DRAFT in Class complaint against WA Bar Association for RICO| CORRUPT WA


re-blogged from: CORRUPT WA

DRAFT in progress: Class complaint against WA Bar Association for RICO.

Want your ideas and arguments

This is a “live web page” which means it will be updated as fast as I’m able to write, program, and publish content.In drafting this Class Action Complaint against WA State, all your ideas and recommendations are needed to make it the best pleading ever filed against WA State for the misconduct by the “legal establishment” — i.e., The WA State Bar Association and how their members have commandeered our government.

As the illustration shows, when the legislature, circa 1933, decided to create an agency of the state in the WA State Bar, the legislature failed to institute the critical controls required for an agency as powerful as the WA State Bar. This oversight not only renders the WA State Bar unconstitutional, but provides a breeding ground for mass delusional behavior inherent in entities being a power without accountability. Their only ‘reference point’ by which to judge their ideals is themselves. If Bar Associates believe themselves ‘superior beings’ who can tell them otherwise?

WA State Government Structure PRE WA State Gov chart

You can submit your suggestions, criticisms, ideas, … either publicly as ‘comments’ or to me privately at billscheidler@outlook.com

This complaint must be so well written and tight, WE MAKE HISTORY! I’d like to get this filed within 3-years.

Superior [Federal District(?)] Court of Washington for Kitsap County

William Scheidler, individually; et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
State of Washington, and
WA State Bar Associations and its associates Jane and John Doe’s with Bar numbers 1-50,000 in their individual and official capacities
Defendants
Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT RCW 9A.82 [and or RICO]; COMPLAINT PER RCW 7.56; RCW 4.92; RCW 4.96 AND MORE TOO NUMEROUS TO LIST.

JURY DEMANDED

JURY DEMANDED

The issues raised herein concern the unlawful conduct of WA State, its officers, agencies and agents. The statutory term “Conduct,” and what ‘conduct’ is consistent with WA governments’ “just powers,” See WA Art. 1, sec 1, constitute factual questions; and this claim seeks monetary damages in addition to other remedies. A Jury is Demanded. In WA, the right to a jury is a constitutional right, see Art 1, sec 21, and by statute, RCW 9A.82.100(15) in matters of corrupt influence, a jury is by right. Furthermore, issues of FACT and for monetary damages are for a JURY to determine. See RCW 4.40.060-070 , and RCW 4.44.090 (full citations incorporated by reference)
Furthermore, Article 4, SECTION 16 CHARGING JURIES. Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law. Clearly, when read together, Article 1, Section 1 by its words, Article 1, Section 21 by its words, Article 4, Section 16, by its words, and statutes RCW 4.40.060-070, RCW 4.44.090, and RCW 9A.82.100(15) unambiguously state a JURY is an essential element in this complaint and a due process right in seeking an impartial remedy.

PARTIES AND RELATIONSHIPS

The Plaintiffs for their Complaint against the Defendants state as follows:

  • Plaintiffs: [omitted]
  • Defendants:[omitted]

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this claims for relief under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1964(a) and 1964(c); and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Personal jurisdiction and venue are predicated upon 18 U.S.C. sec. 1965(a) and (b) and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1391(b) since the Defendants are residents of, have an agent or agents, or transact their affairs in the District of Washington, and the acts and occurrences in furtherance of the claims alleged herein arose in the District of Washington, and because the ends of justice require that other parties residing in other districts be brought before the court.

COMPLAINT–CLASS ACTION

This action is brought by plaintiffs as a class action, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, under the provisions of Rules 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and relief incident and subordinate thereto, including costs and attorneys’ fees. This action is divided into six counts, as follows:
[paragraphs relating to technical class action allegations, omitted]

COUNT I is brought by all plaintiffs as a class action against all defendants.

CLASS ACTION UNDER THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1962(a),(b),(c), and (d))/and or under RCW 9A.82.100(15); ……….. For the routine, pervasive, and blatant violation of the following laws and constitutional provisions:

