XXX
Plaintiff,
vs.
XXX
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
XXX
hereinafter, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
Page 2 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff XXX Stephen Freeze is a law-abiding male adult of sound mind and a resident of 47996, 47972 Moen Rd, ( P. O. Box 12) Concrete, XXX
2. Defendant XXX is an adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is 600 S 3rd St #100, Mount Vernon, WA 98273. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity.
3. Defendant XXX, is an adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is 11 Depot Rd Stratham, NH 03885. She is being sued in her individual capacity.
4. Defendant XXX is an adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is 1800 Continental Pl #100, Mount Vernon, WA 98273. She is being sued in her individual and official capacity.
5. Defendant XXX , is an adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is 7906 Renic Dr., Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
6. Defendant XXX and the XXX , is a trust domiciled in the state of New Hampshire whose address known to Plaintiff is 11 Depot Rd Stratham, NH 03885.
7. Defendant XXX is an adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is 20388 Eric Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98274. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
Page 3 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
8. Defendant COUNTY OF SKAGIT is one of the counties of the State of Washington whose address known to Plaintiff is 1800 Continental Pl #100, Mount Vernon, WA 98273.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331.
2. Venue is proper before this Court because the facts and causes of action described herein took place within the Western District of Washington. 3. This case meets the requirements of federal reasons for jurisdiction because diversity jurisdiction is applicable, violations of the U.S. Constitution, and federal laws and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Plaintiff is a self-employed procurer of scrap metal, 35 years old, born in the house located at 47996, 47972 Moen Rd, Concrete, WA, hereinafter, Property, and residing at the same address since birth. Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington, united States.
2. There is no dispute before this court.
3. Defendants have agreed by consensual agreement, tacit assent, tacit consent, acquiescence, and silence by unrebutted affidavits that they have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and federal laws.
a. “Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.”
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981)
b. “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.” Data Disc 2 Inc v Systems Tech Assoc Inc., 557 F2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1977)
c. “In Commerce Truth is Sovereign. Truth is Expressed in the Form of an Affidavit.
Page 4 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
An Unrebutted Affidavit Stands as Truth in Commerce. An Unrebutted Affidavit Becomes the Judgment in Commerce. Bey v. Stumpf, no. 11-5684 (RBK) Dist. Court N.J (2011)
d. “If only one side of the conflict was supported by affidavit, our task would be relatively easy, for we may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.” Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967) See Exhibits 1 A, 2 A, 2 B, 2 C,
e. Defendants DON MCDERMOTT, LISA JANICKI, PAUL W, TAYLOR, RICHARD WEYRICH, RONALD WESEN, PETER BROWNING COUNTY OF SKAGIT and individuals BRET SACHTER, TRISHA LOGUE, , have received affidavits, a notice of default, and are all in default.
See Exhibits 10,11,12
4. Plantiff’s father, Peter Freeze, borrowed money with co-signers (his parents) and did pay off the loan for the purchase of Property. Co-signers Ronald and Ann Freeze put the property purchased in a Trust and made their son Power of Attorney for the Trust without revisiting the property from their home in New Hampshire in over 18 years. The property was never removed from the Trust. See Exhibit 7 & 8
5. Plaintiff’s grandparents failed to remove the Skagit county property of their son, Peter from their family trust. In the Plaintiff grandparent’s elder years, they assigned the position of Trustee to their daughter, Defendant, ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, hereinafter, GALLAGHER for convenience but left their son as Power of Attorney of the Trust. See Exhibit 1
5. Peter Freeze entered into an Oral contract with Plaintiff to guard, maintain and repair property that included a commercial sawmill and a residence in exchange for ownership of the property upon his demise. Plaintiff mowed the premises for 20 years, repaired the foundation of the sawmill and residence, rewired both
Page 5 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
structures, installed new water lines, and new septic systems, re=roofed both structures over the period of the last 20 years at Plaintiff’s full expense for labor, equipment, materials, monies and time.
