Knight v. Mercer Island, W.D. Wash. No. C02-879L, appealed, 9th Cir. No. 03-35116 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 Writ of Prohibition Against Contempt Prosecution web page!
Some Practical Advice for Support Contemnors in the State of Washington.
A Way to Walk a Mile in a Noncustodial Parent's Moccasins.
Please check out the litigation listed toward the bottom of the web page Knight v. State Writ of Prohibition Against Contempt Prosecution where I was forced to file a Motion to Modify Commissioner's Decision citing Antipeonage Act because the State of Washington imposed a court order that is a direct violation of the Antipeonage Act, requiring me to maintain at least 30 hours of work per week or make 3 job contacts. Therefore, I display my Brief of Appellant because this is an issue of extreme public importance for which the public should be aware.
My latest Reply Brief of Appellant provides 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.
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.
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!
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!
Restraining order overturned on appeal. Book is now available at Lulu.
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.
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:
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.
This is the Web Page upon which I list the internal links to the briefs and pleadings in the 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit I filed after the extraordinary decision on April 19, 2002 by the Bellevue District Court. The pleadings that I filed in response to the two criminal charges for Driving While License Suspended are listed on Mercer Island v. Knight
Declaration of Roger W. Knight filed with the Complaint.
Declaration of Judith Calhoun filed with the Complaint.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied (Adobe Acrobat pdf file) in spite of my reply brief.
Upon denial of preliminary injunction, I filed my Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, I am asking if the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, provides the federal courts jurisdiction independent of any other statute the way the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982, does. To support it, I filed Declaration of Roger W. Knight in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The
City of Mercer Island filed a
brief
in opposition and cross motion, pdf file 314kb, and the State Officers filed a
response in
opposition and cross motion, pdf file, 260 kb. To support their argument, the
City filed the
Declaration of Officer Brian Noel
in Support of
To support my reply brief, I filed my Declaration by Roger W. Knight in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Mercer Island Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
To give you and the federal court an idea of what relief I requested, and to meet the requirements of the Local Rules for this court, I submitted a Proposed Order.
I have now filed my Response brief to the cross motions filed by the City of Mercer Island and by the State Officers.
And while at it, my own Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
For some reason, the State Officers did not submit a response brief to my own cross motion. But the City of Mercer Island did. Adobe Acrobat pdf file, 200 kb
So here is my Reply Brief on my cross motion. After finally obtaining the compact disks of the April 19, 2002 hearing in King County District Court where the Younger abstention exception was created, I filed that with the federal court too.
Finally, on September 25, 2002, Judge Lasnik dismissed my claim and then barred me from litigating in the federal courts in the future. We do not want to allow little old things like the United States Constitution and the Antipeonage Act get in the way of "necessary" public policy, now do we?
The Constitution of the United States. It's not for everyone.
To show how wrong this is, I filed my Motion to Amend Judgment before filing the appeal. The state has filed its Response, and now I filed my Reply. While it was pending, I filed my Supplemental Declaration informing the federal court of my VICTORY in the King County Superior Court. Then our Supplemental Declaration by Judith Calhoun and my Second Supplemental Declaration informing the federal court of Mercer Island's election to not continue the state court prosecution on remand. Finally, on January 30, 2003, he denied my Motion.
I have filed my Motion for Stay of Judgment Imposing Litigation Bar Pending Appeal, FRAP 8.
I now have filed my FRAP 8 Motion in the Ninth Circuit. After the State Officers filed their hysterical response to my Motion for Stay, I filed my Reply brief on this Motion. Then Mercer Island spends taxpayer money unnecessarily, filing their response to my Motion for Stay, and I filed a Reply Brief to their response.
I am now free to disclose to the public that I have settled this appeal with the City of Mercer Island, its officers, and with Superior Towing. However, the State Officers, Fred Stephens, Dennis Braddock, and Gary Locke, remain in the appeal, and issues with respect to the validity of the license suspension and the WorkFirst Act are still on the table for the 9th Circuit to decide. If these issues are not frivolous, then of course the litigation bar is still live.
My Brief of Appellant in the Ninth Circuit.
Title Page of State Brief. State Brief. Adobe Acrobat pdf file, 558 kb. You can download Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 for free at www.adobe.com
I have filed the Reply Brief of Appellant.
Now here is neat thing for Westlaw members: You write in the Search Box "human & trafficking & peonage" and search in a domain such as "All Federal Courts", and click "Go". Now in the center column you get a series of decisions that include these words. On the right column you will see such listings as for the Corpus Juris Secundum's listings for peonage. About Item 6, you will see my name, and you can click to read an excerpt of this Reply Brief of Appellant. Apparently Westlaw members and staff have a higher opinion of my arguments than certain judges.
I can be forgiven if I believe there are strange things afoot in how the Ninth Circuit handles this case. I received on August 29, 2003 two pages of a memorandum decision entered by this Court on June 23, 2003. Something about the Child Support Crusade and my repeated presentations of argument as to law with respect to the Antipeonage Act and to constitutional provisions intended to protect us from this kind of tyranny causes folks with law degrees, bar licenses and judicial offices to get loopy. These people graduated at the top of their classes all the way from kindergarten through law school. One would think they can handle this a little better than they do. Anyway, here is my Appellant's Motion for Recall of Mandate, for Extension of Time to File Petition for Rehearing, and Declaration by Roger W. Knight.
I subsequently obtained the complete 4 page Memorandum Decision.
This Motion was Denied on December 1, 2003. I finally received it on April 8, 2004 because this time, the Ninth Circuit sent it to the wrong address.
So, I filed with the Supreme Court of the United States my Motion for Leave to File a Late Petition for Writ of Certiorari. What else can I do?
In response, Mr. Jeffrey Atkins, a deputy clerk for the Supreme Court of the United States returned this paperwork and advised that I must send a Motion directing Clerk to File the Petition Out-of-Time and enclose the proposed Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Which I did. Both the Questions and the Argument.
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.
