Knight v. State, Writ of Prohibition Against Contempt Prosecution

Knight v. State, King County Superior Court, No. 04-2-10673-7 SEA, Court of Appeals No. 54518-3, Court of Appeals No. 58250-0, Court of Appeals No. 57547-3, and Petition to Supreme Court of Washington No. 79200-3 Web Page

We WON Court of Appeals No. 58250-0!! Reported at 142 Wash. App. 291, 174 P. 3d 1198. Further details at the bottom of this web page!

Antipeonage Act Site Map

Some Practical Advice for Support Contemnors in the State of Washington.

A Way to Walk a Mile in a Noncustodial Parent's Moccasins.

For their sponsorship of Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Sucker's www.paykids.com his Paykids Foundation, boycott the listed sponsors, including Art Van Furniture, Meijer Stores, Michigan State Medical Society (warning, the MSMS website does not like to let you out when you click the back button), SBC Communications, and Michigan Health and Hospital Association and tell them why you are boycotting them! Go to the Michigan Enemies of Freedom Page and read letters by Stan Rains and Terry Lear for more information as to why, and read Domino's Pizza, Inc.'s letter to me in response to my concerns about PayKid's use of Domino's Pizza gift certificates as a prize in their loathsome Billboard contest, which was CANCELLED!!

Not to be outdone, we are announcing our own billboard contest!

C Level Enterprises is to be commended for their courage, unlike Borders, in distributing father Kevin Thompson's book, "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts" in the face of Judge Mary McCauley Manzi's court order prohibiting its distribution. More on this at the Massachusetts Enemies of Freedom webpage. FathersUnite.org has a link to this page.

Restraining order overturned on appeal. Book is now available at Lulu.

We now have the Antipeonage Act Website Forum, please click the "Enter my Forum" banner!

Here are some free places where you can find published opinions:

Findlaw Supreme Court Cases

Federal Judiciary Homepage

Ninth Circuit Opinions in pdf since 1995

Municipal Research and Services Center Search Page for Supreme Court of Washington and Court of Appeals for Washington published opinions.

Adobe website. for those who need a reader for pdf files.

I responded to a new contempt prosecution against me with an Application for Statutory Writ of Prohibition, Chapter 7.16 RCW

Then as things heated up, I filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Statutory Writ of Prohibition Should Not be Granted, along with a Supplemental Declaration of Roger W. Knight to support it.

But it was denied right away, and appealed right away.

And now, the Brief of Appellant.

State's Brief of Respondent pdf file 226 kb

The Reply Brief of Appellant

Originally, this Statutory Writ Action was brought because I believe we had a bad service of process. However, as the Family Support Division of the King County Prosecutor's Office brought in evidence of the constitutionally protected activity that is this web site, the issue becomes one of using the contempt powers to punish for exercising the right to free speech. I claim the right to use a public forum, the Internet, to point out that contempt prosecutions in child support cases violate the Antipeonage Act as much as trafficking in humans from foreign lands to the United States for use as low wage slaves held in such bondage for the debt that arises from whatever is charged for passage to the United States. Such peons are held by their fear of deportation, which is a threat of legal process.

The Court of Appeals finally made their decision. It's got a little booby trap that you need to know about: They found:

Personal service of the order to show cause was required not for purposes of jurisdiction, but rather to ensure proper notice of the proceeding.

This means that a superior court already has continuing jurisdiction from the original support order. They blow the serve? Fine, all that means is that we can proceed once you know about the order to show cause, which you will when they haul you from the county jail to the courtroom! When you fail to appear at a show cause hearing they issue you a bench warrant. If you failed to appear because they blew the serve, your arrest and imprisonment cures that deficiency!

The requirement for service for the court to even have in personam jurisdiction was a protection against this kind of abuse. If the serve was blown, then the doctrine that the contempt prosecution must be dismissed and not started until a proper serve with its opportunity to appear and be heard BEFORE the bench warrant and arrest is, well, done away with by Judges Mary Kay Becker, Anne Lake Ellington, and William Wayne Baker.

