FourWinds10.com - Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

YOU CAN LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY SECRETLY TAPE RECORD COPS, CPS SOCIAL WORKERS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS, JUDGES AND COURT HEARINGS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!

Luis Ewing

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

Jan. 6, 2015
 
(READ THE FOUR DOCUMENTS MR. EWUING SENT, IIN HTHM OR PDF)++++
 
YOU CAN TELL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . “YOU’RE NOT A COP, YOU DON’T HAVE A WARRANT, GET THE FUCK OF MY FRONT PORCH, GET THE FUCK OFF MY PROPERTY OR I WILL CALL 911 AND HAVE YOU REMOVED FOR TRESPASSING AND IF YOU COME BACK, I WILL GET A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST YOU AT THE LOCAL DISTRICT COURT.”
 
 
THE SAME APPLIES TO THE DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS!
 
 
IF THE STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS CONTINUE WITH THEIR LIES FALSELY CLAIMING THAT THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE AND YOU HAVE TO LET THEM IN ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE A CPS SOCIAL WORKER AND FLASH THEIR PHONY TIN BADGE AT YOU, CALL 911 AND CHARGE THE CPS SOCIAL WORKER WITH IMPERSONATING A POLICE OFFICER UNDER RCW 9A.60 040 AND/OR RCW 9A.60.045:
 
“RCW 9A.60.040  Criminal impersonation in the first degree.
 
(1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the first degree if the person:
 
(a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose; or
 
(b) Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization or a public servant and does an act in his or her pretended capacity with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose.
 
(2) Criminal impersonation in the first degree is a class C felony.
 
[2004 c 11 § 1; 2003 c 53 § 78; 1993 c 457 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.60.040.]
 
Notes:
Effective date -- 2004 c 11: "This act takes effect July 1, 2004." [2004 c 11 § 3.]
Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.”  And; 
 
 
“RCW 9A.60.045  Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
 
(1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if the person:
 
(a)(i) Claims to be a law enforcement officer or creates an impression that he or she is a law enforcement officer; and
 
(ii) Under circumstances not amounting to criminal impersonation in the first degree, does an act with intent to convey the impression that he or she is acting in an official capacity and a reasonable person would believe the person is a law enforcement officer; or
 
(b) Falsely assumes the identity of a veteran or active duty member of the armed forces of the United States with intent to defraud for the purpose of personal gain or to facilitate any unlawful activity.
 
(2) Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
 
[2004 c 124 § 1; 2004 c 11 § 2; 2003 c 53 § 79.]
 
Notes:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2004 c 11 § 2 and by 2004 c 124 § 1, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Effective date -- 2004 c 124: "This act takes effect July 1, 2004." [2004 c 124 § 2.]
Effective date -- 2004 c 11: See note following RCW 9A.60.040.
Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.”  And; 
 
 
 
YOU CAN SECRETLY RECORD THE STUPID LYING BITCH BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS WITHOUT INFORMING THEM AND USE THEIR LIES AGAINST THEM IN OPEN COURT AND THE HOMOSEXUAL DEVIANT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS LIKE PETER GAY WON’T BE ABLE TO KEEP THE LAWFULLY SECRET RECORDINGS OF THESE STUPID LYING BITCHES OUT OF EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT,  THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND WASHINGTON APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECRETLY TAPE RECORD COPS, CPS SOCIAL WORKERS,  GUARDIAN AD LITEMS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND JUDGES IN ALL PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING PUBLIC COURT ROOMS AND WITHOUT THE JUDGES PERMISSION AND WE DON’T EVEN HAVE TO INFORM THE JUDGES THAT WE ARE RECORDING ANY PUBLIC HEARING IN ANY PUBLIC COURT ROOM IN ANY PUBLIC BUILDING!
 
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE PERMISSION OR CONSENT OF THE BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO RECORD THEM!
 
YOU CAN SECRETLY TAPE THE BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS AND USE THEIR LIES AGAINST THEM IN OPEN COURT!
 
IF THE THE BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR THE JUST AS DIZZY BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE RECORDING THEM, YOU CAN LEGALLY LIE TO THEM AND SAY NO, THAT YOU ARE NOT RECORDING THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONTEMPT OF THE BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONTEMPT OF THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS AND BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER OATH IN A COURT ROOM, YOU CAN LIE TO THESE DIZZY BROADS ALL DAY LONG AND SECRETLY RECORD THEM WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION AND YOU CAN ADMIT THESE TAPES INTO EVIDENCE AS AN ER 103 (2) OFFER OF PROOF THAT THESE STUPID LYING BITCHES ARE COMMITTING PERJURY ON A DAILY BASIS TO FURTHER THEIR UNDERLYING GENERAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FELONY KIDNAPPING!
 
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ONLY THE CROOKED, DIRTY AND DISHONEST THE BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR THE JUST AS DIZZY BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE WORRIED THAT YOU MIGHT BE RECORDING THEM, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH CONDUCTING ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND WANT TO GET AWAY WITH VIOLATING YOUR RIGHTS!
 
BY SECRETLY RECORDING THE BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS WITHOUT INFORMING THEM,  YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THE MUCH NEEDED EVIDENCE TO GET THAT CROOKED, DIRTY AND DISHONEST BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS FIRED AND YOU BE ABLE TO SUE HIM OR HER THAT MUCH EASIER!
 