6. Peter Freeze became sick and required Plaintiff to be his primary caretaker and remained on the property until his death, on November 13, 2021. 7. Within 2 days after Peter Freeze’s death, GALLAGHER, Defendant, JOSE T. ACUNA, hereinafter ACUNA, and Defendant, DON MCDERMOTT, Skagit County Sheriff, hereinafter McDERMOTT, conspired to forcible attempt to vacate Plaintiff from the property by breaking, entering, confiscating property, then changing the entry locks to Plaintiff’s home without his foreknowledge, permission or compensation to Plaintiff for any improvements upon the property. The oral contracts Plaintiff had with the Power of Attorney of Trust, Peter Freeze, were denied as well as any remuneration of completed tasks. See Exhibit 2 p. 10 8. Two days after Peter Freeze’s death, GALLAGHER and ACUNA, with the foreknowledge of MCDERMOTT, conspired to forcefully evict Plaintiff from his home as ACUNA had agreed to buy the property as soon as Plaintiff was removed from the property. ACUNA submitted an affidavit to the Skagit County Superior court case number, 22-2-20185-29 admitting he broke into Plaintiff’s home, while working in concert with GALLAGHER and at her direction violated Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment right. ACUNA, at GALLAGHER’S instruction, broke into Plaintiff’s home, stole a rifle, file folders containing purchase paper evidence, and Peter Freeze’s phone, then ACUNA removed the locks on the doors and replaced them
Page 6 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
with new locks and new keys locking Plaintiff out of his home, while Plaintiff was working, without his foreknowledge or permission. See Exhibit 2 page 10
9. Defendant ELIZABETH GALLAGHER is the ringleader of all the Defendants that has caused the mass collusion of private individuals, public officials, and a county government, across state lines, to work in concert to unlawfully cause her nephew, the Plaintiff, to be robbed, made homeless, destitute, and without solace in a time of grievance and with willful intent to deprive and deny Plaintiff that he was worthy of his hire, and that he should be properly recompensed for his labor and efforts, due him for 20 years of toil. GALLAGHER fabricated a false story, that the Trust that she was Trustee of, had “died” and was now in “probate” so the Plaintiff had to be removed from the Property of the Plaintiff’s home since being birthed in and resided in for over 35 years. All of the conspiring Defendants believed the embellishment conceived by GALLAGHER and enjoined GALLAGHER to inflict unlawful damage to Plaintiff. When in actuality, it was Peter Freeze, the Plaintiff’s father who died. Plaintiff was the only heir of Peter Freeze and there was NO probate ever in Skagit county or any county nationwide for the estate of Peter Freeze. All Defendants have unlawfully joined together to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1 RICO.
10. Plaintiff asked McDERMOTT to file a criminal report of the break-in, robbery, theft and violation of Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment right. McDERMOTT’s deputy informed Plaintiff that the property Plaintiff called his home was in probate and therefore no criminal report would be filed. Plaintiff’s father had died, and Plaintiff is the only heir, (not the sister of the deceased), the probate was an
Page 7 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
egregious embellishment of the truth and part of the scheme GALLAGHER used to unlawfully evict Plaintiff from his home. MCDERMOTT violated 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony by failing to report the crimes in Plaintiff’s affidavits and RCW 36.28.011, Duty to make a complaint.See Exhibit 3 11. McDERMOTT violated Title 42 – U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights violation -color of law and RCW 9A.80.010, Official misconduct.(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
12. Plaintiff filed a lis pendens and a UCC-1 lien upon the property and notified the Defendants that he would vacate the property as soon as the liens were paid. See Exhibit 4 & 5.
13. Defendants were each sent affidavits of truth notifying them of the laws broken.
14. Defendants took Plaintiff to court and sued for his eviction and Plaintiff represented himself pro per for economical reasons and failed to get the judge to be the guardian of his liberty. Plaintiff lost every motion entered even if the opposing attorney was late in responding or even if the attorney failed to appear in court to oppose Plaintiff.