They should at least publish the decision as I moved. This motion was denied on November 23, 2005.

And I moved to reconsider.

It was denied. Oh pooh.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prosecutor Jacqueline Lucine Jeske managed to coerce my appearance enough times to impose an Order on me that is a direct violation of the Antipeonage Act. pdf

So here is my Motion to Modify Commissioner's Order, filed in King County No. 90-3-04471-1. It is short, sweet, and right to the point.

State's Response to my Motion to Modify Commissioner's Order pdf

My Reply to the State's Response.

Judge Steven Charles Gonzalez, instead of doing his job, got angry and punished me with sanctions for DARING to plead the Antipeonage Act. He found that for me to appeal an agreed order is "by definition" frivolous. Regardless of what is in such order, and in direct contradiction of the simple fact, backed up by the court opinions interpreting the Antipeonage Act, that it prohibits peonage contracts as well as court orders imposing peonage, regardless of whether the party upon whom peonage is imposed agreed to it or not. His Order on Civil Motion. pdf

It is like finding frivolous a claim that the ocean is salty.

During the hearing on December 9, 2005, Deputy Prosecutor Jacqueline Lucine Jeske not only asked for monetary sanctions, she argued that imprisonment was available. That's right. Jailing me. Not for violating a court order. But for APPEALING a court order. She suggested this in writing on page 4 of her State's Response.

Think about that.

Judge Gonzalez apparently did not want to go that far. During the hearing, Judge Gonzalez suggested that my citation of the Admonishment by the Commission on Judicial Conduct of Commissioner Bonnie Jean Canada-Thurston was not well advised but since I had time pressure to get a response in, he could understand how I did not have adequate time to consider removing it. I responded, quietly and calmly, of course, that I pleaded the Admonishment in response to Ms. Jeske's obviously intimidating request for sanctions to support the proposition that I have the right to fairly and fully present my position without being inhibited by intimidation by the judicial officer.

He loved that! Not.

Incidentally, Judge Gonzalez' bailiff Sal Nouth told me that there was no electronic sound recording made of the hearing. That seems to happen a lot in these kinds of cases.

Please consider that Judge Gonzalez was an Assistant United States Attorney during 1999-2001. Lead attorney for the prosecution of Murphy Wayman Carter in a criminal case, W.D. Wash. No. Cr99-580R, and participated in the briefing of the federal government's case on appeal. The sentence was affirmed in 9th Cir. No. 00-30357 at 266 F. 3d. 1089. I do not believe Judge Gonzalez can credibly claim, and he has not made such claim to the best of my knowledge, to not understand what peonage is given the crime committed by Mr. Carter. Incidentally, the indictment of Mr. Carter filed in W.D. Wash. No. Cr99-580R lists one count of violation of 18 U.S.C. §2423, the Mann Act, but does not list any counts of peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581, or involuntary servitude, 18 U.S.C. §1584, even though the facts admitted by Mr. Carter in his plea of guilty would certainly support such a charge.

There is something else I have noticed since this hearing. According to Judge Gonzalez' campaign for re-election in 2002 web page, he was in the Domestic Violence Unit of the Seattle City Attorney's Office.

If I had known that, I would have affidavited him!

Now for those who might disagree with the logic of me requesting recusal of Judge Gonzalez, consider that the Community Resources Page of the City Attorney's website lists telephone numbers for both Child Support Enforcement in Seattle and El Centro de la Raza. (Spanish for "The Center of the Race") According to his campaign webpage, Judge Gonzalez is involved with El Centro. He is listed on their Board of Directors. He has an El Centro 20th Anniversary poster hanging on the wall of his courtroom. I don't know about how the connection with El Centro affects his judgment, but when the domestic violence unit of a prosecutor's office co-operates with Child Support Enforcement in Seattle, and the judge worked in such office, then chances are a noncustodial parent will not receive a fair hearing on the issue of whether such an order requiring employment is declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994, the Antipeonage Act.

