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION) . . . THAT IS MATERIALLY FALSE IS CLEARLY AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY OF RCW 9A.60.020 FORGERY!!!!



RCW 9A.72.080 makes it clear that if any CPS Social Worker swears to anything of which they have . . . “NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE” . . . and/or he or she . . . “DID NOT PERSONALLY WITNESS” . . . in their Dependency Petitions, . . . “THEY KNOW IT TO BE FALSE” . . . therefore the CPS Social Workers are knowingly committing perjury and forgery.


“RCW 9A.72.080 Statement of what one does not know to be true. Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he knows to be false. [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.080.]. And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.080



IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT EVERY CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO HAS EVER . . . “FILED” . . . “A RCW 13.34.040" . . . DEPENDENCY PETITION IN ANY COURT IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . “AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY” . . . OF . . . RCW 9A.72.030 PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE.”


“RCW 9A.72.030 Perjury in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if, in an examination under oath under the terms of a contract of insurance, or with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

(2) Perjury in the second degree is a class C felony.”


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.030



IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT IF ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER TOOK THE STAND AND SWORE UNDER OATH IN OPEN COURT IN ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING THAT THEY DID IN FACT MAKE AND COMPLETE AND PUT OFF AS TRUE THAT THEY DID IN FACT LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY VERIFY THEIR COMPLAINT BY SUBSCRIBING THEIR SIGNATURE TO IT AND SWEARING TO IT UNDER OATH THEIR . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . IS AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY OF . . . “RCW 9A.72.020 PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE” . . . IF THEY DID IT BEFORE A NOTARY IN A BACK OFFICE SOMEWHERE AND DID NOT DO IT IN OPEN COURT BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY LAW!!!!



“RCW 9A.72.020 Perjury in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor's mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.”


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.020



WE CAN ALSO CHARGE ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS WITH VIOLATING . . . “RCW 9.81.110 MISSTATEMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE AS PERJURY – PENALTY” . . . WHICH READS:



“RCW 9.81.110 Misstatements are punishable as perjury — Penalty.

Every written statement made pursuant to this chapter by an applicant for appointment or employment, or by any employee, shall be deemed to have been made under oath if it contains a declaration preceding the signature of the maker to the effect that it is made under the penalties of perjury. Any person who wilfully makes a material misstatement of fact (1) in any such written statement, or (2) in any affidavit made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, OR (3) UNDER OATH IN ANY HEARING CONDUCTED BY ANY AGENCY OF THE STATE, OR OF ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER, or (4) in any written statement by an applicant for appointment or employment or by an employee in any state aid or private institution of learning in this state, intended to determine whether or not such applicant or employee is a subversive person as defined in this chapter, which statement contains notice that it is subject to the penalties of perjury, shall be subject to the penalties of perjury, as prescribed in chapter 9.41 RCW.

[1951 c 254 § 17.]. And;



RCW 9.81.110 CLEARLY STATES IN PART THAT . . . “ANY PERSON WHO WILFULLY MAKES A MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT OF FACT (1) IN ANY SUCH WRITTEN STATEMENT . . . UNDER OATH IN ANY HEARING CONDUCTED BY ANY AGENCY OF THE STATE, OR OF ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER . . . WHICH STATEMENT CONTAINS NOTICE THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, AS PRESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 9.41 RCW!!!!


NOW DO YOU SEE WHY ALL OF THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PRETEND PHONY MADE UP SHAM . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY????


NOW DO YOU SEE WHY ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO VERIFY THEIR PRETEND PHONY MADE UP PRETEND SHAM . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . UNDER OATH IN ANY HEARING????


NOW DO YOU SEE WHY ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO . . . “SUBSCRIBED AND SWEAR TO UNDER OATH” . . .TO THE STATEMENTS THAT THEY MADE IN THEIR BOGUS AND PHONY SHAM . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS”????



IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T SIGN ANY OF THEIR PHONY MADE UP SHAM . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW THAT THEY ARE LYING!!!!


IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T SIGN ANY OF THEIR PHONY MADE UP SHAM . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW THAT THEY ARE . . . COMMITTING PERJURY!!!!



IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER HAS . . . “FILED” . . . THEIR FRAUDULENT PHONY SHAM PRETEND . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . IS AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY OF . . . RCW 40.16.030 OFFERING FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING OR RECORD!!!!



“RCW 40.16.030 Offering false instrument for filing or record.

Every person who shall knowingly procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
[2003 c 53 § 216; 1992 c 7 § 36; 1909 c 249 § 97; RRS § 2349.] And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=40.16.030



THE CPS AND THE JUDGES ARE ALL ENGAGED IN A MASSIVE STATEWIDE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO STEAL AND SELL YOUR CHILDREN FOR PROFIT!!!!


I CAN PROVE ALL OF THIS IS TRUE!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.04 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE BOGUS DOCUMENTS!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE A SHAM DOCUMENT!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.04 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE A FAKE PROCESS!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.04 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . HAVE NO LEGAL FOUNDATION!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.04 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE PHONY DOCUMENTS!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE PRETEND PROCESS!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE RUBBER STAMPED!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE ROBO-STAMPED!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE ROBO-SIGNED!!!!


ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE IN FACT AND LAW . . . “A SYSTEMATIZED SYSTEM” . . . OF . . . “CHILD STEALING” . . . AND . . . “CHILD SELLING.”



ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 CPS DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . ARE . . . “NOT VERIFIED” . . . BECAUSE THEY ARE . . . “NOT SUBSCRIBED TO” . . .AND ARE . . . “NOT SIGNED” . . . “UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY” . . . AND THEY ARE . . .”NOT SWORN TO UNDER OATH” . . . IN OPEN COURT . . . BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER . . . IN VIOLATION OF . . . RCW 42.44.010 (5) . . . RCW 5.28.010 . . . RCW 2.28.010 (7) . . . RCW 2.28.060 (4) . . . CR 43 (d) . . . ART. 1, § 6, WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION . . . ER 603 . . . RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(A)(B)(C)(3) . . . RCW 9A.72.085 . . . THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION . . . AND ARE THEREFORE . . . “WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW” . . . IN VIOLATION OF . . . “ARTICLE 1, § 7 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION.”


ALL CPS ROBO-SIGNED . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . CLEARLY VIOLATE * * * RCW 9A.72.085 THE UNSWORN DECLARATION STATUTE * * * BECAUSE THEY ARE . . . NOT SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY!!!!


“RCW 9A.72.085 Unsworn statements, certification.

Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person's sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;


(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

"I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct":

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Date and Place) (Signature)

This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgment, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.

[1981 c 187 § 3.].” And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.085


THE LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PHONY PERJURED AND FORGED UP . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . “UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY” . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE LYING!!!!


THE LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PHONY PERJURED AND FORGED UP . . . “RCW DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . “UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY” . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE COMMITTING PERJURY!!!!


IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT NO LESS THAN TWO (2) WASHINGTON STATUTES REQUIRES THAT AN OATH BE SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY:


1.) RCW 9A.72.085 (4) – http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.085


2.) RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(c) – http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.010



IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS PERJURED AND FORGED . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . VIOLATE BOTH . . . RCW 9A.72.085 (4) . . . AND . . . RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(c) . . . BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY AND ARE THEREFORE NOT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO UNDER OATH IN VIOLATION OF RCW 13.34.040 WHICH REQUIRES ALL DEPENDENCY PETITIONS TO BE VERIFIED!!!!


ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PERJURED AND FORGED . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE ALL LYING!!!!


ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PERJURED AND FORGED . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE ALL COMMITTING PERJURY!!!!


ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . “ARE NOT VERIFIED” . . . BECAUSE THEY ARE . . . “NOT SUBSCRIBED” . . . AND . . . “NOT SWORN TO UNDER OATH.”