15. Defendants, MCDERMOTT, GALLAGHER, ACUNA, JANICKI, TAYLOR, TRUST, COUNTY OF SKAGIT and individuals, LAURA M. RIQUELME, BRET SACHTER, and TRISHA LOGUE, proceeded to conduct their entire case
Page 8 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
on hearsay evidence. Not one witness with 1st hand knowledge was brought forth to testify or to be cross-examined. Violating Rule 802
16. Defendant PAUL W. TAYLOR, hereinafter TAYLOR, without any 1st hand knowledge presented all statements given without being “sworn in”. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment”, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647,
17. Now that Defendants have worked in concert to force Plaintiff from his home using 4 (four) armed deputies, the Defendants are conspiring to annihilate Plaintiff’s home by offering Plaintiff’s home to the local fire department to burn in a training exercise.
18. Plaintiff was diligent throughout the past 14 months of terror by the Defendants and sent affidavits to answer every mailed response sent by the Defendants. Plaintiff alerted the opposing attorney of U.S. laws that TAYLOR was violating. TAYLOR as an officer of the court, violated Plaintiff’s civil rights and Due Process Title 42 – U.S.C. § 1983 and Misprision of Felony – 18 U.S. Code § 4 by failing to report the crimes in Plaintiff’s affidavits committed against Plaintiff to civil or military authority.
19. All Defendants, that received affidavits are in default as they did not answer. Affidavits were sent registered, certified, return receipt or first class U. S. P. S mail. See Exhibit 9
20. The unrebutted affidavits are true and prima facie before this court. 21. Defendant LAURA M. RIQUELME, hereinafter, RIQUELME, a Skagit county and a Washington State Employee, has not had an official bond on file with the
Page 9 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
Auditor or the Clerk of Skagit County since she was elected in 2019 and assumed her official position in January, 2021. RIQUELME has been in violation of RCW 36.16.050, Official bonds. Every county official before he or she enters upon the duties of his or her office shall furnish a bond conditioned that he or she will faithfully perform the duties of his or her office as she has never complied with this law. Therefore RIQUELME has masqueraded as a superior court judge since her election and her judgments against Plaintiff are null and void ab initio. 22. RIQUELME was made aware on or about December 9th, 2022, by a mandatory judicial notice that the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights had been violated, several federal laws violated and that in a challenge of the jurisdiction to the court that the case should be transferred to federal court. Plaintiff’s challenge of jurisdiction was denied indicating that the superior court would retain jurisdiction. RIQUELME violated her oath of office, acting “under color of law” to deprive civil rights and 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony, failed to report felonies 23. On or about June 2, 2022, RIQUELME ruled in favor of Defendants TAYLOR, TRUST and GALLAGHER without having an official current bond and Oath of Office on file or considering Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment that was filed prior to Defendants’ Summary Judgement. 24. Plaintiff’s civil rights and Due Process Title 42 – U.S.C. § 198 were violated by RIQUELME when the court refused to acknowledge that it refused to be the guardian of Plaintiff’s liberties by failing to remand superior court case no. 22-2-
Page 10 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
00163-29 to a federal court and was guilty of Misprision of Felony – 18 U.S. Code § 4 by failing to report the crimes in Plaintiff’s affidavits committed against Plaintiff to civil or military authority.
a. a prior ex parte hearing, Plaintiff attempted to confront Jose T. Acuna in which Judge Verge presided. Defendant TAYLOR objected saying he and his client had nothing to do with the ex parte hearing.
b. Judge Verge told Plaintiff to address his issues to case No. 22-20016329. Plaintiff did that. Plaintiff refiled with the above case number. c. RIQUELME ruled that Plaintiff had violated a rule and sanctioned Plaintiff for violating a rule that did not apply.. RIQUELME failed to be the guardian of Plaintiff’s liberty, Platsky v. CIA, Haines v. Kerner, and ruled Plaintiff had to pay a sanction holding plaintiff to a higher standard of attorney even though plaintiff appeared pro per.