My bad for not doing the background research BEFORE the hearing. His bad for not informing me of this part of his background and giving me the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to let him hear the motion to modify commissioner's order.

Feel free to read this open letter. There are unintended consequences to this.

These unintended consequences include the problems our federal authorities can have when they attempt to prosecute anyone for the crimes of peonage and involuntary servitude in the federal courts.

I filed the Notice of Appeal, here is my Brief of Appellant, as filed in Court of Appeals No. 57547-3.

The State's Brief of Respondent pdf 334 kb

And now, my Reply Brief of Appellant Here, I provide the answers to California's Moss v. Superior Court, the Ninth Circuit's Ballek, and Hawaii's new Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, No. 24457, (Hawaii, December 27, 2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461, each an obscenity against the Rule of Law.

To apprise the Court of Appeals of recent developments including the recently published article by Jacqueline Jeske on the subject of child support in the July 2006 Bar News and the new Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision concerning the rules of federal statutory construction, I submitted my Appellant's Supplement to the Briefs.

The Court of Appeals has made an unpublished decision affirming. On the copy of the decision mailed to me, I recognize the signatures of Judges Baker and Becker. I believe the other signature is that of new Judge Stephen Joseph Dwyer. He is the only Judge on the Court of Appeals Division One roster whose last name begins with the letter D. This decision has the logic of a finding that just because you can establish six feet, to claim a fathom is to bring a frivolous claim. To wit: the difference between imprisonment for debt and imprisonment for violating a court order to pay money is equal to the difference between six feet and a fathom. And equal to the difference between peonage and a court order requiring 30 hours of work per week or 3 job contacts.

The short version of what the Court of Appeals said:

Don't worry, this is not over.

Thanks for waiting. Here is my new Petition for Review. It was denied on June 6, 2007

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is considered filed as of the date I mailed it, August 8, 2007, within 90 days of June 6, 2007. It is docketed as No. 07-184.

I will try a little experiment here. Here is the Petition in Microsoft Word 97-2003 format. If it works out, I might post some more of my other pleadings this way. The reason I have not is that I did not want to discriminate against Apple users, WordPerfect users, and old Word users. I am also posting the htm versions with the citations linked as has been my practice. Feedback has been positive on that format, as it allows the Internet surfer to look up the cases cited and the statutes without taking a trip to the law library. With such preliminary research on line, the trip to the library or to the Westlaw account for those with access can be so much more productive.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Title Page.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Questions Presented and Tables Equivalent to: Questions Presented in htm

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Argument Equivalent to Second Part of Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Appendix. This presents the previous decisions in the state courts.

One analogy to illustrate the absurdity of the proposition that choice of employer avoids finding of involuntary servitude is with Washington's Death Penalty statute, RCW 10.95.180(1) grants the condemned a choice: lethal injection or hanging. No one seriously argues that merely because the condemned has a choice in his demise, there is no death penalty. However, California's Moss v. Superior Court, the Ninth Circuit's Ballek, and Hawaii's Doe uses this precise logic: if the peon has a choice of employer, there is no involuntary servitude!

Patently absurd, of course!

A homosexual couple can argue that they have as much right to get married as a heterosexual couple under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and their argument will not be considered frivolous. The proposition that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child is not only not frivolous, but considered the Supreme Law of the Land. But for a non-custodial parent to challenge a court order requiring 30 hours of work per week or a job search as declared null and void by the Antipeonage Act? Outside of California, that is considered "wholly frivolous" even though the California courts found Brent Moss and his attorneys to have acted in good faith.

Can there be any doubt that our court system is infected with an unreasoning bias against a class of citizens that amounts to bigotry of Nazi and Ku Klux Klan proportions? Unlike Mel Gibson, our judges need not be drunk to express their bigotry and hate. These judges are no better than the jackass who recently shot up the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. They do with their pen and positions of power and trust what Haq did with a gun.