RCW 9A.72.085 THE UNSWORN DECLARATION CLEARLY PROVIDES IN PART THAT . . . THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO WRITINGS REQUIRING AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, DEPOSITIONS, OATHS OF OFFICE, OR OATHS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE A SPECIAL OFFICIAL OTHER THAN A NOTARY PUBLIC.”


A SPECIAL OFFICIAL OTHER THAN A NOTARY PUBLIC . . . MEANS . . . A JUDGE!!!!


RCW 9A.72.085 MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT A NOTARY CANNOT ISSUE OR TAKE A JUDICIAL OATH IN SUPPORT OF A RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION!!!!


“The controlling question is as to the authority of the notary to administer the oaths, upon the falsity of which the indictment is laid. It is fundamental in the law of criminal procedure that an oath before one who has no legal authority to administer oaths of a public nature, or before one who although authorized to administer some kind of oaths, but not the one which is brought in question, cannot amount to perjury at common law, or subject the party taking it prosecution for the statutory offense of wilfully false swearing. 1 Hawk. P.C., b. 1, c. 27, sect. 4, p. 430, 8th ed. by Curwood; Roscoe’s Cr. Evid. (7th Am. ed.), p. 817; 2 Whart. Crim. Law, sect. 2211; 2 Arch. Crim. Pr. & Pl. (8th ed.), P. 1722. If, therefore, Curtis, at the time the several oaths alleged to be false were taken, was not authorized by the laws of the United States to take them before a notary public, he cannot be proceeded against under sect. 5392. The statute, in conformity with an established rule of criminal law, expressly declares that the oath must be taken before some “competent tribunal, officer, or person.” This does not necessarily mean that the tribunal by which the oath is administered it shall be an officer of that government. But the statute does mean that the oath must be permitted or required, by at least the laws of the United States, and be administered by some tribunal, officer, or person authorized by such laws to administer oaths in respect of the particular matters to which it relates. So that the underlying question is whether the notary public, whose commission is from the State, was, at the respective dates of the oaths taken by Curtis, authorized by the laws of the United States to administer such oaths. This question we are constrained to answer in the negative. We are not aware of any act of Congress which gave such authority to notaries public in the different States at the several dates given in the indictment.” UNITED STATES v. CURTIS, 107 U.S. 671, 672, 673 (Oct. 1882). And;


“We have been unable to find any statute authorizing the oath required to be taken by Hall, in reference to the manner in which he had discharged his duties as deputy surveyor under the contract which is made part of the indictment, to be administered by a notary public. In the case of United States v. Curtis, 107 U.S. 671, this court, after very careful examination of the statutes on the subject of the powers of notaries public to administer oaths, declared that no such power existed, . . . This examination, as found in the opinion of the court by Mr. Justice Harlan, seems to have been very thorough at time the opinion was delivered in April, 1883. We are not now able to find any statute giving such authority to a notary public, in regard to the manner in which the oath was taken in the present case, nor any general authority to administer oaths under the laws of the United States.” UNITED STATES v. HALL, 131 U.S. 50, 53 (May 13, 1889). And;


“The defendant has appeared specially and moved to quash the information, on the grounds, first, that the affidavits thereto attached fail to show probable cause for the prosecution and are insufficient to support the information; and second, because the information does not charge a crime under the act in question. . . . As already stated, the three principle affidavits were taken before notaries public in other states, and the fourth, standing alone, is of no avail. The question therefore arises: Can these affidavits, taken before notaries, be considered by the court? I am of opinion that they cannot. In United States v. Curtis, 107 U.S. 671, 673, 2 Sup.Ct. 507, 509, 27 L.Ed. 534, the court said: “So that the underlying question is whether the notary public, whose commission is from the state, was, at the respective dates of the oaths taken by Curtis, authorized by the laws of the United States to administer such oaths. This question we are constrained to answer in the negative. . . . It follows from this decision that a notary public has no authority under the laws of the United States to administer any oaths in connection with criminal prosecutions. The United States attorney frankly conceded this on argument. . . . Believing, therefore, that the information itself is insufficient, because not under the sanction of the official oath of the United States district attorney, and that I may not consider the affidavits of notaries thereto attached, the motion to quash must be granted; and it is so ordered.” UNITED STATES v. SCHALLINGER PRODUCE CO., 230 FEDERAL REPORTER 290, 292, 293, 294 (October 5, 1914). And;



IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT RCW 9A.72.085 PROVIDES THAT . . . A SPECIAL OFFICIAL . . . OTHER THAN . . . A NOTARY PUBLIC . . . MEANS . . . A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!


IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT RCW 9A.72.085 PROVIDES THAT . . . A SPECIAL OFFICIAL . . . OTHER THAN . . . A NOTARY PUBLIC . . . MEANS . . . A COURT COMMISSIONER!!!!



IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT RCW 9A.72.085 PROVIDES THAT . . . A SPECIAL OFFICIAL . . . OTHER THAN . . . A NOTARY PUBLIC . . . MEANS . . . A PRO-TEM JUDGE!!!!


IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT RCW 9A.72.085 PROVIDES THAT . . . A SPECIAL OFFICIAL . . . OTHER THAN . . . A NOTARY PUBLIC . . . MEANS . . . A VISITING JUDGE!!!!



A NOTARY IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER!!!!



A NOTARY CAN ONLY ISSUE OR TAKE OATHS OR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR . . . “MINISTERIAL PURPOSES.”



“In some jurisdictions, the act of an officer in taking and certifying to an acknowledgment is held to be judicial, or quasi judicial in its nature, and consequently can be attacked only in the manner and for causes a judgment of a court of record can be attacked. Courts taking this view of an acknowledgment hold that the officer taking it will not be permitted to stultify it in a collateral proceeding, although some of them hold that he may so testify, where the proceeding is a direct attack upon the instrument, as, for example, in a direct proceeding brought to set aside the instrument for fraud. The other view is that the act is ministerial rather than judicial, and courts taking this view generally hold that the officer is a competent witness to impeach the certificate. This court, in so far as we are advised, has never had the direct question before it. We have held, however, that the act was ministerial rather than judicial; Spokane & Idaho Lumber Co. v. Loy, 21 Wash. 501, 58 Pac. 672, 60 Pac. 1119; Keene Guaranty Savings Bank v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572, 73 Pac. 680; Ehlers v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 87 Wash. 662, 152 Pac. 518; and to this extent have adopted the rule of the cases which hold the evidence of the officer taking the acknowledgment competent to impeach it.” Campbell v. Campbell, 146 Wash. 478, 480-481 (February 6, 1928). And;


“We have held, however, that the act was ministerial rather than judicial; Spokane & Idaho Lumber Co. V. Loy, 21 Wash. 501, 58 Pac. 672, 60 Pac. 1119; Keene v. Guarantee Savings Bank v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572, 73 Pac. 680; Ehlers v. United States Fid. & Gauran. Co., 87 Wash. 662, 152 Pac. 518; and to this extent have adopted the rule of the cases which hold the evidence of the officer taking the acknowledgment competent to impeach it.” State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d 579, 585 (April 15, 1954). And;



THE LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DON’T WANT TO SIGN THEIR PHONY PERJURED AND FORGED UP . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . “UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY” . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE LYING!!!!


THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS ALL KNOW THAT THEY ARE COMMITTING PERJURY!!!!


THAT IS WHY THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT WANT TO SIGN THEIR FRAUDULENT . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY!!!!


THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE A CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR NOTARY . . . “ROBO-STAMPING” . . . THEIR NOTARY STAMPS . . . TO THE FRAUDULENT AND UNVERIFIED . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . IN A BACK OFFICE SOMEWHERE!!!!


DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS IS ILLEGALLY INTERROGATING CHILDREN LIKE ADOLF HITLER’S SS NAZI STORM TROOPERS DID DURING WORLD WAR II IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AS CODIFIED AT 18 U.S.C. 5033????