d. Several months later TAYLOR entered an Amicus Curiae in Case No. 22-2-20185-29 stating he and his client were a part of the subject matter in case No. 22-20016329 that he previously had Plaintiff Sanctioned for. See Exhibit 6
25. On or about July 29, 2022, ACUNA filed in Skagit Superior Court, an affidavit confirming his unlawful crimes conspired against Plaintiff with GALLAGHER that was previously alleged by Plaintiff. See Exhibit 2 page 10
26. Plaintiff filed for an Appeal for the Summary Judgement with case no. No. 842544.
27. On or about October 31, 2022, Defendants TAYLOR, TRUST and GALLAGHER then had RIQUELME impose a $250,000 bond before Plaintiff could proceed with an open appeal. Plaintiff is self-employed and now unemployed without access to his shop and metals that he accumulated to sell on his property. Defendants knew Plaintiff would not qualify for this exorbitant bond and failed to be the guardian of Plaintiff’s Liberty. Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 26., Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. It is
Page 11 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
obvious RIQUELME acted in a biased manner. This is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and the right to redress grievances with the government, and denial of due process.
28. On or about December 9th, 2022, Plaintiff challenged jurisdiction and was denied, Plaintiff requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which RIQUELME has failed to deliver.
29. Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Vacate court order of October 31, 2022, it was denied and the court ordered Plaintiff to vacate the Property by December 1, 2022 followed by a Writ of ejectment executed by MCDERMOTT.
30. On or about December 23rd, 2022, Judge Yost denied all motions and requests made by Plaintiff to date. Defendant, Paul Taylor requested that Plaintiff not be allowed to enter any more submissions to the court. Defendant Paul Taylor’s reasoning was “We have to put a stop to these Pro se filings that clog the court with frivolous bizarre interpretations of Constitutional law.” Judge Yost granted Defendant PAUL W. TAYLOR’S request and added that until Plaintiff paid a $1750 sanction he was prohibited to submit any documents to the court and furthermore if he paid the $1750, he would then have to get permission from the court before the documents would be filed by the clerk This new evidence is a clear violation of Plaintiff’s 1st Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and due process of law. 31. On or about February 4, 2023, Plaintiff sent an affidavit notice to the Skagit County Administrator, Trisha Logue, of the felonies the employees of Skagit County had participated in or failed to report to civil authorities that were assailed against
Page 12 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
Plaintiff. The County of Skagit failed to respond or protect Plaintiff violating 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony by failing to report the crimes in Plaintiff’s affidavits.
32. There is no dispute before this court
33. Each affidavit sent by Plaintiff contained an invoice that Defendants agreed to the correct amount they owed. None of the Defendants answered even one of Plaintiff’s affidavits.
34. Affidavits from Plaintiff to Defendants detailed the crimes committed, dates committed, and the perpetrator of the crimes. All Defendants agree they violated the Laws described.
35. Plaintiff is without a home, homeless, and without any means of maintaining a livelihood as all his home, shop, and materials to sell are refused him by the court. Plaintiff now lives in his car.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
36. Equitable estoppel is the legal doctrine that prevents Defendants from taking a position that is contrary to their previous position, This rule prevents Defendants from going back on their word in a court of law. Defendants are estopped from rebutting affidavits. Defendants forfeited their rights to refute their affidavits after 33 days of non-response.
37. The Defendants were in violation of both federal and state laws hence the need to cease and desist.
Page 13 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
38. Defendant GALLAGHER, ACUNA, and MCDERMOTT, conspired with BRET SACHTER, hereinafter SACHTER and, TAYLOR to violate Plaintiff’s 1st & 4th Amendment rights to be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and due process of law.