William Wayne Baker, WSBA 105, Everett, Washington 98203 DOB August 21, 1940 Voted on November 8, 2005 Official biography on Court of Appeals website. July 31, 2002 Public Disclosure Filing

Mary Kay Becker, WSBA 13027, Bellingham, Washington 98229 DOB October 24, 1946 Voted on March 14, 2006 Official Biography on Court of Appeals website. Also a former judge in the Whatcom and Skagit County systems. Served as a paralegal for Northwest Washington Legal Services, which was called Evergreen Legal Services and is now Columbia Legal Services. Co-authored "Superspill" a work of fiction. San Juan County No. 02-2-05019-1 orders of appointment of elected pro tempore judges; Skagit County No. 03-2-00009-7 oaths; Snohomish County No. 85-2-04550-3 defendant foreclosure; Snohomish County No. 87-9-01792-7 judgment debtor foreclosure paid through sale; Whatcom County No. 84-2-00873-0 defendant writ of mandamus; Whatcom County No. 85-2-00789-8 defendant writ of review; Whatcom County No. 86-2-01163-0 plaintiff unlawful detainer; Whatcom County No. 89-2-00642-8 respondent writ of mandamus; Whatcom County No. 86-9-00827-8 judgment creditor against occupants for $1,127.31 with 12% interest;

My Brief, unfortunately, raises issues with the integrity of the deputy prosecutors when it comes to following the rules and abuse of process.

That too, is a HUGE matter of public importance of which the public should be informed.

During this process, I have communicated by e-mail with Ms. Jeske.

Here is an exchange dated April 5, 2005

From : Roger Knight rogerwknight@hotmail.com

Sent : Wednesday, April 5, 2006 11:35 AM

To : Jacqueline.Jeske@METROKC.GOV

Subject : RE: Knight case No. 90-3-04471-1 SEA There is no order to appear this afternoon.

Mr. King won't agree to the settlement proposal. This is an unfortunate fact. We are proceeding with the arbitration process with Mr. Scannell. I will pay 1/2 of whatever money I can get out of Mr. Scannell to the Support Registry regardless of the status of this contempt proceeding, unless I am in jail and therefore unable to act.

One of my responsive pleadings is a motion for recusal. Commissioner Ponomarchuk has signed and enforced numerous orders similar to the one I have appealed to the Court of Appeals with the claim that it is declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994, which unavoidably also constitutes a claim of the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. §1581.

Judges have been indicted and prosecuted for this crime. Immunity doctrines do not apply to criminal liability.

My presence this afternoon is not necessary for Commissioner Ponomarchuk to recuse.

I will be checking the Rules of Professional Conduct and some of the rulings on lawyer discipline for the situation where a lawyer proceeds before a judicial officer the lawyer knows has an interest and cannot claim impartiality.

FYI, this e-mail was also sent to persons listed on the Bcc: line.

From: "Jeske, Jacqueline" Jacqueline.Jeske@METROKC.GOV

To: 'Roger Knight' <rogerwknight@hotmail.com>, "Schnuelle, Kim" Kim.Schnuelle@METROKC.GOV, "Ebesugawa, Rian" Rian.Ebesugawa@METROKC.GOV>, "OBrien, Kathleen" Kathleen.OBrien@metrokc.gov

Subject: RE: Knight case No. 90-3-04471-1 SEA There is no order to appear this afternoon.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:00:13 -0700

Mr. Knight, this order clearly states as follows:

The 3/29/06 hearing is continued to 4/5/06 as Commissioner Ponomarchuk who has retained jurisdiction is not available. All prior orders remain in effect. It states the continuance and the new hearing date in the body of the order. No additional verbage is necessary and the order is clear on its face. All issues reserved. You were present in court, signed the order and were informed of the new date. If you do not appear this afternoon, I will ask the court for a warrant for your arrest, provide them with a copy of this email and make them aware of your stated objection. It is the court's decision to grant or deny a request for warrant. You filed responsive pleadings for this matter and asked for the continuance so that you could have additional time to consider the settlement proposal with Mr. King. This next hearing date was set to convenience you, not the State.