      RCW 4.04.010 – The Common law shall be the rule in the courts or as modified by the people;
      RCW 2.28.030 – Disqualification of Judge for direct interest;
      RCW 2.04.180 to 190 – failure of Supreme court to establish rules conducive to the administration of justice;
      RCW 2.06.030 – failure of Appellate courts to establish rules conducive to the administration of justice;
      RCW 2.08.230 – failure of superior courts to establish rules conducive to the administration of justice;
      RCW 2.32.050 – Powers and Duties of Clerks;
      RCW 2.48.210 – Lawyers Oath of Office – never seek to mislead, take cases of the oppressed, uphold the highest standards of truth and honor.
      RCW 2.48.180 – Misconduct by a lawyer is any violation of his duties as noted in RCW 18.130.180 Unprofessional Conduct.
      RCW 2.48.230 – Code of Ethics
      RCW 42.20 – Official Misconduct
      RCW 9A.72 – Perjury and Interference with Official proceedings
      RCW 9A.80 – Abuse of office
      Article 1, Section 1 – “just powers”
      Article 1, Section 4 – Right of Petition
      Article 1, Section 10 – Administration of justice
      Article 1, Section 21 – Trial by Jury
      RCW 4.40 – Trial by Jury
      RCW 4.44 – Trial by Jury
      Article 1, Section 25 – Prosecution by information
      RCW 7.56 – Who may prosecute by information and against whom.
      Article 2, Section 1 – The “legislature is vested with law making” or “the people”.
      Article 2, Section 28 – The prohibition in enacting special laws “limiting civil or criminal” cases and “legalizing the unauthorized or invalid act of any officer”
    Article 4, Section 28 – Oath of Judges; etc.

INTRODUCTION

This is an extremely complicated case to unwind how WA State Bar Associates (lawyers and or the “Enterprise”), by occupying various positions and offices within government, both elected and appointed – such as:

  • legislative elective office;
  • judicial office
  • executive elective office;
  • attorney general and prosecutorial office,

on committees, for example, the

  • Senate committee of Law and Justice;
  • House Judiciary committee,

and on various boards, for example the

  • Board of Tax Appeals;
  • WSBA Disciplinary Board,

and on various commissions such as the

  • Commission on Judicial Conduct;

and in agencies such as the

  • Office of Risk Management, etc.,

use their government positions, and with the aid of their associates outside government, the purposes of profiting the ‘enterprise’. Furthermore, their government positions assure the enterprise maintains and increases their power and wealth for the benefit of all their willing associates. This commandeering of our government by this racketeering enterprise provides them a clear pathway to ‘exempt’ themselves from a citizen oversight. For example these “enterprise public servants” despite the people’s initiative establishing the WA State Public Records act, give themselves “absolute immunity” from citizen lawsuits, notwithstanding WA constitutional prohibition, Art. 2, sec 28, limiting ‘civil and criminal actions; and declared themselves out of reach of WA State’s Auditor. See respectively Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300, 730 P.2d 54 (1986), Scheidler v CJC and Bar 14-2-00042-3; and GRAHAM v. BAR ASSOCIATION 86 Wn.2d 624, 548 P.2d 310

Legislative history: The Washington State Bar Association existed as a voluntary professional association between 1888 and 1933. [GRAHAM at 626] When, circa 1933, the WA State Bar Act and the Association of Superior Court Judges were passed by the legislature, codified as RCW 2.48 and RCW 2.16 respectively, and considered in relation to Article 2, Sect 17 that limits eligibility for judgeship’s to those admitted to practice – it becomes clear, only Bar members may be judges and thereby only Bar members will compose the Superior Court Judges Association. Before the 1933 legislation, judges could come from outside the Bar’s control.

To read more click here

SCHEMES DEVISED BY “RISK MANAGEMENT FIRMS”, such as MARSH McLENNAN, to defeat justice.

How “INSURANCE COMPANYS” and WA State Bar Associates bribe people with Government Contracts and Government jobs to protect insurance company profits and keep insurance “premiums low”. These “insurance premiums” are paid by the following government entitites:

  • Police Dept
  • Sheriff Dept
  • Prosecutors
  • CPS Workers
  • Guardians Ad Litem
  • County officials
  • State officials
  • Judges
  • Lawyers
  • Gov. Contractors
  • Gov. Agencies
  • Cities
  • Towns
  • etc… (you get the idea)

(A) SCHEME TO INFILTRATE AND CONTROL WA STATE GOVERNMENT
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(B) WA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY SCHEME
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(D) COURT RULES SCHEME
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(C) COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT DISCIPLINARY SCHEME
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(E) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION SCHEME
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(F) VOTER FRAUD SCHEME
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(G) SECRECY SCHEME – PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(H)SCHEME BY EUPHEMISMS
Click above link to read and add content under this SCHEME.
(I) LACK OF JURISDICTION SCHEME

  • Oath if Office scheme:

While all non-enterprise government officials and or office holders subscribe to and take an oath to uphold the laws of the US and WA, their “go to” person is generally a member of the “Enterprise – a lawyer.” This lawyer often misdirects, intimidates, or otherwise influences the official to either disregard, ignore or do such other act so as to protect the “Enterprise” and not perform the officials duties as prescribed or proscribed by the laws they have sworn to uphold.

Furthermore, the government enterprise lawyers all sit in judgement of their oath of office. This ‘conflict in being both bound by law and adjudicators of fact and law by which they are bound, is contrary to RCW 2.28.030, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 through 1.13 and Canon 2.

