|Robert L. Harris and other members of the Clark County Superior Court who should have been consulted on these unconstitutional appointments. This includes John P. Wulle, John F. Nichols, Edwin L. Poyfair, Barbara D. Johnson, James E. Rulli, Diane M. Woolard, and Robert Lewis (2005 only).
Ignored the Washington State constitution finding the restrictions in it
too inconvenient to be bothered with.
State Constitution, Article IV, Section 23 states
However, the Honorable Harris signed at least four such cotemporaneous orders in 2004 for the Honorable Anders, Eiesland, Melnick and Schreiber and in 2005 also for the Honorable Anders, Eiesland, Melnick and Schreiber.. Ignoring the restrictions of the state constitution seems more like defiance of the constitution rather than supporting and upholding the constituion as in the oath of office.
|Issued Temporary Order even though he did not have jurisdiction as shown above (was one of more three Commissioners in violation of the state constitution). Did not hold ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone' but was actually in chambers with no contact with the Petitioner (so what do we have statutes for)1. Issued the Order even though the the Petition did not contain the required allegations of irreparable injury (see RCW 26.50.070 (1) ) or even the required allegations of physical assault, threats of physical assault (RCW 26.50.030 and RCW 26.50.010), or behavior which would cause a reasonable to fear injury to person or propery (RCW 9A.46.110).
|Issued Order for Protection even though he did not have jurisdiction as shown above (was one of more three Commissioners in violation of the state constitution). The Order was issued even though the Respondent was not permitted to testify as required in STATE v. KARAS - 108 Wn. App. 692 referring to RCW 26.50. In the hearing transcript both parties were permitted to speak but no one was placed under oath so no testimony was taken (and no one could be prosecuted for perjury if they lied to the court). Issued the Order even though neither the the Petition or the allegations at the hearing contained the required allegations of physical assault, threats of physical assault (RCW 26.50.010), or behavior which would cause a reasonable to fear injury to person or propery (RCW 9A.46.110). Denied an Order without holding an ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone'.2. Further, the Petition was denied improperly as it contained the required allegations of past domestic violence in describing three cases of assault (albeit minor assaults).
|Barbara D. Johnson
|Rather than attempting to correct decisions which were clearly not in touch with reality, sought to block the appeal which would expose her and other Judges violations of the constitution as shown above when they appointed more than three Commissioners. Sent a letter falsely claiming that the unsigned Order had been made by Judge Nichols to prevent the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner Melnick from being a part of the record. However, a trivial comparison of the handwriting of the Order and one issued later by Judge Nichols demonstrates her claims were false. Finally issued an Order denying all the relief which I sought including a request that I be permitted to attend court hearings where I was scheduled to appear and preventing me from seeking modifications to the Order for Protection.
|John F. Nichols
|In an apparent attempt to block the appeal which would expose his and other Judges violations of the constitution as shown above when they appointed more than three Commissioners, issued an Order even though there was no motion before the court and there was a Notice of Appeal filed in the case. The ruse was intended to insure that there were no references to the improperly appointed Commissioners, but a trivial review of the hand writing of the previous unsigned Order shows that Judge Nichols did not issue the unsigned order.
|Joel Penoyar, (J.) C. C. Bridgewater and J. Robin Hunt
In Washington Court of Appeals case 32671-0-II, these judges were
asked a question of:
Can the Superior Court in any given county make more than three valid simultaneous appointments of Commissioners who aren't Family Court Commissioners? The trial court answered in the affirmative.with evidence copies of Orders appointing four Commissioners who weren't Family Court / Law Commissioners (see above as well as the supporting affidavit). The Opinion of the Court of Appeals was:
Carr argues that his due process rights and his right to have a judge adjudicate his case were violated because Clark County allegedly appointed more than three court commissioners. However, a family law commissioner is not a "commissioner" within the meaning of the constitutional provision limiting the number of court commissioners in counties.3The Court of Appeals simply ignored the question before it and answered a well understood question which was not relevant to the case at hand. Apparently Washington courts don't follow the Rules of Law but just make things up as they go along. They get away with it because no one would dare call attention to the fact that they are violating the law on a daily basis.
|Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander and Justices Barbara Madsen, Mary E. Fairhurst (sitting for Justice Bobbe J. Bridge), Susan Owens and James M. Johnson.
|When the Washington Supreme Court was presented with the issues above and asked to reverse the Court of Appeals brazen refusal to address the flagrant violations of the state constitution, the Washington Supreme Court was not interested. It appears that violations of the constitution, statutes, and due process are so rampant in Washington State that it hardly warrants notice or any attempt to correct it.
|Robert L. Harris and other members of the Clark County Superior Court who directed domestic violence cases be heard by 'Commissioners' who aren't authorized to hear these matters. This includes John P. Wulle, John F. Nichols, Edwin L. Poyfair, Barbara D. Johnson, James E. Rulli, Diane M. Woolard, and Robert Lewis.