39. Defendants, MCDERMOTT, LISA JANICKI, hereinafter, JANICKI, were all sent affidavits of crime with the notice that Plaintiff had felonies committed against him in Skagit county, and as his elected officials upholding the Constitution would be required to notify the superior court, appellant court, Supreme court or military as per 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony. These Defendants violated their oaths of office and did not notify the proper authorities that Plaintiff was a victim of crimes in Skagit county.
40. These elected officials, MCDERMOTT, and, JANICKI are thus not entitled to qualified immunity as they violated “clearly established law,” codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1st and 14th Amendments, denying due process of law, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances of infringement upon the rights of Eric Stephen Freeze.
41. Defendant Skagit County Commissioner JANICKI, and Defendant MCDERMOTT were apprised that felonies had been committed against Plaintiff via sworn affidavits.
42. All Defendants have violated 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony by failing to report the crimes in Plaintiff’s affidavits.
43. The Skagit County elected Officials, DONALD McDERMOTT, Sheriff, and LISA JANICKI, Commissioner, a state employee have all violated numerous
Page 14 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
federal laws and have admitted to their violations by tacit assent, and are in default for a cure.
44. The Federal laws violated by Defendants listed as Skagit County elected Officials are in violation: of their oaths of office, the 1st and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitutions, Title 42 – U.S.C. § 1983, repeated violations of Freedom of Information Act Section FOIA, 25-19-104, Civil rights act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1 RICO. Defendants MCDERMOTT, JANICKI, TAYLOR, and COUNTY OF SKAGIT worked in concert with ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, and JOSE ACUNA in a pattern and practice to harm and perform unlawful actions against Plaintiff by failing to enforce and uphold the laws of the United States, the U.S. Constitution, and the state of Washington. The Skagit County elected officials failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s pleas for protection, relief from lawlessness or attempts of redress of grievances and failed to perform their official duties including the reporting of felonies to Superior, Appellate, Supreme courts or the military. 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony
45. The Defendants were thus in violation Article V section 16, Washington Constitution 1889, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall never be restrained or abridged.
46. The Defendants were thus in violation of Article V section 5 Washington Constitution 1889, by depriving Plaintiff of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and equal protection under the law. Washington Constitution 1889
Page 15 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
adopted the Constitution of the United States as a Supreme Law. (National Archives, Washington D. C.)
47. The Defendants were thus in violation of their oath of office. Deprivation of rights under color of law 18 U.S. Code § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 241 RCW 29A.56.110: neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law. [ 2003 c 111 1407; 1984 c 170 1; 1975-’76 2nd ex., (also RCW 9a.80.010), RCW 36.28.011
48. The section provides as follows;
“Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
Page 16 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.”
49. The elected Defendants were thus guilty of misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of their Oath of Office since their action interfered with the performance of the official duty of the Plaintiff by failing file a criminal report, investigate the crimes and indict the self-confessed criminals.
50. The elected Defendants are also guilty of a misdemeanor, precisely, the failure of duty by public officer. RCW 42.20.100 provides failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor as follows;
“Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.”
(2) “Disclosable information” means public information that (a) is not exempt from disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW; and (b) does not pertain to an ongoing investigation.
Page 17 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
(3) “Fraud” means an intentional deception or misrepresentation made by a person with the knowledge that the deception could result in some unauthorized benefit to himself or herself or some other person.
(4) “Office” means the office of fraud and accountability.
51. The elected Defendants were thus guilty of FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 and misrepresentation by alerting the Plaintiff that he had to vacate his home without due process using the pretense of a probate cause required the Sheriff to force eviction. Plaintiff, the only heir of Peter Freeze, knew the “Trust” didn’t die, and assumed the probate must have been for the rightful owner, his dad, Peter Freeze. This was an embellishment by Defendant XXX 0
that was accepted by Sheriff DON McDERMOTT who then enjoined the embellishment with JOSE T. ACUNA agreeing to force Eric Stephen Freeze from his home of 35 years even though there was no death or need for probate in a TRUST.