AN HONEST BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKER AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS WHO IS JUST DOING HIS OR HER JOB AND FOLLOWING THE LAW DOESN’T CARE IF YOU ARE RECORDING HIM OR HER BECAUSE HE OR SHE KNOWS THAT HE OR SHE IS AN HONEST BRAINLESS BIMBO OR JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO DOES EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK!
 
ONLY THE CROOKED, DIRTY AND DISHONEST BRAINLESS BIMBO STUPID LYING BITCH CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS DON’T WANT YOU RECORDING THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING CAUGHT IN THEIR LIES!
 
ONLY THE HOMOSEXUALLY DEVIANT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS LIKE PETER GAY DON’T WANT YOU TO RECORD YOUR COURT HEARINGS, BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID THAT HIM AND THEIR CONSPIRATOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES WHO ARE LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME WILL GET CAUGHT TAMPERING WITH THE COURT REPORTERS TRANSCRIPTS!
 
YOU NOT NEED THE JUDGES PERMISSION TO RECORD ANY PUBLIC HEARING IN ANY PUBLIC COURT ROOM IN ANY PUBLIC COURT HOUSE!
 
THE JUDGE ONLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE PRESS AND THE NEWS MEDIA PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULE GR 16!
 
RULE GR 16 COURT ROOM PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECORDING BY THE NEWS MEDIA ONLY APPLIES TO THE PRESS AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PUBLIC!
 
HERE IS THE RULE THAT PROVES THAT WASHINGTON STATE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL PETER GAY IS A LYING PIECE OF SHIT:
 
https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=GR&ruleid=gagr16
 
 
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT GR 16 ONLY APPLIES TO THE PRESS AND THE NEWS MEDIA!
 
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT GR 16 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PARENTS IN ANY FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING!
 
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECORD ALL DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS IN SECRET WITHOUT INFORMING THE JUDGE AND WITHOUT THE JUDGES PERMISSION!
 
ONLY THE DISHONEST AND CRIMINALLY CORRUPT CROOKED JUDGES (JESUITS AND MASONS) ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOU RECORDING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH THE FELONY CRIMES OF TAMPERING WITH THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS!
 
 
“We agree with the Special Term’s conclusion that appellants have offered no justifiable basis for prohibiting the use of unobtrusive, hand-held tape recording devices at its public meetings (see, People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc. 2d 1105; Committee on Open Government, Advisory Opinion on Open Meetings Law, Oct. 27, 1983; 1980 Opns Atty Gen 145; see also, Feldman v. Town of Bethel, 106 AD2d 695). . . . Matter of Davidson v. Common Council, 40 Misc. 2d 1053, 1056).”  Mitchell v. Board of Educ. of Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 924, 493 N.Y.S.2d 826 (September 30, 1985);
 
 
A TRULY HONORABLE AND HONEST JUDGE WON’T GIVE A DAMN IF YOU ARE SECRETLY RECORDING ANY COURT CASE, BECAUSE HE IS AN HONEST JUDGE THAT DOES NOT COMMIT THE FELONY CRIMES OF ALTERING AND TAMPERING WITH THE COURT REPORTERS TRANSCRIPTS!
 
 
“If a shorthand record of a such a meeting is more accurate than long hand notes, then the use of shorthand is to be approved and if the making of a tape record is a still better method of memorializing the acts of a public body it should be encouraged.”  Nevins v. City of Chino, 233 C.A.2d 775, 778-79; 44 Cal Rptr. 501 (April 22, 1965).
 
 
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECORD ALL TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN SECRET WITHOUT INFORMING THE JUDGE AND WITHOUT THE JUDGES PERMISSION!
 
 
“Minutes which purport to abridge and to summarize what went before at best involve a process of subjective judgment calls; and may well, by inadvertence or by design, lead to a finished product which bears only a distant resemblance to the original.  A tape recording of the meeting could therefore act as an insurance policy against imperfections in the official record.”  Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F.Supp. 379, 383 (June 30, 1983).
 
 
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECORD ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN SECRET WITHOUT INFORMING THE JUDGE AND WITHOUT THE JUDGES PERMISSION!
 
 
“As no one is harmed, the use of a silent tape recorder operated exclusively by the person interested in making such a record must be permitted.”  Sudol v. Borough of North Arlington, 348 A.2d 216, 219 (Nov. 5, 1975).
 
 
ONLY THE DISHONEST AND CRIMINALLY CORRUPT CROOKED JOHN 8:44 LYING JUDGES ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOU RECORDING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH COMMITTING THE FELONY CRIME OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, MEANING THE COURT REPORTERS TRANSCRIPTS!
 
 
“To prevent star-chamber injustice, the public should generally have unrestricted access to all proceedings.”  State ex rel. Miami Herald v. McIntosh, 340 S.E.2d 904 (Fla. 1977).
 
 
SO TAPE YOUR COURT HEARING WITHOUT TELLING THEM AND WAIT UNTIL YOU GET CERTIFIED COPIES OF YOUR COURT HEARING TRANSCRIPTS!
 
 
Article 1, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution clearly reads:
 
 
“SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  And;
 
 
“I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition in that case, that, if a public trial has not been accorded the accused, the burden is upon him to show that actual injury has been suffered by a deprivation of his constitutional right.  On the contrary, when he shows that his constitutional right has been violated, the law conclusively presumes that he has suffered an actual injury.  I go further, and say the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated in the person of the humblest or meanest citizen of the state.  The constitution does not stop to inquire of what the person has been accused , or what crime he has perpetrated; but it accords to all, without question, a fair, impartial,  and public trial.’”  State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923).  See former RCW 13.04.090.
 
 
WHEN THEY PRODUCE THEIR BS ALTERED TRANSCRIPTS, YOU CAN NOW FILE CERTIFIED COPIES OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS ATTACHED TO AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAMILY COURT JUDGE AND THE COURT REPORTER WITH RCW 40.16.030 OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING OR RECORD IN YOUR COURT CASE AND SEND THESE CHILD STEALING AND CHILD SELLING CRIMINALS TO PRISON FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES!
 
 
“RCW 40.16.030  Offering false instrument for filing or record.
 
Every person who shall knowingly procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
[2003 c 53 § 216; 1992 c 7 § 36; 1909 c 249 § 97; RRS § 2349.] And;
 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=40.16.030
 
 
 
RCW 9A.60.050 FALSE CERTIFICATION . . . clearly reads:
 
 
“RCW 9A.60.050  False certification.
(1) A person is guilty of false certification, if, being an officer authorized to take a proof or acknowledgment of an instrument which by law may be recorded, he or she knowingly certifies falsely that the execution of such instrument was acknowledged by any party thereto or that the execution thereof was proved.
(2) False certification is a gross misdemeanor.
[2011 c 336 § 384; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 15; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.60.050 .]
Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.”  And; 
 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.60.050
 
 
 
 
RCW 42.20.040 FALSE REPORT . . . clearly reads:
 
 
“RCW 42.20.040  False report.
Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.]
 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.20.040
 
 
 
RCW 42.20.050 PUBLIC OFFICER MAKING FALSE CERTIFICATE . . . clearly reads:
 
 
 
“RCW 42.20.050  Public officer making false certificate.
Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he or she knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[2012 c 117 § 115; 1909 c 249 § 128; RRS § 2380.]”
 
 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.20.050
 
 
 
 
RCW 38.38.744  [Art. 107] False official statements . . . clearly reads:
 
 
“RCW 38.38.744  [Art. 107] False official statements.
Any person subject to this code who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court martial may direct.
[1963 c 220 § 105.]
 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.38.744
 
 
 
ONLY THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND THEIR LEADERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME, THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES WILL BE WORRIED THAT YOU MIGHT BE TAPING THE PROCEEDINGS!
 
 
AN HONEST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND AN HONEST JUDGE WON’T CARE IF YOU ARE TAPING THE PROCEEDING, QUITE THE OPPOSITE, THEY WILL BE HAPPY AND APPRECIATIVE THAT YOU HAVE A BETTER QUALITY REPRODUCTION OF THE HEARING THAT IS MORE ACCURATE WHEN THEIR TRANSCRIBER SCREWED UP BY SO CALLED ACCIDENT, RECORDING ELIMINATES HUMAN ERROR AND IT ELIMINATES FRAUD AND FORGERY BY CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS!
 
 
“If a shorthand record of a such a meeting is more accurate than long hand notes, then the use of shorthand is to be approved and if the making of a tape record is a still better method of memorializing the acts of a public body it should be encouraged.”  Nevins v. City of Chino, 233 C.A.2d 775, 778-79; 44 Cal Rptr. 501 (April 22, 1965).
 
 
“Minutes which purport to abridge and to summarize what went before at best involve a process of subjective judgment calls; and may well, by inadvertence or by design, lead to a finished product which bears only a distant resemblance to the original.  A tape recording of the meeting could therefore act as an insurance policy against imperfections in the official record.”  Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F.Supp. 379, 383 (June 30, 1983).
 
 
 
* * * 
 
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL JUVENILE FAMILY COURTS!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL SUPERIOR COURTS!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL THE PARENTAL DEFICIENCY CLASSES!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL CPS OFFICES!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLASSES!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL URINALYSIS DRUG TESTING CENTERS!
 
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO HAND OUT MY FREE FLYERS AT ALL HOSPITAL BIRTHING CENTERS!
 
 
* * *
 
 
CASH ONLY DONATIONS ARE NEEDED TO HELP FURTHER LUIS EWING’S RESEARCH AND EXPOSING OF THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES CRIMES OF LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME OF FELONY KIDNAPING, FELONY CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, FELONY CHILD STEALING, FELONY CHILD SELLING, BANK FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING!
 
CASH ONLY DONATIONS ARE NEEDED!
 
PLEASE SEND CASH ONLY DONATIONS SO THAT LUIS EWING CAN RESEARCH AND PUT OUT MORE FREE FIGHT CPS FLYERS TO:
 
Luis Ewing
c/o General Delivery,
(City of) Moclips,
The State of Washington [98562]
 
 
Sincerely
 
Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 335-1322 or call me on SKYPE at <luisewing>
 
 
 
“One man with courage is a majority.”  Thomas Jefferson
 
“One man with God is the majority.”  Luis Ewing
 
“One man with the law is the majority.”  Luis Ewing
 
“God’s law is the only law that exist’s.”  Luis Ewing
 
“The revised codes of all 50 States are not the law.”  Parosa v. Tacoma, supra
 
 
 
 
“If ye love wealth better than liberty,  the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,  go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you,  and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”  - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776.
 
 
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary,  exactly like his love of sense,  justice and truth.  He is not actually happy when free;  he is uncomfortable,  a bit alarmed,  and intolerably lonely.  Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men.  It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority,  like knowledge,  courage and honor.  It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty -- and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."  -- H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, Feb. 12, A. D. 1923
 
 
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man – brave – hated – scorned.  When his cause succeeds,  however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” Mark Twain
 
 
“There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.”  - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
 
Those who expect to reap the blessing of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”  Thomas Paine
 
 
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety and lose both.”  Benjamin Franklin
 
 
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill - The Second World War
 
 
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
 
 
 
PS –   THE 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at <http://www.americanvision.com> at MATHEW Chapter 19, verse 21 further says:
 
 
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, and follow me.”  Mathew 19:21 and Mark 10:19
 
“And when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.”  Mathew 19:22 and Mark 10:22
 
“Then Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.”  Mathew 19:23 and Mark 10:23 & 10:24
 
“And I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”  Mathew 19:24 and Mark 10:25
 
“And when his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?”  Mathew 19:25 and Mark 10:26
 
“And Jesus beheld hem, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”  Mathew 19:26 and Mark 10:27
 
“Then answered Peter, and said to him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee: what therefore shall we have?”  Mathew 19:27 and Mark 10:28
 
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake and the Gospels, . . .:” Mark 10:28
 
“But he shall receive an hundredfold, now at this present, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.”  Mark 10:30
 
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say to you, that when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his Majesty, ye which followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.”  Mathew 19:28
 
“And when the Son of man cometh in his glory and all the holy Angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, . . .”  Mathew 25:31
 
“And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats.”  Mathew 25:32
 
“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on the left.”  Mathew 25:33
 
“Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my father: take the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”  Mathew 25:34
 
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me unto you.”  Mathew 25:35
 
“I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”  Mathew 25:36
 
“Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee?  Or athirst, and gave thee drink.”  Mathew 25:37
 
“And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in unto us? or naked, and clothed thee?  Mathew  25:38
 
“Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?”  Mathew 25:39
 
“And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.”  Mathew 25:40
 
“Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart from my ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.”  Mathew 25:41
 
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me no drink.”  Mathew 25:42
 
“I was a stranger, and ye took me not in unto you: I was naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.”  Mathew 25:43
 
“Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?”  Mathew 25:44
 
“Then shall he answer them, and say, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”  Mathew 25:45
 
“And these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal.”  Mathew 25:46
 
 
 
AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE LAW . . . “WITHOUT ADMISSION” . . . by the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT:  RCW  2.48.190;  RCW 38.38.256;  5 U.S.C. 500 (b);  RCW 34.05.428 (1)(2);  RCW 4.92.100 (1)(b)(ii); RCW 4.96.020; RCW 7.04A.160; RCW 7.68.270; RCW 7.69.030 (14); RCW 7.69.040; RCW 10.14.09; RCW 10.21.060;  RCW 11.94.010; RCW 11.94.050 (1);   RCW 64.36.035; RCW 26.16.090;  RCW 26.25.010;  RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a);  RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a);  RCW 26.26.011 (19);  RCW 26.27.021 (16);  RCW 26.27.041; WAC 242-02-110;  25 U.S.C. 1321; 25 U.S.C. 1322;  18 U.S.C. § 1154;  18 U.S.C. § 1161;  18 U.S.C. § 2265;  25 U.S.C. § 1301;  25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4);  25 U.S.C. § 1903 (8);  25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a)(b)(c);  25 U.S.C. § 1901 -1963 (“ICWA”);  25 U.S.C. § 3631;  43 U.S.C. 1602;  44 Fed. Reg. 67584 to 67595 (1979);  26 CFR § 305.7871-1 (a);  26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(40)(A);  31 CFR Subtitle A,  § 10.3;  8 CFR Ch. 1,  § 292.1;  8 U.S.C. § 1401 (b);  25 U.S.C. § 465;  RCW 2.48.170;  RCW 2.48.180 (7);  APR 1.1 (a);  GR 24 (b)(8);  Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881;  28 U.S.C. § 1333;  28 U.S.C. § 1652;  FRCP Rule 64;  RCW 4.04.010;  RCW 1.12.030; RCW 9A.04.060;  RCW 9.81.120;  RCW 10.14.020 (1);  RCW 10.14.020 (2);  RCW 9A.50.060;  31 CFR Subtitle A;  31 CFR Subtitle A,  § 10.3;  8 CFR Ch. 1,  § 292.1;  8 CFR 292.1-3;  25 CFR 20; 14 CFR 300.1-6, 302.11;  12 CFR 19.3;  16 CFR 1024.61;  7CFR 273;  7 CFR 50.27;  35 U.S.C. §§ 31-33;  57 CFR 1.34;  5 CFR part 1201;  32 CFR 12.40, 12.45;  45 CFR 205;  21 CFR 1316.50;  20 CFR 802.201 (b), 802.202;  20 CFR 501.11;  45 U.S.C. 3153;  45 U.S.C. § 151;  20 CFR 725.362 (a), 725.365, 725.366 (b);  46 CFR 201.21;  38 CFR 14;  12 CFR 308.04;  18 CFR 385.2101;  29 CFR 2700.3 (b);  31 U.S.C. 731-32;  4 CFR 11, 28,  GAO Orders 2713.2, 2752.1 and 2777.1;  13 CFR Part 10; 31 U.S.C. 330;  49 CFR 1103;  49 CFR 1103.3;  12 CFR 747;  29 CFR 1200;  49 CFR 821, 831, 845;  29 CFR 2200.22);  13 CFR 121.11, 134.16;  42 U.S.C 406 (a);  20 CFR 416, subpart O;  29 CFR 1614.605;  40 CFR 124, 164.30, 22.10;  Schoonover v. State, 116 Wn.App. 171, 64 P.3d 677 (March 11, 2003);  Blanton v. U.S., 896 F.Supp. 1451, at 1463 (April 15, 1995);  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984);  United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2924, 53 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1977);  Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 52 N.E.2d 27 (Mass., 1943);  U.S. v. Tarlowksi, 69-2 U.S.T.C., DC. E. DIST. N.Y.) 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969);  In re Petition of Burson,  909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995);  Oregon State Bar. v. Ortiz, 713 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Or.App. 1986);  People By Lefkowitz v. Lawrence Peska Assoc., 393 N.Y.S.2d 650, 652 (1977);  Pulse v. North American Land Title Co., 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985);  Cain v. National Bank and Trust Co.,  268 N.W. 719, 723 (N.D. 1936);  Louisiana Bar Ass’n v. Edwin,  519 So.2d 93 (La. 1988);  Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997);  In re Joseph Children, 470 S.E.2d 539 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996);  Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (D. Colo. 1992);  Taylor v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 874 P.2d 806,  809 (Okla. 1994);  State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 371 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. 1962); State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. Indiana Real Estate Ass’n Inc., 191 N.E.2d 711 (Ind., 1963); Ingham County Bar Ass’n v. Walter Neller & Co., 69 N.W.2d 713 (Mich., 1955); Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.E2d 855 (Mo., 1952); Cowern v. Nelson, 290 N.W. 795 (Minn., 1940); Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows Inc., et al., 377 P.2d 334, 340 (Ore., 1962); LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co., 368 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (1948); Conway-Boque Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957); Lawyers and The Realtors:  Arizona’s Experience, 49 ABAJ 139 (Feb. 1963); 32 N.J. 430, 161 A.2d 257, AT 264 (N.J. - 1970);  Board of Immigration Appeals; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce;  Department of Health and Human Services;  Public Health and Human Services; Department of Justice;  Department of Transportation;  Department of Veteran Affairs; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs Service;  The Judiciary Act of 1789,  September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, CHAP. XX Sec. 35,  28 U.S.C. 1654, the Sixth Amendment and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section’s 1, 2, 22, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution, CrR 1.1,  CrRLJ 1.1, CrR 1.3 (a) and ARLJ No. 7.  See also CR 82.5 (a) & RCW 13.34.240.  
 
 
 
Contact Tribal Court Lawyer Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 335-1322 or SKYPE me at: <luisewing>
 
 
PLEASE DON’T FORGET TO COPY & PASTE ALL 5 OF MY E-MAIL ADDRESSES INTO YOUR CONTACTS FOLDER IF YOU DON’T WANT MY E-MAILS TO GET ROUTED STRAIGHT TO YOUR SPAM FOLDER BY YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER:
 
rcwcodebuster@gmail.com, rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com, rcwcodebuster@aol.com, rcwcodebuster@live.com, rcwcodebuster@mail.com
 
 
 
CAVEAT WITH REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS HERE: This E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 18 U.S.C. 2521;  RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b);  RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 and is legally privileged and you do NOT have my “consent” for forward this e-mail to anyone. The information contained in this E-Mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or attorney or agent responsible to deliver it to the Sendee, please destroy the E-Mail after advising by reply that you erroneously received this E-Mail. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does NOT waive the lawyer or “of-counsel client privilege,”  nor will it constitute a waiver of the “work-product doctrine.”  Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030;  RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 is inadmissible in court pursuant to RCW 9.73.050 and further, anyone who forwards this e-mail to anyone else without my express prior “written consent” is liable for civil monetary damages under Washington law pursuant to RCW 9.73.060 and criminal penalties under RCW 9.73.080.  The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and may be hazardous to your preconceptions. FREE DISTRIBUTION: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed free “only” to those specific recipients listed above who have previously expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes and have made a prior request for said information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended addressee, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration, dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited.  RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b)(c);  RCW 9.73.050; RCW 9.73.060 and RCW 9.73.080   This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.417 SECTION101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress. REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message cannot be considered SPAM as long as it includes: 1) contact information, and 2) a way to be removed from future e-mailings. If this e-mail communication has reached you in error, or should you wish to be permanently removed from the mailing list, please return to the below listed address asking me to remove you to Luis Ewing,  c/o General Delivery,  (City of) Moclips,  The State of Washington  [98562] or call and leave a message with your E-Mail address and request to be removed at (253) 226-3741. Thank you!
 
Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741

 

SKYPE: <luisewing?

 

Email1: rcwcodebuster@gmail.com or

Email2: rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com or

Email3: rcwcodebuster@aol.com or

Email4: rcwcodebuster@live.com or

Email5: rcwcodebuster@mail.com

 
++++++
DOCUMENTS:
 
#1 

WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULE (GENERAL RULES) GR 16 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT ONLY THE PRESS OR NEWS MEDIA NEEDS THE JUDGES PERMISSION TO AUDIO TAPE AND VIDEO TAPE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CLEARLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PUBLIC OR THE PARENTS IN ANY DEPENDENCY OR TERMINATION PROCEEDING!

 

            It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that Washington State Court Rule GR 16 clearly provides that “only” the Press or the News Media needs the so called “permission” of “the communistically minded  judge” to Audio Tape and Video Tape “public court proceedings” and does NOT apply to the public or the parents in any Dependency or Termination Proceedings!

            GR 16 reads:

RULE GR 16  COURTROOM PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECORDING BY THE NEWS MEDIA

 

(a) Video and audio recording and still photography by the news media are allowed in the courtroom during and between sessions, provided

(1) that permission shall have first been expressly granted by the judge; and

(2) that media personnel not, by their appearance or conduct, distract participants in the proceedings or otherwise adversely affect the dignity and fairness of the proceedings.

(b) The judge shall exercise reasonable discretion in prescribing conditions and limitations with which media personnel shall comply.

(c) If the judge finds that sufficient reasons exist to warrant limitations on courtroom photography or recording,  the judge shall make particularized findings on the records at the time of announcing the limitations.  This may be done either orally or in a written order.  In determining what,  if any, limitations should be imposed, the judge shall be guided by the following principles:

(1)  Open access is presumed; limitations on access must be supported by reasons found by the judge to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh that presumption;

(2)  Prior to imposing any limitations on courtroom photography or recording, the judge shall, upon request,  hear from any party and from any other person or entity deemed appropriate by the judge; and

(3)  Any reasons found sufficient to support limitations on courtroom photography or recording shall relate to the specific circumstances of the case before the court rather than reflecting merely generalized views.

[Adopted effective December 27, 1991; amended effective January 4, 2005.].”  And;

 

            It is undisputed that the United States Supreme Court in Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004),  the Ninth Circuit in Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972, at 976 (June 23, 2003) and the Washington State Supreme Court in Lewis v. Dep’t of Licensing, 157 Wn.2d 446, at 460, 139 P.3d 1078 (August 3, 2006),  all held that members of the public have the right to “secretly record” cops, CPS Social Workers, Guardian Ad Litems, Assistant Attorney Generals and Family Court Judges with the use of unobtrusive hand-held tape recording devices at all public meetings and in all public court proceedings being held in public court buildings paid for with tax payers money!

            Article 1, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution clearly reads:

 

SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  And;

 

“To prevent star-chamber injustice, the public should generally have unrestricted access to all proceedings.”  State ex rel. Miami Herald v. McIntosh, 340 S.E.2d 904 (Fla. 1977).

 

“I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition in that case, that, if a public trial has not been accorded the accused, the burden is upon him to show that actual injury has been suffered by a deprivation of his constitutional right.  On the contrary, when he shows that his constitutional right has been violated, the law conclusively presumes that he has suffered an actual injury.  I go further, and say the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated in the person of the humblest or meanest citizen of the state.  The constitution does not stop to inquire of what the person has been accused , or what crime he has perpetrated; but it accords to all, without question, a fair, impartial,  and public trial.’”  State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923).  See former RCW 13.04.090.

 

“We agree with the Special Term’s conclusion that appellants have offered no justifiable basis for prohibiting the use of unobtrusive, hand-held tape recording devices at its public meetings (see, People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc. 2d 1105; Committee on Open Government, Advisory Opinion on Open Meetings Law, Oct. 27, 1983; 1980 Opns Atty Gen 145; see also, Feldman v. Town of Bethel, 106 AD2d 695). . . . Matter of Davidson v. Common Council, 40 Misc. 2d 1053, 1056).”  Mitchell v. Board of Educ. of Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 924, 493 N.Y.S.2d 826 (September 30, 1985);  Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 67 S.Ct. 1249 (1947).

 

“If a shorthand record of a such a meeting is more accurate than long hand notes, then the use of shorthand is to be approved and if the making of a tape record is a still better method of memorializing the acts of a public body it should be encouraged.”  Nevins v. City of Chino, 233 C.A.2d 775, 778-79; 44 Cal Rptr. 501 (April 22, 1965).

 

“Minutes which purport to abridge and to summarize what went before at best involve a process of subjective judgment calls; and may well, by inadvertence or by design, lead to a finished product which bears only a distant resemblance to the original.  A tape recording of the meeting could therefore act as an insurance policy against imperfections in the official record.”  Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F.Supp. 379, 383 (June 30, 1983);  Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539  (1976).

 

“As no one is harmed, the use of a silent tape recorder operated exclusively by the person interested in making such a record must be permitted.”  Sudol v. Borough of North Arlington, 348 A.2d 216, 219 (Nov. 5, 1975);  Federated Publications, Inc., v. Swedberg, 96 Wn.2d 13  (1981).

 

               If you want to sue your CPS Social Worker,  please contact Luis Ewing at 1 - (360) 335-1322 or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> mailto:rcwcodebuster@yahoo.comor http://www.luisewing.com http://www.ultimateusers.comor http://www.CPSExposed.com <http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>mailto:rcwcodebuster@gmail.com

PDF FILE: 

/resources/uploads/files/ONLY THE PRESS.pdf

********************************

#2   

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DEVENPECK ET AL. v. ALFORD, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004), CITING THE WASHINGTON STATE APPELLATE COURT STATE v. FLORA, 68 Wn.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992), WHICH SAYS THAT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECRETLY TAPE RECORD ALL INTERVIEWS AND QUESTIONING BY DSHS CPS SOCIAL WORKERS, ALL COURT HEARINGS AND ALL POLICE OFFICERS DURING ALL TRAFFIC STOPS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT,  WITHOUT EVEN INFORMING THEM AND YOU DON’T NEED THE JUDGE’S PERMISSION!

 

            The United States Supreme Court held in Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004), that citizens of Washington State have the right to secretly tape record police officers during traffic stops without their consent and without informing them citing State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992).

“[T]ape recording officers conducting a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington.” . . . “No objectively reasonable officer could have concluded that arresting [respondent] for taping the traffic stop was permissible,” 333 F.3d, at 979.”  Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, at 152 (December 13, 2004).  And;

 

“Tape recording officers conducting a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington.  See Wash. Rev.Code § 9.73.030 (1)(b) (prohibiting recording of private conversations); State v. Flora, 68 Wash.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (1992) (finding that recording an arrest made by public officers performing functions on public thoroughfares did not violate Washington law because the arrest did not constitute a private conversation).”  Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972, at 976 (June 23, 2003).  And;

 

“We have also repeatedly held that conversations with police officers are not protected under the act.  See Lewis, 157 Wn.2d at 460.”  State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718, at 732 (February 6,  2014).  And;

 

“Because it was clearly established under Washington law at the time of the arrest that recording a police officer in the performance of his public duties was not a violation of the Privacy Act and it was unreasonable for Chief Nelson to believe otherwise, we hold that the Chief is not entitled to qualified immunity.”  Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676, at 679 (9th Cir. 2004).  And;

 

“The State charged Flora with recording his arrest, a private conversation in violation of RCW 9.73.030. . . . Because we hold that the conversation at issue was indeed not private, we do not reach Flora’s other assignments of error.  Flora contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.  We agree.  RCW 9.73.030, the statute under which Flora was convicted, provides in pertinent part: Intercepting recording or divulging private communication – Consent required – Exceptions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: . . . (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.  . . . The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private.  Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private.  Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only.  We decline the State’s invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.  The trial court erred in denying Flora’s motion to dismiss.  Flora’s conviction is reversed and the case dismissed.”  State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 805-06, 808, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992).  And;

 

“Finally, as the State notes, this court and the Court of Appeals have repeatedly held that conversations with police officers are not private.  See, e.g., Clark, 129 Wn.2d at 226 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with an undercover police officer when it “takes place at a meeting where one who attended could reveal what transpired to others”); State v. Bonilla, 23 Wn.App. 869, 873, 598 P.2d 783 (1979) (“It would strain reason for Bonilla to claim he expected his conversations with the police dispatcher to remain purely between the two of them.”); State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 808, 845 P.2d 1355 (1992) (“Because the exchange [between a police officer and an arrestee during an arrest] was not private, its recording [by the arrestee] could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only.”); see also Alford v. Haner,  333 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.  Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2004) (noting that State v. Flora established that a traffic stop was not a private encounter for purposes of the privacy act); Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that an individual who videotaped a police officer during an arrest did not violate RCW 9.73.030 because the officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his communications with other over his police radio).”  Lewis v. Dep’t of Licensing, 157 Wn.2d 446, at 460, 139 P.3d 1078 (August 3, 2006);  State v. Mankin, 158 Wn.App. 111, 119,  241 P.3d 421 (October 19, 2011).

 

            For more definitions of what constitutes a “private conversation”,  see also State v. Clark, 129 Wn.2d 211, 225, 916 P.2d 384 (1996);  Kadorianian v. Bellingham Police Dep’t, 119 Wn.2d 178, 190, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992); State v. Slemmer, 48 Wn.App. 48, 52, 738 P.2d 281 (1987); State v. Forrester, 21 Wn.App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978), review denied, 92 Wn.2nd 1006 (1979);  State v. Bonilla, 23 Wn.App. 869, 872, 598 P.2d 783 (1979);  Jeffers v. Seattle, 23 Wn.App. 301, 315, 597 P.2d 899 (1979); W. Prosser, Torts 808 (4th ed. 1971);  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576,  88 S.Ct. 507 (1967);  United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (April 5, 1971).

            For help beating your traffic tickets or suing the cops violating your rights to record them in secret without their consent and without informing them, please contact Luis Ewing at 1 - (360) 335-1322 or 1 - (253) 226-3741 or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or http://www.luisewing.com or http://www.ultimateusers.com or http://www.CPSExposed.com <http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>mailto:rcwcodebuster@gmail.com

 

#2  PDF LINK:  /resources/uploads/files/ECRETLY RECORD COPS FLYER.pdf

******************************

 

#3: 

NO JUDGE IN THIS STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND TELL YOU THAT YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT YOUR CPS KIDNAPING CASE TO YOUR CHILDREN!

 

            The only instance in which may be subject to a prior restraint,  is speech involving . . . “a threat to national security.”  Near v. Minnesota, 282 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625,  75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931),  however,  the United States Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint,  and, since the decision in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 489 L.Ed.2d 683, 96 S.Ct. 2791 (1976),  which held that “obscenity” and “fighting words” do not constitute speech subject to First Amendment protection,  there are no reported decisions from any appellate court in any jurisdiction in the United States upholding a prior restraint.

            Judicial restrictions on First Amendment Protected Speech constitutes unlawful prior restraint.  Suggs v. Hamilton, 152 Wn.2d 74, 93 P.3d 161 (July 8,  2004);  Fine Arts Guild v. Seattle, 74 Wn.2d 503, 445 P.2d 602 (1968);  Adams v. Hinkle, 51 Wn.2d 763, 322 P.2d 763, 322 P.2d 844 (1958);  Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993);  Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S. 308, 316 n. 13 (1980);  Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971);  Carroll v. City of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968);  Spokane Arcades, Inc. v. Brockett, 631 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1980),  affirmed 454 U.S. 1165, 70 L.Ed.2d 468, 102 S.Ct. 557 (1982);  Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308, 51 L.Ed.2d 355, 92 S.Ct. 1045 (1977).

            The right of free expression includes both the right to communicate and the right to receive information.  Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) and Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 390, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1806, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969).  See also, Freedom to Hear: Political Justification of the First Amendment, 46 Wash. L.Rev. 311 (1971).

“Minors like adults, have a fundamental right to freedom of expression.  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511, 89 S.Ct. 733, 739, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).  Expression includes speech and expressive conduct.”  Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935,  at 950 (9th Cir. 1977).  “The protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.  In Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965);  Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,  762-63 (1972), we acknowledged that this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to “receive information and ideas,” and that freedom of speech “necessarily protects the right to receive.” Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756-57 (1976).  And;

 

 

 

 

 

            The State has no authority to interfere with the “liberty” of the parents to “control the education of their children.”  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923);  Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925);  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (May 15, 1972);  Lehr v. Robertson et al., 463 U.S. 248 (June 27, 1983);  Hodson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (June 25,  1990);  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (January 31, 1944);  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).  If any judge cuts off your visitation or limits your visitation to SKYPE visits, you can sue him for First Amendment Retaliation under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, at 256 (April 26, 2006) and Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (April 23, 2002). 

            If you want to Sue your CPS Social Worker,  Guardian Ad Litem,  Assistant Attorney General and Judge, call me Luis Ewing at 1 - (360) 335-1322 or go to http://www.CPSExposed.com http://www.CPSExposed

#3  PDF LINK:

/resources/uploads/files/CASE TALKING FIRST AMENDMENT FLYER.pdf

*************

 

#4: 

THE RACIST BIGOT JEW JUDGES WHO ILLEGALLY ENFORCE RCW 13.34.115 AT THE REQUEST OF IT’S OWN SPIES, THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S ARE IMPLEMENTING ADOLF HITLER’S . . . “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN” . . . NUREMBURG EXCUSE . . . TO CONDUCT AN ILLEGAL SECRET KIDNAPING HEARING IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1,  SECTION 10 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION

TO COVER UP THEIR PERJURY & ROUTINE SCRIPTED LIES!

 

            It is undisputed that all Parents have a right to demand that all family court hearings “SHALL BE ADMINISTERED OPENLY” . . . pursuant to article 1, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution which clearly reads:

 

SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  And;

 

            It is undisputed that only a Racist Bigot Jew Judge or his fellow Janissary Communist Minded Judge would ever enforce Adolf Hitler’s codification of . . . “the best interest of the child” . . . Nuremburg Excuse to convene . . . “A SECRET KIDNAPING COURT” . . . as is clearly provided by former RCW 13.04.090 now recodified at the current RCW 13.34.115 which reads:

RCW 13.34.115  Hearings — Public excluded when in the best interests of the child — Notes and records — Video recordings.

(1) All hearings shall be public, and conducted at any time or place within the limits of the county,  except if the judge finds that excluding the public is in the best interests of the child.

(2) Either parent, or the child's attorney or guardian ad litem, may move to close a hearing at any time. If the judge finds that it is in the best interests of the child the court shall exclude the public.

(3) If the public is excluded from the hearing, the following people may attend the closed hearing unless the judge finds it is not in the best interests of the child:

(a) The child's relatives;

(b) The child's foster parents if the child resides in foster care; and

(c) Any person requested by the parent.

(4) Stenographic notes or any device which accurately records the proceedings may be required as provided in other civil cases pursuant to RCW 2.32.200.

(5) Any video recording of the proceedings may be released pursuant to RCW 13.50.100, however, the video recording may not be televised, broadcast, or further disseminated to the public.”  See also State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995) and Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa,  97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).  And;

 

            It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that the court’s appointment of it’s Spy,  the Guardian Ad Litem cannot be the basis for authorizing him or her to authorize a secret hearing,  for to do so would have the effect of giving the court the power to appoint an “agent” with authority to remove the constitutional safeguards against secret kidnaping hearings . . . “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN” . . . a phrase first coined by . . . ADOLF HITLER.

“What the Legislature is forbidden to do directly,  certainly this court cannot do indirectly,  a court not of record has only such powers as are given by statute.  The City of Seattle v. Filson, 98 Wash.2d 66 (Nov. 1982).  And;

 

“A flat prohibition against regulation of a matter in one direction does not give Congress power to regulate the matter in another direction.”  Powe vs United States, 109 F.2d 140 (1940).  And;

 

 

            The  secrecy of the kidnaping dependency proceedings and child stealing termination of parental rights hearings is intentionally done in bad faith and with unclean hands such as to deprive the parents and the children of their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws and mainly to cover up the Assistant Attorney General’s . . . “ROUTINE SCRIPTED LIES.” 

            In State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923), the court in reversing a conviction under the Juvenile Court Law because of a secret hearing having been had (without objection by the defendant) quoted from People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228, 71 N.W. 491, as follows:

 

“This constitutional provision was under consideration in the case of People v. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N.W. 995.  In an elaborate opinion, Mr. Justice Champlin, referring to the case of People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 223, 14 Pac. 849, the case relied upon by the prosecution here, made use of the following language:  “‘I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition in that case, that, if a public trial has not been accorded the accused, the burden is upon him to show that actual injury has been suffered by a deprivation of his constitutional right.  On the contrary, when he shows that his constitutional right has been violated, the law conclusively presumes that he has suffered an actual injury.  I go further, and say the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated in the person of the humblest or meanest citizen of the state.  The constitution does not stop to inquire of what the person has been accused , or what crime he has perpetrated; but it accords to all, without question, a fair, impartial,  and public trial.’”  State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923).  See former RCW 13.04.090.  And;

 

 

            If you want to sue your CPS Social Worker, Guardian Ad litem, Assistant Attorney General and Judge, please contact Luis Ewing at: 1 - (253) 226-3741 or e-mail me at: <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or go to: http://www.luisewing.com<http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>

#4  PDF LINK:

/resources/uploads/files/THE RACIST BIGOT JEW JUDGES.pdf

***************************