DID YOU KNOW THAT CPS IS USING THE CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY AGAINST THE PARENTS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AS CODIFIED AT 18 U.S.C. 5033????


DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU AS A PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO INVOKE YOUR CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT FOR THEM PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 5033????


The 9th Circuit recognized that “Congress obviously intended that parents have a right to invoke their children’s right to remain silent for them pursuant to Federal Law at 18 U.S.C. 5033. United States v. Doe, 219 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Doe V”); United States v. John Doe (“Doe II”), 862 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Doe IV”); Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581, 585 (9th Cir. 1996). And;



WE CAN SUE ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS FOR ILLEGALLY INTERROGATING YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEY’S PRESENCE AND WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AS CODIFIED AT 18 U.S.C. 5033 PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983!!!!


THE CrR 1.1 DECISIONAL CASE LAW OF WASHINGTON SAYS THAT YOUR ATTORNEY CANNOT WAIVE ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION EITHER!!!!


DID YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS FOR VIOLATING THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH REQUIRES THEM TO COMPLY WITH . . . “ALL FEDERAL LAWS” . . . AND PULL ALL OF THEIR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. 5033????


IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT CPS USED YOUR CHILD’S TESTIMONY OR STATEMENTS AGAINST YOU, WE CAN CAUSE THE CPS TO LOSE ALL OF THEIR FEDERAL FUNDING!!!!


ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO HAS FILED THREE (3) OR MORE OF THESE TYPE OF FAKED UP DEPENDENCY PETITIONS UNDER RCW 13.34.040 INTO ANY COURT CAN BE CHARGED WITH COMMITTING . . . RCW 9A.72.080 PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE . . . RCW 9A.72.030 PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE . . . RCW 9A.60.020 FORGERY . . . RCW 9A.72.040 FALSE SWEARING . . . RCW 9A.80.010 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT . . . RCW 9.12.020 BARRATRY . . . RCW 9.62.010 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION . . . AND . . . OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN VIOLATION OF RCW 40.16.030.


“RCW 40.16.030 Offering false instrument for filing or record.
Every person who shall knowingly procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
[2003 c 53 § 216; 1992 c 7 § 36; 1909 c 249 § 97; RRS § 2349.]
Notes:
Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.” And;


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=40.16.030



AN . . . “HONEST” . . . AND . . . “COMPETENT” . . . “JUDGE” . . . IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THE PARENTS AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS!!!!



“[T]here can be no doubt that the full panoply of due process safeguards applies to deprivation hearings.” In re Luscier, 84 Wn.2d 135 (1974). In re Ross went on to say that “Fathers and mothers should not be deprived of their parental rights on hearsay, which is but another form of unsworn testimony” at page 655 which reads in part:


“[B]efore parents can be permanently deprived of all custody, control, care or parental rights over their children, they must be accorded the opportunity of a hearing, and at such hearing the witnesses should be sworn, and the failure to comply with a request that the witnesses be sworn is prejudicial error.
[2] Further, at such hearings the usual rules relative to the admissibility of evidence should be applied. Fathers and mothers should not be deprived of their parental rights on hearsay, which is but another form of unsworn testimony” In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654, at 655 (December 3, 1954). And;


“Let us examine a little more closely the reasons for this rule of exclusion. Confessions and admissions of third parties in criminal cases are excluded because their introduction in evidence is held to be a violation of the hearsay rule. Hearsay evidence is excluded, to state the reasons briefly, because it lacks the sanction of an oath and the test of cross-examination, and facilitates the use of perjured testimony [by the CPS Social Workers]. These are sound reasons, and the rule is one of great importance; but one of the exceptions to this rule, universally recognized, is that relevant declarations against interest, where the declarant has since died or otherwise become available as a witness, are receivable in evidence. The basis of this exception to the rule is that the evidence itself is important to the ends of justice, and that the evidence itself is important to the ends of justice, and that the element of self-interest affords a reasonably safe substitute for the oath and cross-examination as a guarantee of the truth.” 2 Wig. Ev. § 1421; Id. §1455-1457. And;



“The law disapproves of visiting serious consequences upon parties on the basis of only unsworn evidence. See In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654, 277 P.2d 335 (1954).” Metcalf v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 11 Wn.App. 819, 822 (August 26, 1974). And;



The Washington State Constitution article 1, section 6 requires that all witnesses be sworn under oath before testifying and reads:


“SECTION 6 OATHS - MODE OF ADMINISTERING. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation, shall be such as may be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath, or affirmation, may be administered.” Washington Constitution, article 1, section 6.



Washington State Evidence Rule ER 603 which is based in part on article 1, section 6 of the Washington State Constitution reads:

“RULE ER 603 OATH OR AFFIRMATION
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.
[Amended effective September 1, 1992.].”


The Washington Appellate Court in Nirk v. Kent Civil Service Commission makes it clear that:
“Requiring witnesses to testify under oath has become a commonly accepted procedure. Under ER 603, which is based in part on article 1, section 6 of the Washington State Constitution, witnesses are required to be sworn:
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.
In the comment it is stated:
This rule is the same as Federal Rule 603 and is substantially in accord with previous Washington law. The statutes relating to oaths, RCW 5.28.010 through 5.28.060, provide that different forms of the oath may be used as required by the special circumstances of the witnesses. The statutes are consistent with the rule and are not superceded. The use of an affirmation may be varied, it has been held that some form of swearing in the witnesses is required. In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654, 277 P.2d 335 (1954).
The primary function of requiring witnesses to be sworn is to add an additional security for credibility by impressing upon them their duty to tell the truth, and to provide a basis for a charge of perjury. See generally 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1815-29 (rev. ed. 1976); 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence 603[01] (1978).
. . . We believe that the administration of an oath is significant in arriving at the truth.
A further reason for requiring an oath concerns the provision in RCW 41.12.040 (4), which authorizes the Commission to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths in the same manner as a superior court judge. By providing for the administration of oaths, the legislature implicitly recognized that witnesses should be sworn. The legislature similarly provided in the administrative procedure act for the administration of oaths. RCW 34.04.090 (8)(a). Administrative agencies may sometimes reach decisions solely on written evidence:
[W]ritten evidence can expedite and simplify formal administrative proceedings through reducing the controversy to verified written statements which are then exchanged by the parties for the purpose of rebuttal. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 356, at 855 (2d ed. 1972). Therefore, the statements should be under oath even when the testimony is written. Such a requirement poses a minimal inconvenience to the administrative body and is consistent with the informality of the hearing.
Washington courts have held that witnesses should be sworn in a variety of other contexts. In In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654, 655, 277 P.2d 335 (1954), the court held that in a permanent deprivation proceeding the witnesses should be sworn. . . .
We do hold, however, that before parents can be permanently deprived of all custody, control, care, or parental rights over their children, they must be accorded the opportunity of a hearing, and at such hearing the witnesses should be sworn, and the failure to comply with a request that the witnesses be sworn is prejudicial error.
See generally 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 320 (1957). In Metcalf v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Wn.App. 819, 822, 525 P.2d 819 (1974), the court held that a sworn report is required under RCW 46.20.308 (3), the implied consent statute stating that a “contrary result may well raise significant due process questions.”
Other jurisdictions which have considered this question also require testimony to be under oath. In Deel Motors, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, 252 So.2d 389, 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971), the court stated in discussing administrative hearings that:
Such proceedings contemplates that the party to be affected by the outcome of the proceeding will be given reasonable notice of the hearing and an opportunity to appear in person or by attorney and to be heard on the issues presented for determination. It is contemplated that the order to be entered will be based on competent and substantial evidence adduced by the parties consisting of sworn testimony of witnesses and properly authenticated documents bearing the required indicia of credibility.
In L.A. Darling Co. v. Water Resources Comm’n, 341 Mich. 654, 67 N.W.2nd 890 (1955), the court held that the administrative hearing violated due process because, among other things, the witnesses were not sworn. In Rector v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 599 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. 1980), the court held that an administrative hearing concerning an application for a wine and beer retailer’s license violated due process because witnesses were not sworn and the applicant was denied the right to cross-examination. The court in Rector v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, supra at 801, stated: “[T]he application . . . was denied without due process because [the applicant] was denied these basic and traditional tools for searching out the truth.” Cf. Friesel v. Board of Educ., 79 Ill. App. 3d 460, 398 N.E.2d 637 (1979); People v. Copeland, 70 App. Div. 2d 884, 417 N.Y.S.2d 103 (1979); State v. Salafia, 29 Conn. Supp. 305, 284 A.2d 576 (1971). But see Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Smith, 293 F.Supp. 1111 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
Finally, without sworn testimony a reviewing court is unable to review the Commission’s decision on appeal. In reviewing an adjudicatory administrative decision, a court must presume that the evidence presented is truthful. In other words, the determination of whether a witness is credible is a matter for the administrative agency and not for an appellate court. Peterson v. Department of Labor & Indus., 22 Wn.2d 647, 157 P.2d 298 (1945); 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law § 29.06 (1958). See State ex rel. Perry v. Seattle, supra. In the case of unsworn testimony, however, the evidence cannot be given the traditional presumption of truthfulness and we are, therefore, unable to perform our appellate review function.
To summarize, we hold that when considering the importance of the oath, the significant interests at stake in a discharge hearing, the legislative provision authorizing the administration of oaths, and the minimal inconvenience that such a requirement would cause, due process requires that witnesses be sworn at a civil service discharge hearing.
The Commission argues that we should consider the error to be harmless. We disagree. Requiring witnesses to be sworn relates to the truth finding process and failure to do so taints the integrity of the entire proceeding. The error was not harmless.
Reversed and remanded.
RINGOLD, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS J., concur.
Reconsideration denied October 12, 1981.
Review denied by Supreme Court December 18, 1981.” Nirk v. Kent Civil Serv. Comm’n, 30 Wn.App. 214, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 633 P.2d 897 (August 25, 1981).