52. Moreover, the Defendants were in violation of RCW 9A.80.010 which makes provision for official misconduct thus;
“(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
i. He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
ii. He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.”
Page 18 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
53. The Defendants forced Plaintiff from his home with a bogus writ of ejectment, failed to protect Plaintiff from the violations of his constitutional rights, and secured Plaintiff’s personal property.
54. The Defendants were also intentionally and repeatedly in violation of RCW 42.56.520 which provides for prompt responses. Local government agencies are required by the provision to respond to a public records request within five business days of receiving the request by doing one of the following: Providing for inspection and/or copying of the records requested. the Defendants willfully neglected to give responses to Plaintiff upon request. Willful neglect to answer Public Records and FOIA Requests.
55. The Defendants are further guilty of a gross misdemeanor by violating RCW 29A.56.110. RCW 29A.84.020 precisely provides that every officer who willfully violates RCW 29A.56.110 through 29A.56.270, for the violation of which no penalty is prescribed in this title or who willfully fails to comply with the provisions of RCW 29A.56.110 through 29A.56.270 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
56. RCW 9A.82.060 provides for leading organized crime. Precisely, that intentionally organizing, managing, directing, supervising, or financing any three or more persons with the intent to engage in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity. All elected officials listed in this notice have committed and admitted the prior listed crimes. Moreover, each elected official named in this notice, that has received an affidavit from the Plaintiff has committed the detailed crimes and admitted to the listed crimes by tacit assent, tacit consent, acquiescence, and or
Page 19 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
silence in at least 3 unrebutted affidavits and are thus guilty of organized crime, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1 RICO.
57. Plaintiff requests Judicial Notice as per Rule 201 (b)(2) and (c)(2). There is no dispute before this court. The undisputed affidavits submitted to this court is a testament affirmed in Jurat and made with Public Notice prior to this case being filed in this court and now stand to make this judgment prima facie case. These facts in the unrebutted affidavits conclude that the Defendants are in agreement with all the facts submitted by Plaintiff. Defendants forfeited their right to rebut these affidavits after 33 days of grace to deny or contradict Plaintiff’s affidavits, and they did not. Therefore, Defendants are prevented by estoppel from taking a position that is contrary to their previous positions.
V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
a. That a ruling be issued under the Seal of this Court finding and declaring that the Plaintiff, is granted Leave of Court, per RCW 42.08.030, to pursue the Official Bonds of the Defendants for the damages described in the pleadings and Plaintiffs affidavits.
b. That a ruling be issued under the Seal of this Court finding and declaring that the Plaintiff, be granted Leave of Court to pursue reimbursement from the Defendants, DONALD MCDERMOTT, and LISA JANICKI and in their private individual capacities, and not as Public Officials.
Page 20 of 20 Freeze Amended Complaint
U.S. Western District Court
c. Plaintiff is granted Leave of Court to pursue claims on all Official Bonds of XXX , and official’s employees and appointees acting in the official capacity and under the bond of the elected officials,
d. AWARD judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants;
e. AWARD Plaintiff damages in the sum of $7,787,885.00;
f. ISSUE an immediate Order of Specific Performance allowing Plaintiff back into his home and Property without restrictions until this matter is settled in this court.
g. AWARD Plaintiff punitive damages;
h. AWARD Plaintiff costs of this suit and attorney’s fees;
i. AWARD Plaintiff such equitable relief as this Court deems fair under the circumstances; and
j. AWARD Plaintiff such further relief as this Court deems fit and proper.
k. That this court refers this matter to an appropriate law enforcement agency for a criminal investigation of what has been reported in this complaint and the attached affidavits, and for other crimes as the court finds appropriate.
Dated this _______ day of XXX . Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________________
XXX
Plaintiff in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )