The People of the State of Washington, ex rel.,
Kenneth Wayne,

In his individual capacity, as Relator for the Washington republic, and in his capacity as representative of the classes described fully herein below,

 
Plaintiff

 

Vs.

dba: STATE OF WASHINGTON , and inclusive of all political subdivisions established under the authority of STATE OF WASHINGTON including but not limited to:

 

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; and,

 

WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ;

 

and also the following individual actors:

 

GARY LOCKE , current member of the Washington State Bar Association, inactive, and Governor of Defendant “STATE OF WASHINGTON”;

 

JOHN G. SCHULTZ , Chairman of the Statute Law Committee;

 

DENNIS W. COOPER , Secretary & Code Reviser of the Statute Law Committee;

 

JAN ERIC PETERSON,

M. JANICE MICHELS,

Each as current members of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, all as members of the Washington Bar Association, all as policy makers for State of Washington;

 

John Ladenburg,

As the primary policy maker and enforcer for the Office of Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, a current member of The Washington State Bar Association, and member of Washington Prosecutors Association;

 

James Krider

As the primary policy maker and enforcer of the Office of Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney, and as a current member of The Washington State Bar Association, and as a member of Washington Prosecutors Association;

 

Christine O’Grady Gregoire,
As fiduciary of State of Washington’s Office of Attorney General, a supervising authority and policymaker over the several offices of county prosecuting attorneys, and as a member of the Washington State Bar Association;
 
Annette Sandberg,

Sgt Kerwin #142

As fiduciary(s) responsible for policy and procedures, training and discipline, and supervision of State of Washington’s Washington State Patrol;

 

Trooper Meenan #857,

Trooper Depretto #351,

As sworn fiduciaries charges with the duty to prevent or correct wrongful actions against Washington inhabitants, and having superior knowledge of the law,

 

Emerald Towing

ABT Towing

A-1 Towing

Each as a licensed agent of State of Washington seizing private automobiles without a warrant and under color of law,

 

Defendant(s)

 

Cause No.

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR:

1.           DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS BY DEFENDANTS DBA: “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, as defined in the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 USC 1981, et seq.);

2.           DECLARATORY RELIEF (28 USC 2201);

3.           INJUNCTIVE RELIEF , (28 USC 1651);

4.           RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, (18 USC 1961, ET SEQ.);

5.           Class Action ( FRCP 23 (a), (b)(1)(A), (B)(1), (2) and (3));

       and:

6.          NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF :

Cause #36751 MCR from SOUTH DISTRICT COURT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND,

Cause #YOC003263, YOC003264, from DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

 

 

TO:

The Clerk of The United States District Court for the Western District of The State of Washington at the City of Tacoma, and,

To all Parities of record and their respective counsel; that

I, Kenneth Wayne, herein after referred to as Plaintiff, declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of “The State of Washington” a republic established by the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Washington November 5, 1878 that the following is true and correct to the best of may knowledge understanding and beleif.

Plaintiff(s) makes the following allegations in support of this complaint:

DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES

“Attachment ‘A’ ”, incorporated herein by this reference, are the definitions by which the reader may determine the meanings of certain words and phrases appearing herein.   Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, or the writer of a specific document in pleading or process expressly provides otherwise, the words and phrases provided in Visiting Party’s definitions control the meanings of such words and phrases in the pleadings and process of the above captioned action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.      The claims made herein are asserted pursuant to the United States Constitution (the Monell, injunctive, claims); Civil Rights Act as codified at 42 USC 1981, et seq. (civil rights, Monell, and injunctive, claims); Declaratory Judgments Act as codified at 28 USC 2201 (declaratory relief claims); The All Writs Act as codified at 28 USC 1651 (injunctive relief claims); The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act as codified at 18 USC 1961, et seq. (RICO claims), and the jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the United States Constitution; 42 USC 1981, et seq.; 28 USC 1331; 28 USC 1332; 28 USC 1343.

2.      The Plaintiff, through its duly recognized Relator, hereby expressly grants the above captioned court jurisdiction to exercise the judicial powers provided for at Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America, AD 1787-1791, and as provided by congress under that Article III authority.

3.      The acts and /or omissions complained of occurred in the Western District of Washington and some of those acts/omissions occurred within Pierce and Thurston counties, The defendant’s primary offices are located in Thurston county, within the Tacoma Division of the Western District of Washington, and therefore, venue lies in the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 USC 1391, and in the Tacoma Division pursuant to Local Rule CR 5(e).

STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF

4.      The Plaintiff is the republic established by the People of the Territory of Washington November 5th, 1878, and accepted into the union of the several united States of America by act of congress in 1889.  

5.      The Plaintiff brings this action to redress wrongs alleged to have been caused by Defendant(s) on behalf of the Relator and for other inhabitants protected by the Constitutions and laws of the United States of America and The State of Washington, 1878, which victims Defendant(s) are alleged to have denied rights guaranteed by said constitutions and laws.

6.      The Relator is a natural born inhabitant whose domicile includes but is not limited to the geographical area of “The State of Washington” at Pierce county, the Republic established by the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Washington November 5, 1878, admitted in 1889 as the 42nd member state of the union of the several united States of America by the authority of the “Enabling Act of 1889”. The Plaintiff is, by treaty, a member of and within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and Relator’s domicil is within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the United States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington at all times herein alledged.   Relator has made inquiry of several of those persons dba: State of Washington and occupying the offices of the ‘seat of government’ at Olympia as to the locations of the offices, and the identities of the officers, of the republic member of the union.   Each of the persons queried indicated that they did not have any documentation responsive to the request for identification of the officers of the Washington republic.

7.      The Relator is a Inhabitant of “The State of Washington” in its original jurisdiction of 1878 Walla Walla Constitution, a free white man on the soil, as defined and described in the Dred Scott case 19 Howard 60 US 393 A.D. 1856/1857.

8.      That Relator is a not citizen of or resident of the Enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” or any political subdivsion thereof.

9.      The Relator has the authority to bring this action in the name of The People of the State of Washington as recognized at Article(s) IX and X in Amendment ot the national constitution, and as provided at Article VIII § 17, and recognized at Article V § 1; § 9; § 16; § 24; and § 26 of the Constitution for the State of Washington established and ordained by the People of Washington and upon which their republic was admitted to the union.

STATUS OF THE DEFENDANT(s)

10. The Defendants are as follows: Those several persons dba: STATE OF WASHINGTON (aka: “State of Washington”), and all political subdivisions established under the authority of STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF PERSECUTING ATTORNEYS ; GARY LOCKE, current member of the Washington State Bar Association (inactive), and Governor of Defendant “STATE OF WASHINGTON”; JOHN G. SCHULTZ , Chairman of the Statute Law Committee; DENNIS W. COOPER, Secretary & Code Reviser of the Statute Law Committee; JAN ERIC PETERSON, current member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, a member of the Washington Bar Association, a policy maker for State of Washington; M. JANICE MICHELS,   Executive Director and current member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, a member of the Washington Bar Association, a policy maker for State of Washington; John Ladenburg, a current member of The Washington State Bar Association, Prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County, a member of Washington Prosecutors Association; James Krider, current member of The Washington State Bar Association,   Prosecuting Attorney for Snohomish County, and member of Washington Prosecutors Association; Annette Sandberg, fiduciary of the Office of Chief and primary policy maker and enforcer, Washington State Patrol an armed force of State of Washington; Sgt. Kerwin #142, a supervisor and policy implementer and enforcer for Washington State Patrol and as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence;   Trooper Meenan #857, as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence;   Trooper Depretto #351, as a natural person having superior knowledge of the law and a sworn contract duty, and the ability, to prevent or correct wrongs occurring within his presence.

11. Plaintiff reserves the right to join such additional persons dba: State of Washington to this action as their identities become known to Plaintiff.

