a. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 36 of this complaint as fully as if set forth here.
    b. As more WA State Bar associates occupy legislative seats the following powers of the legislature are compromised due to Article 2, Section 30, which enjoins “A member who has a private interest in any bill or measure proposed or pending before the legislature, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.” Clearly Bar Associates within the legislature have a quid pro quo relationship with Bar Associates in Executive and Judicial office. Any legislation dealing with judicial or executive office corruption would require their recusal and nullify their seat.
  • The impeachment powers granted the legislature under Article 5, with respect to the governor and other state and judicial officers, become irrelevant as such measure requires “The concurrence of a majority of all the members shall be necessary to an impeachment.” Bar members have a conflict by their associations and must recuse from such action. This clearly jeopardizes ever having “a majority of all the members” by the duty to abstain from such vote due to conflict.
  • The removal of judges, attorney general, etc., granted to the legislature by Article 4, Section 9 has already become irrelevant because the removal of “Any judge of any court of record, the attorney general, or any prosecuting attorney may be removed from office by joint resolution of the legislature, in which three-fourths of the members elected to each house shall concur, for incompetency, corruption, malfeasance, or delinquency in office, or other sufficient cause stated in such resolution.” Again recusal by Bar members foils this legislative power as 3/4 of the members are diluted by non-voting due to conflict.

The Bar-legislators (that is, the Enterprise legislator) also brow-beat the non-lawyer-legislator as to the extent or limitations of the non-lawyer-legislator’s role as legislator. The Enterprise legislator misdirects the non-lawyer-legislator forcing them to ignore constituents in their complaints about official misconduct. Enterprise members occupy the judicial, legislative, executive branches as well as on government boards, commissions, and within government agencies and render a “representative government” fiction. These Bar-legislators (the Enterprise legislator) protects, the Enterprise under color of law and in diluting the powers of a ‘representative government’.

c. In WA State, Bar associates have occupied the Executive Office for decades. This is significant in light of Article X, which states

  • SECTION 2 ORGANIZATION — DISCIPLINE — OFFICERS — POWER TO CALL OUT. The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as it may deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

d. Eliminate all adversaries.
Government contracts with large law firms as a tactic to ‘eliminate’ these law firms from cases involving the government entity that gave the contract. This tactic is designed to render RCW 2.48.210 – the law favoring citizens, in conflict with Rules of Professional Conduct – rules favoring the Enterprise, by limiting the pool of law firms not in conflict with their government client’s interests.
e. Government jobs or promotions within the Enterprise are given or offered or supported as reward for service to the Enterprise.
f. Judicial officers, by the “mode in deciding cases” use arbitrary, absurd, and illegal tactics to insure the Enterprise remains insulated from any challenges by citizens through citizens’ inherent powers, retained powers, jury rights and rights prescribed by statute such as to modify, nullify or create common law under RCW 4.04.010; to challenge judgments under RCW 4.36.070; to file and prosecute an information under RCW 7.56; to challenge unlawful orders under RCW 2.28.060 before an impartial judicial officer as required by RCW 2.28.030.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.