-----Original Message-----

From: Roger Knight [mailto:rogerwknight@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:47 AM

To: Jeske, Jacqueline; Schnuelle, Kim; Ebesugawa, Rian; OBrien, Kathleen

Cc: rogerwknight@hotmail.com;

Subject: Knight case No. 90-3-04471-1 SEA There is no order to appear this afternoon.

I have read the Order entered on March 29, 2006 with Kim Schnuelle filling in for Jacqueline Jeske and signed by Commissioner pro-tem Michael Bugni.

Part of it reads:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that further hearing of this matter is continued to ________________, _______, at 1:00 pm in . . .

Thus there is no order to appear without which a bench warrant cannot lawfully issue.

Should a bench warrant be issued this afternoon, I WILL file a complaint with the WSBA against whichever attorney asked for it.

FYI I sent a copy of this e-mail to persons identified on the Bcc: line.

What is going on here is since taking up that order requiring 30 hours per week of employment or 3 job contacts per week on appeal, I filed a Motion to Recuse asking all of the Commissioners and compromised Commissioners Pro Tem, mostly divorce lawyers, to disqualify themselves. A challenge to an order as declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994 is unavoidably an accusation of the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. §§1581.

There is not a one of them who has not signed such orders as a judicial officer or obtained such orders while practicing domestic relations "law" as attorneys.

They are that widespread, that common. The work or seek work mandate is part of the pre-printed boilerplate on the order forms used in these contempt cases.

Incidentally, Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(f) declares that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law

and Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(m) declares that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(m) Violate the Code of Judicial Conduct

Now, Ms. Jeske, if you know a judicial officer has a conflict of interest, and you go before him anyway, is that not professional misconduct within these provisions? We are not even talking about violating your oath as an attorney about the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution, Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(k).

So what happened on April 5, 2006 when I did not show up?

This Order CONTINUING the case without a bench warrant!

And there are those who say I am not getting anywhere with the Antipeonage Act.

They are right! This time I did not go to jail!

Here is an earlier exchange dated December 12, 2005:

From : Roger Knight <rogerwknight@hotmail.com>

Sent : Monday, December 12, 2005 11:50 AM

To : Jacqueline.Jeske@METROKC.GOV

Subject : RE: Wrong cause number on Order.

Comment on your response as to the rules:

Of course in this case Bonnie Jean Canada-Thurston had nothing personally to do with the case. Mr. Samuel Clyatt did not either; seems he has been dead for a while. Yet you and I can lawfully cite the Clyatt v United States decision in a pleading becauseitis a published opinion that sets precedent on the meaning of the law.

The reason I cited the CJC Admonishment of BJCT is to support the proposition that I have the right to fully and fairly present my position to a fair and impartial judge who is without prejudice without being inhibited from doing so by intimidation. This in response to your obviously intimidating request for sanctions.

I thought that was eminently obvious.

If you want to talk to me about my children and their legitimate needs, you forget that I am in regular contact with them and thus I know a thing or two about what they actually need. (Redacted for this website) is an adult with a full time job. The duty to support her was in fact extinguished by the divorce decree back in 1991. (Redacted for this website) is now 19 and if you will please read the divorce decree you will notice that without modification, and it has not been modified, my duty to support him ends at age 19 if he has not yet graduated from high school. He dropped out and went to work full time at a warehouse. It was a good learning experience for him. He has since enrolled in Green River Community College. The first thing he needs to do is get his G.E.D. He is 19 and the duty to support him has ended. (Redacted for this website) enrolled in the G.E.D. program at Renton Voc-Tech to obtain his high school equivalent diploma a year earlier than he would have if he stayed with the Kent School District high school. (Redacted for this website) graduated last June and will be 18 in March. The duty to support ends on that day. Because my children are grown, the support order is now nothing more than a debt. For a court to say that imprisonment for failure to pay is not imprisonment for debt but imprisonment for violating a court order is to defeat the obvious ends of the state constitution.

I realize that Chuck and Royanne may have difficulties making ends meet, but most people do. Both have jobs. If Royanne is still working at the (Redacted for this website), then I must admit that she is working for an organization that has a WalMart approach to pay and benefits for the hired help. However, she made her decisions in life and I do not owe her my service or labor as a peon to help her be more comfortable with her life decisions. It may be true that (Redacted for this website) and (redacted for this website) may share in their parents' difficulties making ends meet but I believe that I have no responsibility to support them.

There are millions of children in need and I would love to help them out. But unfortunately I am in no position to do so. Perhaps Bill and Melinda Gates, Paul Allen, John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz, the Walton family, and other billionaires can do more to help.

I am of the proposition that true help for the poor and unwashed lay in generating wealth. Because of that, abusing those who generate the wealth is a bad idea.

That is why slavery in any form, is a bad idea. It abuses those who generate wealth. Always has and always will be.

You might want to consider that my boys were with me the last time my car was hauled off to the impound lot by the police. It made an impression on them and not one that makes them sympathetic to those who draw government paychecks violating the Constitution.

Here is a suggestion on how to resolve all of this:

If you will look on my website, you will notice that I call support enforcers peonage criminals. If you will please look on the /justicefilescountieskingcommish.htm page you will notice that I specifically accuse some of the Commissioners of peonage crimes. Example:

Crime of Peonage committed by Nancy Ann Bradburn-Johnson on page 3 she orders the respondent to make 15 job contacts per week and a minimum of 3 different temp agencies each week in King County No. 03-3-06249-2.

The words "Crime of peonage" are linked to the pdf file I made of that order and posted on the website.

Now if I am wrong, then this is defamation. A tort recognized in the courts of Washington.

I have yet to be served with a summons and complaint for defamation.

If such a plaintiff does not file a jury demand, I will.

Would a jury find that this is defamation?

My point is that if nobody I name as a peonage criminal likes their chances of winning a defamation lawsuit, then perhaps they ought to stop committing the crime and using our children and their legitimate needs as the excuse.

From: "Jeske, Jacqueline" <Jacqueline.Jeske@METROKC.GOV>

To: 'Roger Knight' <rogerwknight@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: Wrong cause number on Order.

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:52:22 -0800

Dear Mr. Knight,

I was able to find the original order on civil motion which you signed before it left our office for filing with the clerk's office. If it meets with your approval, I will simply take it back to Judge Gonzalez and ask him to change the cause number by the one incorrect digit and initial the same. I will provide you with a courtesy copy of the same.

As to your other comments, I will refrain from responding in detail except to say that I truly wish for your children's sake, that you would apply your not inconsiderable skills, time and energy to supporting them, rather than making all these arguments. Whether you wish to realize it or not, they could truly use and benefit from your financial support. All the legal arguments in the world, while they might benefit you or be intellectually stimulating, will not ease their path in this world or improve their lives.

Last, to respond to your inquiry. While it is not my job to cite the rules for your own briefing to the court, as a professional courtesy, I believe that what Judge Gonzalez was questioning was why you felt attaching that decision was in any way relevant to your case. ER 402/403. Commissioner Canada-Thurston had nothing to do with your revision, your underlying order or your case. I suspect that this caused him to wonder, as it would most any reasonable person, why you felt compelled to provide the court with her decision. Of course, this is just a guess, as I cannot read the court's mind.

Please let me know your wishes as to presenting the order to Judge Gonzalez for correction.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline L. Jeske

Please be advised that at this point in time, my former step-daughter is now 22 years old, one of my sons is now 19 years old, and the other is now 18 and obtained his high school equivalent diploma a year early at a community college. By the terms of the support order, there is no longer any current monthly support due. What we are talking about is an arrearage for grown children who were, in fact, adequately supported, and as such, it is a debt, imposed by a court order without regard to marital misconduct, meaning without constitutionally required due process of law, for moneys payable by one private adult citizen to another.

For this the state denies me the protections of the United States Constitution, the Washington Constitution, and the Antipeonage Act, committing the crime of peonage.