12. The Plaintiff states that t he Defendant, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and all political subdivisions established under the authority of STATE OF WASHINGTON hereinafter referred to collectively as STATE OF WASHINGTON. “State of Washington and/or State” is the dba for the “Territory of Washington” WSL 1890-90 p33 § 1. The Defendant STATE OF WASHINGTON, is operating under color of territorial law and private statute/code and a private constitution published in volume 0 of “The Revised Code of Washington”. The Defendant STATE OF WASHINGTON is a separate legal person from the republic of The State of Washington established by The Constitution of the State of Washington established ordained and ratified by election 1878 and admitted to the union in 1889 under the authority of the enabling act of 1889. RCW 82.04.200, under color of alleged defacto governmental authority as hereinafter more fully appears. The Plaintiff states that Defendant “Washington State Bar Association” (WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION) is an agency of Defendant “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” established in the year 1933 under the provisions of quasi-territorial legislation WSL 1933 c 94 § 1[RCW 2.48.010].   The Defendant “Washington State Bar Association” domicil is within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the United States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington as at all times herein alledged.

13. The Plaintiff states that Defendant “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” is a private organization or association doing business within the geographical area of the republic of The State of Washington. The Defendant “Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorney’s” domicil is within the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the United States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington at all times herein alledged.

14. The Defendant(s) “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “Washington State Bar Association”, “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY”, are a private organization or association of the named individual Defendant(s), and the Defendant(s) unknown confederates, each operating under one or more of the collective names “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “State of Washington”, “Washington State Bar Association”, and “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY”, within the geographical area of the republic of “The State of Washington” and operating under color of territorial law and private constitution statue/code, under color of defacto governmental authority. The Defendants “State of Washington”, “Washington State Bar Association” and the “Washington Association of Prosecution Attorneys” shall hereinafter be collectively or individually referred to as an “enterprise”.

15. Each and every Defendant and their unknown confederates, who is a natural person is named in his/her individual/personal capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity if s/he had any policymaking and/or supervisory duty(s), function(s), or responsibilities with respect to the matters alleged herein, as members of the association of persons doing business as enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “State of Washington”, “Washington State Bar Association”, and “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY”, within the geographical area of the republic of “The State of Washington”. The capacities for which each Defendant named is more fully set forth in the totality of the pleadings and previous sections. All Defendant(s) who are natural persons shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as Defendant(s) or as needed for clarification of individual issues, individual Defendants will be referred to by individual name.

16. Reserved.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO MAKING CLAIMS FOR TORTUOUS CONDUCT OR UNDER 42 USC § 1981 ET SEQ. AGAINST THE STATE OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED

17. To the degree it may be determined applicable, Relator declares that the statutory prerequisite, as per the Washington Session law of “STATE OF WASHINGTON” 1989 C 419 § 14; 1986 C 126 § 8; 1978 C 151 § 4; 1977 ex. S. c 144 § 3; 1963 c 159 § 4 [RCW 4.92.110] that sixty days are to elapse after the presentment of a claim to the risk management office has been satisfied as to Relator’s initial alleged damages.

18. As the Relator is not in custody according to Spencer v. Kemna, five justices expressed the view that a § 1983 plaintiff who is no longer in custody “may bring a § 1983 action establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction...without being bound to satisfy a favorable-termination requirement it would be impossible as a matter of law for him to satisfy.” 523 U.S. 1, 21 (1998) (Souter J., concurring). The majority of courts since Spencer   have followed this reasoning. SEE: Haddad v. California, 64 F. Supp. 2d 930, 937-38.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

19. Each and every allegation set forth in each and every averment of this pleading hereby is incorporated by this reference in each and every other averment and allegation of this pleading, as though fully set forth therein.

20. The Plaintiff and its people, including but not limited to its Relator in the instant action, are deprived of interests protected by the constitution and /or laws of the United States of America, that each Defendant caused, by the commission or omission, or by conspiracy or RICO violation, The Defendants committed such deprivations while acting under color of State law.

21. All acts and/or omissions perpetrated by each Defendant, except any Defendant only in his/her official capacity, was engaged in maliciously, callously, oppressively, wantonly, recklessly, and deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly violated, despicably, and with evil motive and/or intent, in disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff(s), and under color of State law.

22. Every Defendant in both his/her individual and official capacity knowingly, or grossly negligently, or with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly violated, caused to come into being, maintained, fostered, condoned, approved of, either before or after the fact, ratified, took no action to correct, an official policy, practice, procedure, or custom of permitting the occurrence of the categories of wrongs set forth in this pleading, and/or improperly, inadequately, with deliberate indifference to the constitutionally and/or statutorily protected rights of the Plaintiff(s), grossly negligently, with reckless disregard to constitutionally protected rights, and protected rights under federal statute failed to properly train, to properly supervise, to retrain, if necessary to monitor, or to take corrective action with respect to police, prosecutors, attorneys, and judges with respect to the types of wrongful conduct alleged in this pleading, so that each one of them is legally responsible for all of the injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff(s) and its inhabitants.