|In apparent recognition that the prior appointments of Superior Court Commissioners violated the numeric limits of the Washington Constitution (above) and were not valid, in 2006 and 2007 the Superior Court instead appointed the District Court Judges as Family Law Court Commissioners under RCW 26.12. However, the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction (Ordell v. Gaddis, 99 Wn.2d 409) and are only authorized to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) which does not include the Orders for Protection of a year or more which they routinely issue. The individuals hearing RCW 26.50 matters in Clark County at this time do not have jurisdiction to sign the resulting Orders which makes them invalid. To support this facade, the Honorable Harris signed orders in 2007 for the Honorable Eiesland, Hagensen, Melnick, Osler, Schreiber, Swanger and Zimmerman.. Assigning case loads to Commissioners who have no authority to resolve matters (and ignoring the restrictions of statutes) is another violation of the oath of office.
|Routinely extends Temporary Orders for Protection for more than 14 days as in 06-2-08385-1 without addressing the restrictions listed in RCW 26.50.070, RCW 26.50.085 and RCW 26.50.123. Of course when you routinely violate the constitution and statutes, it makes little sense to abide by these inconvenient requirements. Routinely issues orders which involve a shared residence and are beyond his authority to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) as most all the Orders for Protection are for a year or more as in 07-2-07009-9.
|Kelli E. Osler
|It appears that in Clark County no one really wants to hear Domestic Violence cases, presumably because they are messy and offer little opportunity to gain political favors. As a result, they get foisted on the most junior person which is the District Court Commissioner, the Honorable Osler, who can normally hear only traffic violations. She reviews almost all of the Petitions during lunch and makes her decision without holding any ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone' but is actually in chambers with no contact with the Petitioner (so what do we have statutes for). She also has conducted hearings and granted Orders for Protection for a full year as in as in 06-2-08362-1 which are supposed to heard only in the Superior Court and even though she only has authority to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) which does not include the Orders for Protection of a year as in this case.
Washington State Commission of Judicial Conduct
|Wanda Briggs (Chair) and Antonio Cube, Wayne Ehlers, John Erlick, Larry Goldberg, Hubert Locke, Margaret Ross, John Schultheis, and John Sleeter.
When presented with evidence of violations of the Washington
Constitution (above) in letters of:
July 9, 2006
August 12, 2006
October 16, 2006
their response was that there was no basis for charges. What would it take? Here is a letter about the last decision and another about the previous decision where they declined to consider violations of the State Constitution. Let's see if I have this right. A judge who visits a prison to see what the conditions are like and talks to inmates who might at some time in the future have cases before him nad then properly notifies parties when the issue is raised (and recuses himself as appropriate) is a violation, but direct and flagrant violations of the constitution, statutes, and rules of law aren't (nothing unethical about that in Washington state it seems). Go figure!
|Ancer L. Haggerty
|I regret that I need to add Ancer L. Haggerty to this list. My personal intuition is that both Judge Melnick and Judge Haggerty are honorable people who were caught up in a corrupt system. However in Judge Haggerty's decision he simply ignores the primary issues presented to him and rules on the ancillary issues which are at best peripheral to the matter at hand. Sadly this seems to be what judges do when they are asked to do something which they don't want to do. In this case it is a lose-lose situation for the judge (District Court judges gain nothing by making controversial decisions), but it is sad to see this failing of our government of law. If our government of law is replaced by a military dictatorship (strong man rule) it will be because of good people simply doing what is easy rather than what they know is right.
|Richard R. Clifton, Barry G. Silverman, and Sidney Runyan Thomas
|In the Ninth Circuit's decision, they simply ignores the primary issues presented to them with 'Carr’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive' which is little better than the Oregon Court of Appeals 'Affirmed without Opinion'. Just ignore any issues which are troubling. The problem with relying on the appeal process to correct egregious errors by lower courts is that appeals courts are more likely to conceal egregious errors (by ignoring the issues presented to them) rather than facing tough issues and taking the tough stand. The result is the gradual undermining of our government of law, replacing it with 'might is right'.
1 On April 4, 2007 I requested as copy of the Court Recording of any hearing that was held in this matter and was told by Jamie, the clerk who access the recordings, that there was no such hearing. Jamie annotated a copy of the request noting that there was no hearing on that date.
2 An affidavit was submitted to the court which explained the manner in which this Petition was denied. Several other Petitions were similary denied without an ex parte as can be seen at the end of the hearing of Nov 12, 2004.
3 The entire Opinion of the Court of Appeals makes good reading as it is most artfully written, full of deceptions from inaccurate and misleading statements. To read it superficially, it sounds quite reasonable (as in the example above). My rebuttal can be found in my Petition to the Washington Supreme Court. Having seen first hand how Washington Courts can just ignore reality and write Opinions that sound good when read alone but which have little with the facts of the case they are addressing, it makes me wonder how many other of the published decisions are just pure bull.
This page was last updated on March 02, 2013.