Violations of statutory and regulatory duties established for the profession is a misdemeanor. See RCW 2.48.180(6), RCW 18.130.180(7) and RCW 42.20.080.

Offer of proof: See Appendix A.

Click above link to see content under this SCHEME.
(I) ENTERPRISE
Click above link to see content under this SCHEME.
(J) PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

  • All of the predicate acts of racketeering activity are directly related to the WSBA’s schemes to become a defacto government.
  • All of the predicate acts of racketeering activity are part of the nexus of the affairs and functions of the racketeering enterprise.
  • The defendants were enabled to commit the predicate offenses by virtue of their position in the enterprise or involvement in or control over the affairs of the enterprise.
  • All of the predicate acts of racketeering activity occurred after the effective date of 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et. seq.
  • The predicate acts of racketeering activity began on or about 1933.
  • The pattern of racketeering activity is currently ongoing and open ended, and threatens to continue indefinitely unless this Court enjoins the racketeering activity.
  • Numerous schemes have been completed involving repeated criminal conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
  • The predicate acts have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, and methods of commission.

(K) CHASE YOUR TAIL SCHEME

In defiance of the law, RCW 2.04.190, that mandates courts to establishes rules of procedure for the simplification of the system of pleading, practice and procedure in said courts to promote the speedy determination of litigation on the merits, these courts, through their judges have established rules that delay, frustrate, deny and manipulate the process for the benefit and profit of the ‘enterprise.’ Said another way, the longer and more difficult it is to resolve case, the more money the enterprise extracts in fees and penalties.

(L) TOO BIG TO FAIL (BLACKMAIL) SCHEME
This scheme is based in the quid pro quo the Enterprise has with agencies and individuals within government. As each corrupt act adds to the ultimate liability of the state for each other’s corrupt acts, the Enterprise establishes a house of cards that cannot be dismantled without the total collapse of the entire government — they protect themselves by the “too big to fail” concept first instituted by the Federal Government with respect to the housing bubble caused by faulty loan procedures in the quest of ever increasing ‘profits’ and the ultimate collapse in home prices when the chickens came home to roost.

(M) SANCTIONS SCHEME – an illegal tax.

As declared by the WA State Supreme Court, the Bar received no money from the state, is not a state agency. (GAHRAM) Yet provides service to the “judicial branch”. Bar members, who serve as judges reward the Bar members for the services they provide to the judicial branch by imposing “sanctions” under their own determinations, based in their own created court rule authority.

(N) SUMMARY OF EACH PLAINTIFFS INJURY TO BUSINESS OR PROPERTY

  1. FACTS

COUNT II: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

COUNT III: COMMON LAW FRAUD AND DECEIT

  • b. USE OF SURROGATE TERMS SCHEME

COUNT IV: TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

  • Negligence: The justices of the WA State Supreme Court failed to establish procedural safeguards to protect citizens from a corrupt Bar. The WA State Supreme Court justices themselves claim the following authority and obligations.

    “When a lawyer discipline decision by the Board is appealed, this court has “plenary authority” on review. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wn.2d 707, 716, 72 P.3d 173 (2003). While we “do[ ] not lightly depart from the Board’s recommendation,” we are “not bound by it.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Tasker, 141 Wn.2d 557, 565, 9 P.3d 822 (2000). The court reviews conclusions of law de novo. Whitt, 149 Wn.2d at 716-17. We have “the inherent power to promulgate rules of discipline, to interpret them, and to enforce them.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Stroh, 97 Wn.2d 289, 294, 644 P.2d 1161 (1982) (emphasis added); see also ELC 2.1 (recognizing this court’s “inherent power to maintain appropriate standards of professional conduct”). Jan. 2006 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haley 333
    156 Wn.2d 324

    The Court has negligently failed to establish rules to review “dismissed cases” by the same logic it established rules to review prosecuted cases by the WA State Bar. This one-sided scheme allows the enterprise to run without regulation.

    COUNT V: OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

    COUNT VI: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

    a. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in COUNTS 1 to 5 of this complaint as fully as if set forth here.

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons for judgment against defendant as follows, in general:
    1. Issuing an Order certifying the Classes as set forth herein and designating the plaintiffs and their counsel as the representatives thereof;
    2. Compensatory damages against WSBA Associates with Bar numbers 1-40000, for a sum duly trebled, plus interest;
    3. Restitution to Taxpayers against the WSBA;
    4. Punitive damages
    5. Declaratory and injunctive relief;
    6. Reasonable attorney’s fees;
    7. Together with all costs and expenses, and such other further relief as the court deems proper.

    Incoming search terms:

– See more at: http://www.corruptwa.com/corrupt/government-officials/draft-class-complaint-against-wa-bar-association-for-rico-want-your-ideas-and-arguments/#sthash.1fkY0m1d.dpuf

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s