23. Decisions, to pay for, defend, and/or to indemnify and hold harmless for, damages for misconduct assessed by juries against dba: “State of Washington” officers all make the Defendant(s) other than the police and prosecutorial Defendants liable for the police and prosecutorial misconduct in this case.

24. Failures by all Defendant(s) to prevent an association of individuals, collectively known as “Washington State Bar Association” and “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” from exercising authority and/or holding office in more than one department of Washington government, from creating a defacto government under color of territorial law, under the name “STATE OF WASHINGTON” (the dba for the “Territory of Washington”) establishing, without authority of the constitution established ordained and ratified by election November 5, 1878 by the people, upon which the republic of The State of Washington admitted to the union in 1889 as the 42nd state; false and private departments of administration, legislation, and judiciary “courts”, creating a private constitution first published in 1950 in volume 0 of the Defendant(s) Revised Code of Washington, administrative code, private legislation, false trials in private courts, under color of territorial law and perpetuating a scheme of simulating process styled in the name of “STATE OF WASHINGTON” the dba for “Territory of Washington” which is contrary to the lawful process mandated by The Constitution of The State of Washington 1878, which is to be styled in the name and under the authority of “The People of the State of Washington” being based upon false testimony, “Testilying”, prosecutors providing testimony as an essential witness to establish probable cause in cases where the prosecutor is also acting as counsel in violation of the “Rules of Professional Conduct” 3.7, causing false prosecutions without a finding by the grand jury of the county as is required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington, causing imprisonments, concealing of evidence beneficial to the defense in criminal actions, and takings of property of innocent people, and of persons not subject to the Washington State Bar Association’s private law forums, under color of state law.

25. Failures by all Defendants to prevent an association of individuals, collectively known as “Washington State Bar Association” and in part “WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” through former and present members, from taking control of the offices of the government of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” then perpetuating said control to prevent the papers records, administrative and judicial proceedings of the territory, all seals of the territory and of the supreme court of the territory and all property of the territory from passing to the jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State Washington which joined the union as the 42d state, based upon the constitution adopted by its people November 5th , 1878, and submitted to Congress, as published at Senate Misc. Document #55, and attached to the acts which became the Enabling Act upon which Washington joined the union, and from using the offices of the Territory of Washington under   color of territorial authority for the profit and gain of the Defendant(s) and the enterprise, to deprive the people of republic of The State of Washington of life, liberty, and property under color of territorial law through simulated process of the Territory of Washington, falsification of records, impersonation of public officers, false testimony “Testilying”, and use of force and armed force, and threats of force and armed force to deprive the inhabitant’s of republic of The State of Washington from obtaining due process of law to enforce or protect their protected rights under the constitution and laws of the United States of America and access the republican form of government of the republic of The State of Washington.

26. The “Washington State Bar Association” “State of Washington” Attorney(s) engaged in improper conduct that went beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy by, among other things, improperly influencing and conspiring to improperly influence materially the decisions of those parties who control the legislative, administrative, and executive office of the “Territory of Washington, dba State of Washington and/or State”, whether or not to indemnify “State of Washington” officials for damages awarded against them as Defendants in misconduct actions, by providing funds for the defense of such officials sued for clear acts or omissions in violation of clearly established law, by, among other things, suborning perjury, and/or obstructing discovery, and/or causing cover-ups of true and correct facts, and/or permitting or giving of testimony and submission of evidence and reports they knew, or reasonably should have known to have been false and/or misleading.

27. In fact, Washington State Bar Association member Norman Kim Maleng, also a member of the WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, told the Supreme Court of the United States that Washington prosecutors cannot “do their job” unless they have immunity from suit for committing perjury (Kalina vs. Fletcher).