If this makes me unpopular with some people, tough. I am not running for Governor. With my luck I would actually win with the ghost votes and convicted felon votes and then have to serve! Some folks might like me so much, they might vote for me in two different counties!

Being men, my sons could easily fall victim to this nightmare. My parental duties include looking out for them.

Why is this important?

Answer: In a regular civil case, a plaintiff has to prove that the defendant did something wrong. Examples would include breach of contract, failure to pay an employee wages earned, or any tort recognizable under the common law or under statute. Without that, the result is a judgment for the defendant. And that is the way it should be, indeed Constitutionally required by the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the plain language of Article I Section 3 of the Washington Constitution. Any Fourth Grader who passes the Basic Skills Test can figure that out. It is NOT complicated. However, in a divorce or meretricious relationship case, there is no legal requirement for FAULT, I.E. THAT ONE PARTY DID SOMETHING WRONG, RCW 26.09.080, recognized by the Washington Courts for there to be an order requiring one party to pay money to the other party beyond what originally belonged to the other party, nor is there such requirement for an order to pay alimony, RCW 26.09.090, or child support, RCW 26.09.100, (what is meant by the statutory phrase "without regard to marital misconduct") in spite of the clear and plain language of the federal and state Constitutional Due Process Clauses.

And THAT folks, is THE PROBLEM. That is why our state's courts routinely deny those under orders entered in DOMESTIC RELATIONS cases the equal protection of Article I Section 17 of the Washington Constitution, which prohibits imprisonment for debt, as well as otherwise violating the Equal Protection Clause. As well as violating the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act. Because of course fair minded people raised with the expectations for American freedom and fairness in the American courts as taught in our public and private schools will resist such patently unfair orders which arise without the requirement for PROOF that such parties ever did anything WRONG.

It is NOT complicated.

Without the requirement for finding of WRONGDOING, EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NULL AND VOID.

And in response to Ms. Jeske's complaint about my "tenor", here is my March 14, 2006 e-mail (some corrections made to spelling, otherwise as sent):

From : Roger Knight <rogerwknight@hotmail.com>

Sent : Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:53 PM

To : Jacqueline.Jeske@METROKC.GOV

Subject : RE: Motion For Extension

Tenor, what tenor?

You were under the impression that the 30 day clock for a Brief of Respondent had not been triggered by my serving of the Brief of Appellant. As a courtesy I told you that the scheduling order was sent out and that clock was ticking.

I could have allowed you to suffer the consequences of not keeping track of your incoming mail.

I would rather win this one straight up fair and square.

Either an order requiring 30 hours of employment each week or 3 job contacts is peonage, or it is not.

If it is, this fight is over.

When I sit in that hallway outside the courtroom of your kangaroo court, I hear all of your colleagues tell all these dads that they are going to enter orders requiring ten job contacts per week or 30 hours of work.

If this is peonage, you are out of business.

Here is a sample of oral argument, (I may not use it, it may offend the judges who think I'm insulting their intelligence, but it sells with Average Joe, the guy I need on my side.)

"If you accept the proposition that a mile is eight furlongs, you can readily deduce that a square mile is 64 square furlongs. The reason I bring this up is that it is an example of an obvious truth. A proposition simple enough that most people can readily understand it, and once they understand it, they will not deny it, accepting it as the obvious truth it is.

However, people will deny an obvious truth, if it conflicts with their view of the world, or their ideals about what should be done and how the world should be, or their perceived self interests. Indeed, they will deny that a meter is a hundred centimeters if their world view requires such denial.

Of course, such denial of obvious truths does not stop them from being true.

A court order requiring 30 hours a week of employment is the thing addressed by the Antipeonage Act. That is an obvious truth, accepted by anyone who lacks any interest in denying such truth, even when they understand that the debt or obligation in question is an order to pay child support."

Another argument I use with Average Joes and Janes that works quite well is this:

Proposition: There is no excuse for domestic violence. Agree or Disagree?

Answer from the crowd: Agree.

Proposition: There is no excuse for violating any of the rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Agree or Disagree?

Answer from the crowd (they've never been to law school): Agree.

Proposition: The Constitution of the United States, its 13th Amendment, prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Therefore, there is no excuse for imposing any form of slavery or involuntary servitude unless it is as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Agree or Disagree?

Answer from the crowd: Agree.

Proposition: An order to pay child support is not a punishment for any crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

The crowd: Oooooh!

Continued proposition after interruption: Therefore, such order to pay child support is no excuse for imposing any form of slavery or involuntary servitude. Agree or Disagree?

Immediate Answer from some of the crowd: Agree!!!!

Slower answer from another part of the crowd: Ohh! I've never thought of it that way! But come to think of it, you're right! Agree!

The remaining part of the crowd: A reaction much like Harry Mudd's robot women. Harry says "I am lying." The robot women contemplate whether he is telling the truth or lying when he says that! The little lights on their throats blink like crazy while their computer brains chew over the concept until they all conk out!

Fortunately the answer to the question I propose is not as impossible as an ancient Greek's conundrum used by the writers of the old Star Trek show.

As child support is not a punishment imposed for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, the logical answer is that it is not an excuse for slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage, extortion, imprisonment for debt, armed robbery, or any of the other debt collection methods we, for extremely good public policy reasons, outlaw for most debts and obligations.

These extremely good public policy reasons do not just magically disappear merely because some black robes impose an order to pay child support while depriving the parent of custody of the child.

Without any finding of wrongdoing required whatsoever.

Any 4th Grader who passes the Basic Skills Test can read the 13th Amendment and deduce that it prohibits the order you are trying to defend in this current appeal. He can read 42 U.S.C. §1994 and deduce that such order is declared null and void. He can read 18 U.S.C. §1581 and wonder why his mom is not under indictment for the crime she is committing against his dad.

The proposition is just not complicated. It is an obvious truth.

As simple, and as obvious, as the proposition that a square mile contains 64 square furlongs.

You could say: It looks as much like peonage as the Cathlamet looks like a Washington State Ferry!

FYI: Equality for Fathers International is a fraternity of activist fathers who demand their rights to participate in the raising of their children on a basis equal to that of their mothers, and who are hostile to any violation of any parent's fundamental human rights.

Jacqueline Jeske is an attorney, Washington State Bar Association #16790, who is currently employed by the Family Support Division of the King County Prosecutor's Office.

The Brief we are discussing is available on line at: www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3brief.htm

Context is at the page:

www.antipeonage.0catch.com/04-2-10673-7sea.htm (That is this page.)

The orders we are talking about are posted as pdf pages. So are the New Mexico Territory laws, the Jaremillo v Romero decision, the relevant page out of the Congressional Globe concerning the Peonage Bill, 14 Stat 546, where the original Antipeonage Act was published, and other such records I have gathered over the last 18 years.

Enjoy.

On simple logic, we win. Problem: too many people think emotionally and not enough people think logically. The lemmings who swim for the unseen distant shore are thinking emotionally. Those lemmings who stay on the beach are thinking logically. They are able to logically raise their children without interference from family courts but are unable to teach most of them the logic of not swimming for a shore out of reach. Part of what saves them is that the Great Swim prevents emotionally thinking lemmings from setting up family courts to harass logical lemming parents!

The Commission on Judicial Conduct decided on June 5, 2006 that no violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct was substantiated in this matter. No further explanation was contained in the letter.

Text of my Complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Leonid I. Ponomarchuk

I appealed these April and May 2006 orders as well, Court of Appeals No. 58250-0, issues being the right to a public defender and to strike inadequately signed declarations

Brief of Appellant

State's Brief of Respondent pdf 362 kb

Reply Brief of Appellant

We WON Court of Appeals No. 58250-0!! Reported at 142 Wash. App. 291, 174 P. 3d 1198.

Opinion in htm and in pdf

And there is the award for costs payable to little ol' me!

If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.