Our system of justice places special emphasis on sworn testimony. Wigmore, Evidence, §1824, says that the oath serves as a “special additional security for credibility,” and belongs by its very nature to that class of securities which are capable of being applied only to testimonial statements made in court or before some judicial officer. . . . For all testimonial statements made in court the oath is a requisite.” This comports with the principle that . . . “[T]he law disapproves of visiting serious consequences upon parties on the basis of only unsworn evidence.” Metcalf v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Wn.App. 819 (1974). It also follows the rule that where a witness testifies without having been sworn, the verdict must be set aside even where the error is not discovered until after the verdict. State v. Morrow, 63 Wash. 297 (1911), as well as the principle that where a witness is competent to testify they should be sworn. Hodd v. Tacoma, 45 Wash. 436 (1907).

Failure to take sworn testimony was prejudicial error. It is improper to dismiss the failure to so swear as being of no moment as the CPS Division of DSHS Social Worker Paige Cummings and her co-conspirator and Testa-Liar Peter Kay has tried to do. When a fundamental liberty interest is at stake, the law requires the witnesses be sworn so there is security for telling the truth.

It is undisputed that the records of the Kitsap County Superior Court proceedings reveals that this court committed the same error as occurred in In re Martin, 3 Wn.App. 405, 476 P.2d 134 (1970), wherein it was held error for the court to take judicial notice of the testimony taken at the earlier dependency hearing at which hear-say testimony and other incompetent evidence has been admitted. That case further construed in In re Martin, supra, at page 412, to mean that whereas:

“. . . the entire record of the parenthood may be presented to the court, but it must be by competent evidence. Witnesses must be sworn and the parents accorded the same right of cross-examination that they would have in any civil action.” In re Martin, 3 Wn.App. 405, at 412, 476 P.2d 134 (1970). And;



It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that Paige Cummings un-verified and forged affidavit is based upon “unsworn testimony” and therefore constitutes “hearsay evidence” which is inadmissible pursuant to CR 12 (b), CR 43 (e)(1), CR 56 (e), ER 801, ER 802 as clearly stated in In re Marriage of Morrison at pages 576-577.



A TRIAL JUDGE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND IS PRESUMED TO HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ALL THE JUDGES ARE PRETENDING TO BE DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND ARE KNOWINGLY ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO FILE THEIR SHAM PRETEND FAKED UP PERJURED AND FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WERE NOT VERIFIED AS REQUIRED BY LAW!!!!


“Hearsay evidence in affidavits is inadmissible and may not be considered by the court. 2 S. Gard, Jones on Evidence section 8:2 (1972) & Supp. 1979). See CR 12 (b), 43(e)(1), 56 (e); ER 801, 802. Further, a trial judge is presumed to know the rules of evidence and is presumed to have considered only admissible evidence. In re Harbert, 85 Wn.2d 719, 729, 538 P.2d 1212 (1975).” In re Marriage of Morrison, 26 Wn.App. 571, 613 P.2d 557 (June 26, 1980). And;



THEREFORE, ANY JUDGE OR COURT COMMISSIONER WHO HAS ALLOWED THREE (3) OR MORE OF THESE TYPE OF PERJURED AND FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS TO BE FILED IN HIS COURT IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RCW 40.16.030, HE OR SHE CAN BE CHARGED WITH . . . RCW 9A.83.060 LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME . . . AND . . . RCW 9A.28.040 CONSPIRACY . . . TO COMMIT . . . RCW 9A.40.020 & RCW 9A.40.030 KIDNAPPING . . . AND . . . RCW 9A.40.060 & RCW 9A.40.070 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE . . . AND . . . RCW 9A.64.30 CHILD SELLING & CHILD BUYING!!!!


IF A TRIAL JUDGE IS ALLEGEDLY PRESUMED TO KNOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND IS PRESUMED TO HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, WHY ARE ALL THE JUDGES ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO FILE THEIR PHONY SHAM BOGUS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT SWORN TO UNDER OATH BASED UPON . . . “INFORMATION AND BELIEF”????


THE CHILD STEALING . . . “THIEVES IN BLACK JESUIT ROBES OF TREASON” . . . ARE ILLEGALLY AND KNOWINGLY ALLOWING UN-VERIFIED AND UNSWORN . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BASED UPON . . . “INFORMATION & BELIEF” . . . THAT CONTAIN NUMEROUS MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENTS TO BE FILED IN THEIR COURTS IN VIOLATION OF RCW 40.16.030.



“BELIEF. The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence.” Without recurring to the books of metaphysicians’ “says Chief Justice Tilghman, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 137, “let any man of plain common sense, examine the operations of his own mind, he will assuredly find that on different subjects his belief is different. I have a firm belief that, the moon revolves round the earth. I may believe, too, that there are mountains and valleys in the moon; but this belief is not so strong, because the evidence is weaker.” Vide 1 Stark. Ev. 41; 2 Pow. Mortg. 555; 1 Ves. 80; 1 P.A. Browne’s R 258; 1 Stark. Ev. 127; Dyer, 53; 2 Hawk. c. 46, s. 167; 3 Wil. 1, s. 427; 2 Bl. R. 881; Leach, 270; 8 Watts, R. 406; 1 Greenl. Ev. Sec. 7-13, a.” And;



THEREFORE, AFFIDAVITS BASED UPON THE LIES OF THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS. . . “INFORMATION & BELIEF” . . . ARE IN FACT . . . “BULLSHIT.”




See PEOPLE v. GLENNON, 74 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, (Sup. Ct.)(37 Misc. Rep. 1)Pages 794-801 (January, 1902) which states in part:


“I find myself quite unable to understand this. The learned trial judge had to instruct the jury, as he did, that knowledge in the defendant of the character of the house was necessary, but he then straightway instructed them that such knowledge could be acquired by the defendant otherwise than by what anyone had told him, or anything he had himself seen, i.e., in other ways than by either hearing or seeing. Man has but “five senses,” and, excluding these two, the only ones left for the defendant to have acquired such knowledge by were by smelling, tasting or touching. How could he have obtained knowledge of the character of the house and its inmates by these was not explained. The learned trial judge, however, in emphasizing the matter, stated further to the jury as follows:
“It is the conscious knowledge that such a house was a disorderly house, knowing it to be such; and however that knowledge was conveyed to him, or however that knowledge was acquired by him, if he did have that knowledge, becomes material, if you find as a fact on this evidence that he had knowledge that that was a house of ill fame.”
The learned trial judge thus instructed the jury that they could find that the defendant possessed, what he termed a “conscious knowledge” of the character of the house, though he did not acquire it by either hearing or seeing. I am at a loss over this. What is this “conscious knowledge” that one may get possessed of without the aid of the senses? Such an inquiry seems to lead us into the occult realm and mysteries of psychology. You would not like to have it possible that every or any policeman may imagine he is conscious of something being wrong in your house and invade it and arrest you. What would a magistrate say to a policeman who should apply to him for a warrant on such a theory as that? The counsel for the defendant tried to remove the effect of such instructions from the minds of the jury and not let them retire free to act on mere suspicion, or belief founded on no evidence, by requesting the learned trial judge to charge the jury as follows:
“The defendant might have had the strongest moral certainty in the world that the house was a house of prostitution, yet if he did not know of somebody who could swear of his own knowledge to the facts of which the defendant was morally certain, the defendant had NO right to make an arrest. Such an arrest would have been a wanton, and an indefensible act of false imprisonment.” ...But the law does not tolerate the idea that anyone may be arrested by a police officer for an alleged criminal offense of the grade of a misdemeanor only, except on a warrant duly obtained from a magistrate, unless the offense was committed IN THE VIEW OF THE OFFICER.” People v. Glennon, 74 New York Supplement, (Sup. Ct.)(37 Misc. Rep. 1 ) Pages 794-801 (January, 1902). And;



ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CASE



Again, what was that “CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE” that the above “officer” had? Was he up in that “Whorehouse”, “TOUCHING”, “TASTING”, or “SMELLING” the “WHORE’s”??? If he couldn’t “See” or “Hear” the “FACTS”, how did he gain any “CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE”, other than “tasting”, “touching”, or “smelling” if man only has “FIVE (5) SENSES”???–(Was CPS Social Worker Paige Cummings and Peter Kay, Assistant Attorney General up in . . . THE FOX CLUB WHORE HOUSE TOO?) And;


THERE IS AND WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE CHILDREN
OR TO TAKE THEM INTO CUSTODY:



“In Coles v. McNamara, 136 Wash. 624, 627, 241 Pac. 1 (1925), this court approved the following instruction: ...”I instruct you that it is immaterial whether or not the plaintiff was actually violating at the time of the arrest if in fact his conduct was such as to lead a reasonably prudent officer to “believe” in good faith he was violating the law.”
The decision in the Coles case is in accordance with the general doctrine throughout the United States. As was stated in Garske v. United States, 1 F. (2d) 620, 622 (1924): It is well established doctrine now throughout the United States that for a crime, which they have probable cause to “believe” is being committed in their presence, though it be a misdemeanor, duly authorized peace officers may make arrest without a warrant. The “[p]robable cause” which will justify arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant must be a judgement based on personal knowledge acquired at the time through the “senses,” or inferences properly to be drawn from the testimony of the “senses.” ...An officer is often called upon to make a prompt decision, based upon his visual interpretation of the conduct of others which he witnesses. . . . [2] We hold that a police officer is entitled to make an arrest without a warrant, when he has reasonable cause to “believe” that a crime is being committed “in his presence.” SENNETT v. ZIMMERMAN, 50 Wn. (2d) 649, 650, 651 (August 1, 1957). And;



“Man has but five senses, and, excluding these two, the only ones left for the defendant to have acquired such knowledge by were by smelling, tasting or touching.” PEOPLE v. GLENNON, 74 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, (Sup. Ct.)(37 Misc. Rep. 1)Pages 794-801 (January, 1902). And;



Was Kitsap County Serial Testa-Liar CPS Social Worker Paige Cummings and her criminal co-conspirator and Expert Testa-Liar Peter Kay, Assistant Attorney General up in . . . THE FOX CLUB WHORE HOUSE TOO?


Bouvier’s Law Dictionary at page 159 provides that an . . . “AFFIDAVIT” . . . based upon . . . “INFORMATION AND BELIEF OUT NOT TO BE LOOKED AT ALL” . . . by the court and reads:


“In an affidavit which is to be the basis of judicial action the nature and quality and perhaps the source of information must be set forth, so that the court may be able to ascertain whether the party is right in entertaining the belief to which he deposes; Whitlock v. Roth, 10 Barb. (N.Y.) 78
A “denial upon information and belief without stating the sources of information and belief, can have no weight as against the appellant’s positive affidavit as to what is still due him”; Harris v. Taylor, 35 App. Div. 462, 54 N.Y. Supp. 864. So-called evidence on information and belief “ought not to be looked at at all, not only unless the court can ascertain the sources of the information and belief, but also unless the deponent’s statements are corroborated by someone who speaks from his own knowledge”; [1900] 2 Ch. 753. Such an affidavit should show the persons from whom the information is obtained are absent or that their deposition cannot be obtained; Steuben County Bank v. Alberger, 78 N.Y. 252.” BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED A CONCISE ENCYLOPEDIA OF THE LAW RAWLE’S THIRD REVISION VOL. 1 – A TO F, Page 159. And;



THEREFORE, . . . “A RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . BASED UPON . . . (THE LIES) . . . AND . . . (PERJURED TESTIMONY) . . . AND THE . . . “INFORMATION & BELIEF” . . . OF YOUR EXPERT TESTA-LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . “OUGHT NOT TO BE LOOKED AT.”


* * *


NOTE: I need as many people as possible to research and find all the case law that says that . . . “AFFIDAVITS” . . . that are based . . . “UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF” . . . cannot be considered by the court, to send me those cases to: <rcwcodebus...@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com>


NOTE: I need as many people as possible to research and find all the case law that says that . . . “AFFIDAVITS” . . . that are based upon . . . “BELIEF” . . . cannot be considered by the court, to send me those cases to: <rcwcodebus...@live.com> or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com>


* * *


IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ANY JUDGE WHO HAS ALLOWED THREE (3) OR MORE DEPENDENCY PETITIONS TO BE FILED INTO HIS OR HER COURT IS AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY OF . . . RCW 9A.82.060 LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME!!!!


“RCW 9A.82.060 Leading organized crime.

(1) A person commits the offense of leading organized crime by:
(a) Intentionally organizing, managing, directing, supervising, or financing any three or more persons with the intent to engage in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity; or
(b) Intentionally inciting or inducing others to engage in violence or intimidation with the intent to further or promote the accomplishment of a pattern of criminal profiteering activity.
(2)(a) Leading organized crime as defined in subsection (1)(a) of this section is a class A felony.
(b) Leading organized crime as defined in subsection (1)(b) of this section is a class B felony.”


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.82.060



A JUDGE CANNOT CLAIM . . . “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW” . . . IF THEY ARE AN ATTORNEY WHO IS A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES TO WIT:


“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” State v. Spence, 81 Wn.2d 788, 792, 506 P.2d 293, 296 (1973). And;


“Every sane person is presumed to know the law.” State v. Patterson, 37 Wn.App. 275, 679 P.2d 416 (1984). And;


“Mistake of law is not a defense”, State v. Takacs, 35 Wn.App. 914, 671 P.2d 263 (1983), remanded for reconsideration by court of appeals 102 Wn.2d 1012, 689 P.2d 368 (1984). And;



ARE ALL WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS IN ON THE CONSPIRACY TO STEAL AND SELL YOUR CHILDREN FOR PROFIT????


IF NOT, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW COME YOUR . . . “LAZY WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY” . . . DID NOT SPOT ALL OF THESE NUMEROUS AND GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY ERRORS OF LAW IN ALL OF THESE BOGUS RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS FOR ME TO NOT BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY’S ARE NOT IN ON THE CONSPIRACY TO STEAL AND SELL YOUR CHILDREN FOR PROFIT DON’T YA THINK????


THIS EXPOSE PROVES THAT ALL WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS ARE LAZY WORTHLESS PIECES OF SHIT!!!!


IT’S TIME THAT WE INTRODUCE A BILL BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND PUT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF ALL ATTORNEYS AND TAKE DOWN THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION!!!!


IT’S TIME TO DISSOLVE THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION!!!!


If your private attorney refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should report this to your local county sheriff, the local office of the FBI and to the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.!!!!


If your private attorney refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should fire your attorney and hire me to write up a lawsuit against your private attorney for . . . “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.”


If your private attorney refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should fire your attorney and . . . “GO PRO-SE” . . . and hire me to be your para-legal and write up your new motions for a new dependency hearing!!!!


If you hire me to be your para-legal, I will draft up criminal complaints against your CPS Social Worker just for . . . “FILING” . . . their bogus pretend dependency petitions as a violation of . . . RCW 40.16.030 OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING!!!!


HOW COME YOUR LAZY WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBER PUBLIC DEFENDERS DID NOT SPOT THESE MANY NUMEROUS AND BLATANT LEGAL ERRORS???????????????????


If your public defender refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should report this to your local county sheriff, the local office of the FBI and to the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.!!!!


If your . . . “PUBLIC PRETENDER” . . . refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should fire your useless public defender and hire me to write up a lawsuit against your private attorney for . . . “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.”


If your . . . “PUBLIC PRETENDER” . . . refuses to present these arguments to the court, you should fire your useless public defender and . . . “GO PRO-SE” . . . and hire me to be your para-legal and write up your new motions for a new dependency hearing!!!!


If you hire me to be your para-legal, I will draft up criminal complaints against your CPS Social Worker just for . . . “FILING” . . . their bogus pretend dependency petitions as a violation of . . . RCW 40.16.030 OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING!!!!



THERE ARE SO MANY ERRORS OF LAW IN ALL OF THE . . . RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION . . . ITSELF, THIS MAKES ME WONDER, IS THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION AND ALL OF IT ATTORNEY MEMBERS IN ON THE CONSPIRACY TO STEAL AND SELL YOUR CHILDREN TO ALL . . . THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE FREAKS . . . LESBIANS . . . FAGGOTS . . . AND . . . OTHER PEDOPHILES OF LIKE SEXUAL DEVIANCY THAT WERE ALL PART OF THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL AND COVERUP????


“Now the men of Sodom were wicked and exceeding sinners against the Lord.” Genesis 13:13


The Israelites ought not to follow the manners of the Egyptians and Canaanites, The marriages
that are unlawful. Leviticus 18:3 and Leviticus 18:6


DID YOU KNOW THAT CPS HELPS FAGGOTS FIND YOUNG BOYS TO ADOPT SO THAT THEY CAN PLAY HOUSE WITH YOUR SONS????


“Now the men of Sodom were wicked and exceeding sinners against the Lord.” Genesis 13:13


The Israelites ought not to follow the manners of the Egyptians and Canaanites, The marriages
that are unlawful. Leviticus 18:3 and Leviticus 18:6


DID YOU KNOW THAT CPS HELPS LESBIANS FIND YOUNG GIRLS TO ADOPT SO THEY CAN PLAY HOUSE WITH YOUR DAUGHTERS????



DO YOU REMEMBER THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL AND COVERUP????


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecutions


http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Jury-finds-city-county-negligent-in-child-sex-1061384.php


http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/12/us/pastor-and-wife-are-acquitted-on-all-charges-in-sex-abuse-case.html



HOW MUCH $________.00 DO YOU WANT TO BET THAT IT WAS OR WASN’T . . . “A JEWISH JUDGE” . . . THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED THE CPS SOCIAL WORKER’S PERJURED AND FORGED RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS DURING THE WENATCHEE SEX RING SCANDAL AND COVER UP????



WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM BY REMOVING ALL JEW JUDGES FROM THE BENCH!!!!



COCK SUCKING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS IN FACT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CULT RELIGION CALLED JUDAISM AND THE BRAINWASHING OF CHILDREN TO BECOME FAGGOTS!!!!!


http://iamthewitness.com/listeners/Jewish.child.molesters.that.are.never.on.the.NEWS-WHY.htm



DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH YOUNG BOYS TAKING A SHOWER WITH YOUR DAUGHTER IN SCHOOL?:


http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/state-ordering-girls-locker-rooms-open-to-boys/



HERE IS THE REAL REASON WHY . . . “THE JEW JUDGES” . . . REFUSE TO ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE JEWISH:


JEWISH RABBI'S CAUGHT MOLESTING LITTLE BOYS:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvaM4ONbEk&feature=related



BRIS MILAH CIRCUMCISION AND JEWISH BABY NAMINGS JEWU 47 RABBI JONATHAN GINSBURG:


RABBI SUCKING BABY PENIS:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJmfjrLZxE



JEWISH RABBI LOVES BABY PENIS SUCKING:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Rk__I2__4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt78wp4_B8Q



BRIS MILAH: HALLMARK OF THE JEW:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYhFUgwXRs&feature=related



RABBIS CAUGHT FOR MOLESTATION:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NHQIXp1al8&feature=related



METZITZAH BEPEH:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU2Sr1l4Ifw&feature=related



THE POWER OF CIRCUMCISION:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZvEelu7IA&feature=relmfu



THE CIRCUMCISION:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWu8CWNx30I&feature=related



JEWISH RITUAL FOR NEWBORN:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_sTHgce3ug&feature=related



ANTI-CIRCUMCISION COMIC OUTRAGES JEWISH COMMUNITY:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siHqi24V0rE&feature=related



BABY DIES AFTER UNSANITARY RITUAL CIRCUMCISION:


http://www.cirp.org/news/journalnews02-03-05/



LOOK AT WHAT THE REVELATION 2:9 & REVELATION 3:9 FAKE JEWS & THE JOHN 8:44 LYING FAGGOT JEWS HAVE PUT THE FAGGOT MUSLIMS UP TO AS A MEANS OF TRYING TO REQUIRE THAT EVERYONE SUBMIT TO ANAL & VAGINAL INSPECTIONS IN ORDER TO BOARD AN AIRPLANE!!!!!


WAHHABI FATWA PERMITS SODOMY TO WIDEN THE ANUS AS A MEANS TO JIHAD:


http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A5868905&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic



WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM BY REMOVING ALL JEW JUDGES AND ALL MUSLIM JUDGES FROM THE BENCH!!!!


THE WENATCHEE SEX RING ALL STARTED UP WITH THESE . . . “PHONY MADE UP RCW 13.34.040 PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS.”


THIS MAKES ME WONDER HOW MANY OF THE JUDGES WHO APPROVED THE CPS SOCIAL WORKER’S . . . PERJURED . . . & . . . FORGED . . . RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . WERE IN FACT . . . “JEWISH JUDGES”????


See also, Washington State Court Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 1.15 (a); RPC 3.1; RPC 3.8 (a)(b). And;


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE INFILTRATED OUR WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE!!!!


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE INFILTRATED OUR WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE WHO ARE JEWISH OR MUSLIM!!!!


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE HOMOSEXUALS WHO HAVE INFILTRATED OUR WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE????


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE HOMOSEXUALS WHO HAVE INFILTRATED OUR WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE WHO ARE JEWISH OR MUSLIM????


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE JUDGES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND CPS SOCIAL WORKERS!!!!


I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME INVESTIGATE AND IDENTIFY THE NAMES OF ALL THE JUDGES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND CPS SOCIAL WORKERS WHO ARE JEWISH OR MUSLIM!!!!


HOW MANY JEW JUDGES ARE REMOVING NON JEWISH CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOMES????


HOW MANY JEWISH CHILDREN ARE IN CUSTODY OF THE CPS RIGHT NOW????


HOW MANY JEWISH PARENTS HAVE HAD THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS TERMINATED????


WITH THE FREE INFORMATION, I AM GIVING YOU IN THE ATTACHED FREE FLYERS, YOU CAN:


1.) DEMAND A NEW DEPENDENCY HEARING!

2.) DEMAND THAT YOUR CHILDREN BE RETURNED TO YOU!



“We express no views on the merits. The order must be reversed and a new hearing accorded Mr. Ross because of the failure of the juvenile court judge to comply with the request that all witnesses be sworn.” In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654, at 655 (December 3, 1954). And;



BULLSHIT, WE DO NOT HAVE TO REQUEST IN ADVANCE THAT THE . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BE SWORN!!!!


THAT’S BULLSHIT!!!!


THE STATUTES AND COURT RULES AND RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE CASE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . BE SWORN TO IN ADVANCE!!!!


THE CrR 1.1 DECISIONAL CASE LAW SAYS THAT . . . “A SWORN REPORT” . . . IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . “JURISDICTIONAL.”


“The Superior court found the “sworn report” required by RCW 46.20.308 (3) is a prerequisite to department revocation action and an essential element in the department’s prima facie case.” Lewis v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 81 Wn.2d 664-665 (December 14, 1972). And;


“The courts of two other states have confronted this same issue with respect to their own implied consent statutes and each reached the conclusion that the requirement for a “sworn report” is jurisdictional. Wilcox v. Billings, 200 Kan. 654, 438 P.2d 108 (1968); Dawson v. Austin, 44 Mich.App. 390, 205 N.W.2d 299 (1973). We believe that reason commends this view. We, therefore, conclude that the requirements of a “sworn report” was intended to be jurisdictional. Any contrary result may well raise significant due process questions. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, 91 S.Ct. 1586 (1971). Affirmed. SWANSON, C.J., and HOROWITZ, J., concur.” Metcalf v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 11 Wn.App.819, 822 (August 26, 1974). And;


APPARENTLY THE RACIST & BIGOT WASHINGTON JEWISH JUDGES ARE SO CORRUPT, THAT THEY CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF DRUNK DRIVERS LIKE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE BOBBY BRIDGES THAN THEY DO ABOUT STEALING THE CHILDREN OF THE GOYIM WHO ARE NOT JEW!!!!


The Revised Code of Washington provides a specific format to make a lawful finding of dependency that was required to be based upon . . . “A VERIFIED COMPLAINT” . . . that was required to be . . . “SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO UNDER OATH” . . . in open court before . . . “A JUDICIAL OFFICER” . . . in accordance with RCW 5.28.010, RCW 2.28.010 (7), RCW 2.28.060 (4), CR 43 (d), RCW 42.44.010 (5), art. 1, § 6, Washington Constitution, ER 603, ER 801, RCW 9A.72.010 (2)(a)(b)(c)(3), RCW 9A.72.085, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, § 7 of the Washington Constitution.


IF THEY DON’T GIVE YOUR CHILDREN BACK, WE CAN FILE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES OF RICO AGAINST ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS WHO EVER SIGNED ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION JUST FOR FILING THEIR SILLY FAKED UP AND FORGED DOCUMENTS THAT THEY PRETEND TO CALL A . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITION” . . . AND SEND THEM ALL TO PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG!!!!


IF WE CAN FIND ANY JUDGE WHO HAS ALLOWED THREE (3) OF MORE OF THESE TYPE OF FAKED UP . . . RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . TO BE FILED INTO HIS COURT . . . WE CAN CHARGE HIM OR HER WITH . . . RCW 9A.83.060 LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME . . . AND . . . FEDERAL RICO CHARGES!!!!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT THE ENTRANCE TO EVERY CPS OFFICE!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT EVERY . . . URINALYSIS . . . AND . . . DRUG TESTING CENTER!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS HANDING OUT MY FLYERS AT ALL PARENTING CLASSES!!!!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS HANDING OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT EVERY HOSPITAL BIRTHING CENTER!!!!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS HANDING OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT EVERY SUPERIOR COURT ENTRANCE!!!!


I NEED VOLUNTEERS HANDING OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT EVERY FAMILY COURT ENTRANCE!!!!


JUST SIMPLY PRINT OUT MY FREE FLYERS!!!!


THEY ARE TWO (2) PAGES EACH!!!!


IT’S EASY TO CONVERT MY FREE TWO (2) PAGE FLYERS INTO A ONE (1) PAGE DOUBLE SIDED FREE FLYER!!!!


ANY PRINT SHOP SUCH AS KINKO COPY CAN EASILY CONVERT MY TWO (2) PAGE FLYERS INTO A ONE (1) PAGE DOUBLE SIDED FREE FLYER!!!!


I AM DRAFTING CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT CAN BE USED AGAINST ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS!!!!


I AM DRAFTING CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT CAN BE USED AGAINST ALL JUDGES!!!!


I NEED CLIENTS TO HIRE ME TO DRAFT THE DOCUMENTS FOR THEM!!!!


I MAKE MY LIVING UNDERCUTTING ATTORNEYS 20% TO 30% OR MORE FOR BIG CASES!


I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY!!!!


I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION!!!!


NOR WOULD I EVER STOOP SO LOW AS TO JOIN SUCH A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT AND MORALLY DEBASE ORGANIZATION OF LICENSED IDIOTS!!!!


I ONLY WORK FOR PRO-SE LITIGANTS WHO ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES IN PERSON AND ACTING AS THEIR OWN ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1, SECTION 22 OF THE PHONY RCW STATUTORY CORPORATE CHARTER CONSTITUTION AS . . . “A PARA-LEGAL.”



I NEED CASH ONLY DONATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:


I NEED RESEARCH MONEY TO WRITE MOTIONS TO VACATE FOR ALL PARENTS WHOSE PARENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE FRAUD THAT I HAVE DISCOVERED!!!!


I NEED RESEARCH MONEY TO WRITE MOTIONS TO VACATE THE FIRST FINDING OF DEPENDENCY IN EVERY PARENT VERSUS CHILD CUSTODY CASE!!!!


I NEED RESEARCH MONEY TO WRITE MOTIONS FOR A NEW DEPENDENCY HEARING IN EVERY PARENT VERSUS CHILD CUSTODY CASE!!!!


I NEED RESEARCH MONEY TO WRITE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS UNDER STATE LAW SO THAT EVERYONE CAN FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THEIR CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS UNDER . . . STATE LAW!!!!


I NEED RESEARCH MONEY TO WRITE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS UNDER STATE LAW SO THAT EVERYONE CAN FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THEIR CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS UNDER . . . FEDERAL LAW!!!!


I NEED CASH ONLY DONATIONS!!!!


PLEASE SEND CASH ONLY DONATIONS TO:


Luis Ewing
c/o 34218 S.E. 22nd Way,
(City of) Washougal,
The State of Washington [98671]



WITH YOUR HELP HANDING OUT MY FREE FLYERS AND HELPING ME FIND CLIENTS WHO WANT TO SUE THEIR CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THEIR PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND PRIVATE ATTORNEYS FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WITH A GROUP OF US WORKING TOGETHER TO SUPPORT AND FINANCE MY LEGAL RESEARCH, YOU CAN GET YOUR CHILDREN BACK!!!!


DO YOU SMELL RICO VIOLATIONS?????


I DO!!!!


DO YOU SMELL JAIL TIME FOR YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER AND JUDGES????


I DO!!!!


DO YOU SMELL PRISON TIME FOR YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUDGES????


I DO!!!!


TOGETHER, WE CAN FILE RICO VIOLATIONS AGAINST ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND SEND THEM AND THEIR LEADERS IN ORGANIZED CRIME, THE JUDGES WHO ARE THE THIEVES IN BLACK JESUIT ROBES OF TREASON . . . TO PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG!!!!


Sincerely

Luis Ewing



AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE LAW . . . “WITHOUT ADMISSION” . . . by the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT: RCW 2.48.190; RCW 38.38.256; 5 U.S.C. 500 (b); RCW 34.05.428 (1)(2); RCW 4.92.100 (1)(b)(ii); RCW 4.96.020; RCW 7.04A.160; RCW 7.68.270; RCW 7.69.030 (14); RCW 7.69.040; RCW 10.14.09; RCW 10.21.060; RCW 11.94.010; RCW 11.94.050 (1); RCW 64.36.035; RCW 26.16.090; RCW 26.25.010; RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a); RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a); RCW 26.26.011 (19); RCW 26.27.021 (16); RCW 26.27.041; RCW 70.48.050; WAC 289-22-200 (4); WAC 242-02-110; 25 U.S.C. 1321; 25 U.S.C. 1322; 18 U.S.C. § 1154; 18 U.S.C. § 1161; 18 U.S.C. § 2265; 25 U.S.C. § 1301; 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4); 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (8); 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a)(b)(c); 25 U.S.C. § 1901 -1963 (“ICWA”); 25 U.S.C. § 3631; 43 U.S.C. 1602; 44 Fed. Reg. 67584 to 67595 (1979); 26 CFR § 305.7871-1 (a); 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(40)(A); 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (b); 25 U.S.C. § 465; RCW 2.48.170; RCW 2.48.180 (7); APR 1.1 (a); GR 24 (b)(8); Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881; 28 U.S.C. § 1333; 28 U.S.C. § 1652; FRCP Rule 64; RCW 4.04.010; RCW 1.12.030; RCW 9A.04.060; RCW 9.81.120; RCW 10.14.020 (1); RCW 10.14.020 (2); RCW 9A.50.060; 31 CFR Subtitle A; 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 CFR 292.1-3; 25 CFR 20; 14 CFR 300.1-6, 302.11; 12 CFR 19.3; 16 CFR 1024.61; 7CFR 273; 7 CFR 50.27; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31-33; 57 CFR 1.34; 5 CFR part 1201; 32 CFR 12.40, 12.45; 45 CFR 205; 21 CFR 1316.50; 20 CFR 802.201 (b), 802.202; 20 CFR 501.11; 45 U.S.C. 3153; 45 U.S.C. § 151; 20 CFR 725.362 (a), 725.365, 725.366 (b); 46 CFR 201.21; 38 CFR 14; 12 CFR 308.04; 18 CFR 385.2101; 29 CFR 2700.3 (b); 31 U.S.C. 731-32; 4 CFR 11, 28, GAO Orders 2713.2, 2752.1 and 2777.1; 13 CFR Part 10; 31 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1103; 49 CFR 1103.3; 12 CFR 747; 29 CFR 1200; 49 CFR 821, 831, 845; 29 CFR 2200.22); 13 CFR 121.11, 134.16; 42 U.S.C 406 (a); 20 CFR 416, subpart O; 29 CFR 1614.605; 40 CFR 124, 164.30, 22.10; Schoonover v. State, 116 Wn.App. 171, 64 P.3d 677 (March 11, 2003); Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 52 N.E.2d 27 (Mass., 1943); U.S. v. Tarlowksi, 69-2 U.S.T.C., DC. E. DIST. N.Y.) 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969); In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995); Oregon State Bar. v. Ortiz, 713 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Or.App. 1986); People By Lefkowitz v. Lawrence Peska Assoc., 393 N.Y.S.2d 650, 652 (1977); Pulse v. North American Land Title Co., 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985); Cain v. National Bank and Trust Co., 268 N.W. 719, 723 (N.D. 1936); Louisiana Bar Ass’n v. Edwin, 519 So.2d 93 (La. 1988); Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997); Mickel v. Murphy, 147 Cal.App.2d 718 (1957); People v. Sipper, 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 (1943); In re Joseph Children, 470 S.E.2d 539 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996); Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (D. Colo. 1992); Taylor v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 874 P.2d 806, 809 (Okla. 1994); State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 371 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. 1962); State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. Indiana Real Estate Ass’n Inc., 191 N.E.2d 711 (Ind., 1963); Ingham County Bar Ass’n v. Walter Neller & Co., 69 N.W.2d 713 (Mich., 1955); Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.E2d 855 (Mo., 1952); Cowern v. Nelson, 290 N.W. 795 (Minn., 1940); Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows Inc., et al., 377 P.2d 334, 340 (Ore., 1962); LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co., 368 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (1948); Conway-Boque Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957); Lawyers and The Realtors: Arizona’s Experience, 49 ABAJ 139 (Feb. 1963); 32 N.J. 430, 161 A.2d 257, AT 264 (N.J. - 1970); Board of Immigration Appeals; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health and Human Services; Department of Justice; Department of Transportation; Department of Veteran Affairs; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs Service; The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, CHAP. XX Sec. 35, 28 U.S.C. 1654, the Sixth Amendment and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section’s 1, 2, 22, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution, CrR 1.1, CrRLJ 1.1, CrR 1.3 (a) and ARLJ No. 7. See also CR 82.5 (a) & RCW 13.34.240.


CAVEAT WITH OPT OUT AND REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS HERE: This E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 18 U.S.C. 2521; RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b); RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 and is legally privileged and you do NOT have my “consent” for forward this e-mail to anyone. The information contained in this E-Mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or attorney or agent responsible to deliver it to the Sendee, please destroy the E-Mail after advising by reply that you erroneously received this E-Mail. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does NOT waive the lawyer or “of-counsel client privilege,” nor will it constitute a waiver of the “work-product doctrine.” Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030; RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 is inadmissible in court pursuant to RCW 9.73.050 and further, anyone who forwards this e-mail to anyone else without my express prior “written consent” is liable for civil monetary damages under Washington law pursuant to RCW 9.73.060 and criminal penalties under RCW 9.73.080. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and may be hazardous to your preconceptions. FREE DISTRIBUTION: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed free “only” to those specific recipients listed above who have previously expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes and have made a prior request for said information. If the reader of this message is not the intended addressee, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration, dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b)(C); RCW 9.73.050; RCW 9.73.060 and RCW 9.73.080 This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.417 SECTION101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress. REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message cannot be considered SPAM as long as it includes: 1) contact information, and 2) a way to be removed from future e-mailings. If this e-mail communication has reached you in error, or should you wish to be permanently removed from the mailing list, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL REQUESTING THAT I REMOVE YOU FROM MY E-MAIL LIST AND I WILL REMOVE YOU WITHIN 72 HOURS FROM MY RECEIPT OF YOUR E-MAIL although it may take me 4 to 5 days to catch up to your e-mail because I get so many e-mail request’s for my FREE FLYERS from all over the U.S. or please return to the below listed address asking me to remove you to Luis Ewing, c/o 34218 S.E. 22nd Way, (City of) Washougal, The State of Washington [98671-8793] or call and leave a message with your E-Mail address and request to be removed at (253) 226-3741. Thank you!