28. Washington State Bar Association members Pamela Loginsky and Jeffrey Jahns, acting for Defendant Russell Hauge, in the name of the office of the Kitsap County Prosecutor, and in the name of the WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY published a series of three books entitled “FREEMEN Armageddon’s Prophets of hate and Terror”, held seminars and conferences for police and prosecutorial officials, and taught then “HOW TO FIT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE” in selecting and preparing false charges to retaliate against anyone who brought a process to challenge the lawfulness of the dba: State of Washington enterprise, by conspiring with and soliciting the conspiracy of the several police officers and prosecutorial officials who where exposed to the books and training, and also solicited other executive, administrative and legislative officials, who were invited to participate in the afore mentioned training and willfully and maliciously providing intentionally false advice under color of ‘legal advice’.

29. Reserved.

30. Reserved.

31. Reserved.

32. Reserved.

33. In doing the alleged unlawful acts they did, or in failing to do those things they legally should have done, all Defendants acted in deliberate indifference to Plaintiff(s)’ rights as protected by the Constitution for the United States of America for profit and gain for themselves and the enterprise.

34. Failures by all Defendants with the duty, power, and responsibility to do so, to provide civil government oversight of the enterprise “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” and its armed forces, and follow the requirements of The Constitution of The State of Washington and pass all papers, records and administrative and judicial proceedings, seal and all property of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” to the jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State of Washington and/or to prevent or aide in the prevention of the Washington State Bar Association members, past and present, who, as a continuous group, for gain and profit for themselves and the enterprise, have done the following enumerated acts: taking and maintaining control of the offices of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” preventing all papers, records and administrative and judicial proceedings, seal and all property of the “Territory of Washington dba State of Washington and/or State” from passing to the jurisdiction and possession of the republic of The State of Washington; controlling the under color of territorial law, the territorial legislature, administration and the courts; by controlling the legislature the Defendant(s) dba as the enterprise “Washington State Bar Association” established special privileges and immunities for themselves denied to anyone who is not a member of enterprise “The Washington Bar Association”; of planting evidence; coercing confessions; initiating and prosecuting retaliatory ‘charges”; coercing waivers of substantive due process rights; coercing guilty or no-contest pleas to ‘criminal’ charges; lying in official reports; causing false records of conviction to be published; making illegal threats to suspects; making illegal threats to witnesses; making/causing false arrests; conducting illegal searches; making illegal seizures; making false warrant applications; using excessive force, lying under oath, suborning perjury; lying as witnesses; obstructing discovery of criminal conduct by persons holding official position(s); and covering up evidence of crimes by persons holding official position(s); creating false “courts”, false trials, initiating action styled as criminal, styled in the name of the “Washington Territory aka State of Washington and/or State” as opposed to the constitutionally mandated style for process and criminal prosecutions enumerated in The Constitution of The State of Washington the 42 state of the union which process is to be brought in the name and under the authority of   “The People of the State of Washington”, and perpetuating a scheme of simulating process based upon false testimony, “Testilying”, prosecutors, by   providing testimony as an essential witness to establish probable cause in cases where the prosecutor is also acting as counsel in violation of the “Rules of Professional Conduct” 3.7, causing false prosecutions without a finding the grand jury of the county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington; false imprisonments; concealing evidence beneficial to the defense in criminal actions; and takings of property of innocent people, and of persons not subject to the Washington State Bar Association’s private law forums, under color of State law;

35. Failures to investigate police, prosecutorial, and other officials misconduct and /or failure to discipline police, prosecutors, and other officials found culpable for misconduct, inadequate investigations and/or inadequate discipline imposed for police and prosecutorial misconduct, and /or a failure to investigate police, prosecutorial, judicial, and other misconduct in this case for the alleged misconduct in prior cases and in this case, make all Defendants, other than police officers liable for the police and prosecutorial misconduct in this case.

36.   On January 7, 1994, a private “civil” action styled as a criminal action, was commenced as cause number 29826, filed in the KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, ISSAQUAH DIVISION, and entitled CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Plaintiff v. LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE Defendant.   Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a lawful warrant, without any written complaint by a victim who believed any crime had been committed, seized Plaintiff, imprisoned Plaintiff, and caused Plaintiff to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon a “complaint” brought in the named of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” signed by an “Officer Maule”, without a finding of the grand jury of the King county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington, based on a certificate of probable cause of the prosecuting attorney, as a necessary witness while the prosecuting attorney was also acting as counsel for the enterprise STATE OF WASHINGTON contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7, causing false prosecution, imprisonment, wherein Defendant(s) refused to disclose the nature and cause of the action, or when the Defendants claim of jurisdiction was challenged, the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, supporting evidence that the court had the proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was provide subject matter upon which the court could base jurisdiction or that the court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of law.    Instead of disclosing the nature and cause of the action the several members of the Washington State Bar Association who operated the ‘court’ caused repeated attacks and imprisonments of Relator while complaining that Relator’s efforts to obtain due process were “obstructing” the court’s ability to bring Relator to trial without disclosure of the nature and cause.   Washington State Bar Association “Judge” member Carol McRae recessed the court, approached Relator in the courtroom in her street clothes (no judicial robe) and threatened Relator with further retaliatory action if Relator did not ‘co-operate’ in the Washington State Bar Association controlled process.

37. On or about May 5th, 1999, another private “civil” action styled as a criminal action, was commenced and conducted by Washington State Bar Association members as cause number(s) CA12701FW and CA12702FW, filed in the KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, FEDERAL WAY DIVISION, and entitled STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. LEAMING, KENNETH WAYNE Defendant.   Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a warrant, without any complaint by a victim upon which to believe any crime had been committed, seized Relator, imprisoned Relator, and caused Relator to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon an a “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET” brought in the name of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, without a finding of the grand jury of King county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington, causing false prosecutions, imprisonments, wherein Defendant(s) refused to disclose the nature and cause of the action, and further when the Defendants claim of jurisdiction was challenged the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, supporting evidence that the court had the proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was provided subject matter upon which to base the courts jurisdiction or that the court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of law.   Instead of providing proof of jurisdiction, STATE OF WASHINGTON retaliated against Relator by declaring a ‘failure to appear’ when Relator was present, and cause the imprisonment of Relator in its stated intent to compel Relator to confess to the identity of its named defendant, and to involuntarily represent such named defendant in an action for which it refused to disclose the nature and cause.

38. On or about May 28th, 2000, STATE OF WASHINGTON armed forces, Defendants Sgt. Kerwin #142, Trooper Depretto #351, and Trooper Meenan #857 seized the Relator, acting under State of Washington license and in concert with the Defendants named in this paragraph Defendant Emerald Towing seized the automobile Relator was traveling in and demanded payment for its release, Defendants took several pieces of private property belonging to Relator and other persons, transported Relator to a facility called PIERCE COUNTY JAIL and demand $10,000.00 for the release of Relator.   Four days later STATE OF WASHINGTON released Relator without charges.   At no time did any officer or agent of STATE OF WASHINGTON identify any lawful authority for the seizures.   Relator initiated administrative action to recover damages and to provide STATE OF WASHINGTON Notice of its officers and agents wrongful conduct.

39. Several days later, on or about June 5, 2000 having failed to produce any evidence of authority for the prior seizure of Relator, Defendants Trooper Depretto #351, Trooper Meenan #857, and Sgt. Kerwin #142, again attacked and imprisoned Relator, Defendant ABT Towing seized the automobile Relator traveled in, and seizing private property belonging to Relator and other parties, Defendant Depretto indicating that STATE OF WASHINGTON officers do not have to prove any authority to restrain Relator’s liberty because “we have the guns and the courts” and indicating that unless and until Relator proved in a court that STATE OF WASHINGTON and Depretto did not have authority to attack and restrain Relator’s liberties, the Depretto would consider Relator to be guilty of a ‘crime’ any time Relator traveled on Washington roadways and attack and imprison Relator and seize any automobile in which Relator traveled.

40. On or about June 6th a private “civil” action styled as a criminal action, was commenced as cause number(s) YO0370712, YOC002193, YOC002195, filed in the DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, and entitled STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. KENNETH WAYNE LEAMING, Defendant.   Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a summons, without any complaint by a victim upon which to believe any crime had been committed, served Relator a “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET” and “complaint”, warning Relator of intent to issue warrant of arrest of the Relator for failure to comply with the ‘process’, and caused Relator to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon a “complaint” brought in the name of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” signed in the name of Defendant John Ladenburg, without a finding of the grand jury of Pierce county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,   solely based on a certificate of probable cause written by a deputy prosecuting attorney acting in the capacity of John Ladenburg, as a necessary witness while Defendant John Ladenburg was also acting as counsel for the enterprise STATE OF WASHINGTON, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7. The actions of the Defendant(s)   is causing a false prosecution, threat of imprisonment, wherein Defendant(s), upon demand for disclosure of the nature and cause of the action, and submission of an offer of proof that the “Plaintiff” in that action is not the Washington republic, refused to disclose the nature and cause of the Defendant(s) action, or when the Defendant(s)’ claim of jurisdiction was challenged the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, evidence that the court had the proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was provide subject matter upon which to base the courts jurisdiction, or that the court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of law, causing Relator to be falsely summoned, unlawfully prosecuted, and threatened with impending imprisonment, as a result of the above described bad conduct.  

41. On or about October 19, 2000 having failed to produce any evidence of authority for the prior seizure of Relator, Defendants Trooper Depretto #351, Trooper Meenan #857, and Sgt. Kerwin #142, again attacked and imprisoned Relator, Defendant A-1 Towing seized the automobile Relator traveled in, and seizing private property belonging to Relator and other parties, Defendant Depretto again indicating that STATE OF WASHINGTON officers do not have to prove any authority to restrain Relator’s liberty and indicating that unless and until Relator proved in a court that STATE OF WASHINGTON did not have authority to attack and restrain Relator’s liberties, the Defendants would consider Relator to be guilty of a ‘crime’ any time Relator traveled on Washington roadways and attack and imprison Relator and seize any automobile in which Relator traveled.

42. On or about October 20, 2000 a private “civil” action styled as a criminal action, was commenced as cause number(s) YOC003263 and YOC003264, filed in the DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE, PIERCE COUNTY, and entitled STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. KENNETH WAYNE LEAMING, Defendant.   Based upon the above described action, Defendant(s) without a summons, without any complaint by a victim upon which to believe any crime had been committed, served Relator a “complaint”, warning Relator of intent to issue warrant of arrest of the Relator for failure to comply with the ‘process’, and caused Relator to involuntarily participate in an “arraignment proceeding” based upon a “complaint” brought in the name of the enterprise “STATE OF WASHINGTON” signed in the name of Defendant John Ladenburg, without a finding of the grand jury of Pierce county as required by the laws of the republic of The State of Washington,   solely based on a certificate of probable cause written by a deputy prosecuting attorney acting in the capacity of John Ladenburg, as a necessary witness while Defendant John Ladenburg was also acting as counsel for the enterprise STATE OF WASHINGTON, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7. The actions of the Defendant(s) is causing a false prosecution, threat of imprisonment, wherein Defendant(s), upon demand for disclosure of the nature and cause of the action, and reference to the prior offer of proof that the “Plaintiff” in that action is not the Washington republic, refused to disclose the nature and cause of the Defendant(s) action, or when the Defendant(s)’ claim of jurisdiction was challenged the Defendants refused to submit any evidence to the record of the court of cognizance, or venue jurisdiction, evidence that the court had the proper parties present to prosecute the case, that the court was provide subject matter upon which to base the courts jurisdiction, or that the court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the parties by due process of law, causing Relator to be falsely summoned, unlawfully prosecuted, and threatened with impending imprisonment, as a result of the above described bad conduct.  

43. The effect of the Washington State Bar Association’s activities in taking over the offices of the Territory of Washington dba: State of Washington, and having passed its enterprise off as if it were the Washington member of the national union has resulted in the corruption of the courts of the United States of America mistakenly relying on Washington State Bar Association’s private laws adopted under color of Territory of Washington dba: State of Washington session laws and “RCW” as if it were the law of the Washington republic, and causing the courts of the United States of America to deprive the inhabitants of Washington of due process of law under color of state law, and specifically denying the inhabitants and their entities access to the courts without first obtaining “counsel” from the organized racketeering enterprise Washington State Bar Association, and manipulating and controlling litigation by assuring that Washington State Bar Association represents both sides of nearly all litigation in the district court