ATTACHMENT ONE

October 27, 2014

COpy
ORIGINAL FILED

OCT 27 2014
SUPERiOR COURT
STEVEN'S COUNTY, WA

Actual Notice and Demand for Summoning a Grand Jury

RCW 10.27.030 - Summoning grand jury.

".... A grand jury shall be summoned by the court, where the public interest so
demands, whenever in its opinion there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity or
corruption within the county....
"When right of anyone under a statute depends upon giving word "shall'l an imperative
construction, "shall'l is presumed to have been used in reference to that right or
benefitl and it receives mandatory interpretation." Jordan v. O'Brien, 486 P.2d 200, 79
Wash.2d 406 (1971).
Black's Law Dictionary &J1 Ed. defines "Public interest" - Something in which the public,
the community at large has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Black's Law Dictionary ~h Ed. defines "Discretion" (sub title under "Judicial and legal
discretion") These terms are applied to the discretionary act of a judge or court, and
means discretion bound by the rules and principles of law, and not arbitrary, capricious,
or unrestrained. It is not the indulgence of a judicial whim, but the exercise ofjudicial
judgment, based on facts and guided by low, or the equitable decision of what is just
and proper under the circumstances. It is a legal discretion to be exercised in discerning
the course prescribed by law and is not to give effect to the will of the judgel but to
that of the low. "
Black's Law Dictionary ~ Ed. defines "Sufficient evidence" -Adequate evidence, such
evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will legally justify, the judicial or official
action demanded, according to circumstances, it may be "prima facie" or "satisfactory"
evidence. Sufficient evidence is that which is satisfactory for the purpose; that amount of
proof which ordinarily satisfies and unprejudiced mind, beyond a reasonable doubt. The
term is not synonymous with "conclusive", but it may be used interchangeably with the
term "weight of evidence".
Page 1 of4

I have listed the essential elements of RCW 10.27.030 that relate to the matters that will
be covered in this demand for summoning a grand jury, along with the legal definitions to this
RCW.
There has not been anyone holding the people's public offices as judges, prosecutor,
auditor or other position in Stevens County, Spokane County, or on the state level that has
disputed any of my evidence with anything other than State ex reI. Lyons v. Ruff, 4 Wash. 234,
29 Pac. 999 (1892) and State v. Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. 794, 808, 950 P.2d 38 (1998) and
personal opinions or intentional misrepresentation of the RCW's or redefining legislative
definitions of the words used in those RCW's.
Mr. Rasmussen, who is illegally usurping the office of STEVENS COUNlY PROSECUTOR,
contacted another illegal usurper, Bob Ferguson, illegally occupying the Attorney General's
Office, to request the Attorney General's Opinion regarding the filing of the oath of office.
An incompetent alleged attorney responded on July 9, 2014, claiming to be a "Deputy
Solicitor General" named Jeffrey T. Even. Mr. Even did not state under which RCW he was
appointed, as would determine whether he is required to have an oath of office, RCW
43.10.060, appoints an office, or RCW 43.10.065 as an advisor, but he seems to be incompetent
under either. The opinion Mr. Even gave was an "informal opinion". I have called and left nine
messages for Mr. Even (360-586-0728), but he has never returned my calls.
Mr. Even's six (6) page informal opinion contained nothing but totally false statements,
misquoted, misrepresented case law and even a misrepresentation regarding a case filed by
me, Clark v. Superior Court of Stevens County, No. CV-09-363-LRS, 2010 WL 457316, *1-2 (E.D.
Wash. Feb. 3, 2010) (unpublished) (discussing the Stephenson case). I will address this
fraudulent case before the Grand Jury, but for now, back to Mr. Even's informal opinion.
Mr. Even quotes Lysons v. Ruff (supra) and State v. Stephenson, as leading cases, but
failed to check "Official Attorney General Opinions", such as;
Attorney General Opinion - AGO 63-64, no. 17 "The fact that the candidate Uudges and
all other elected and appointed officials - Petitioner's addition) is qualified at the time of his
election is not sufficient to entitle him to hold the office, If at the time of his commencement to
his term of office, or during the continuance of the term, he ceases to be qualified. Eligibility to
public office is of a continuing nature, and must subsist at the commencement ofthe term, and
during the occupancy ofthe office."

..

As to State v. Stephenson (supra) see attached documents, Exhibit A, filed into this case,
that proves the Stephenson case is void, and would also be void because the appeals court
cannot overrule a supreme court ruling - see State v. Williams, 93 Wn. App. 340,969 P.2d 106
(December 4, 1998), such as State ex reI. Guthrie v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327,60 P.2d 245

Page 2of4

(1935); State ex reI. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wn.(2) 419, 367 P.2d 985 (1962) relating to RCW
42.12.010 - Causes of vacancy.
The official oath of office is a Federal Constitutional mandate, Art. VI, d. 3 and all federal
law and case law control on this issue Art. VI, d. 2, over all state Constitutions and laws or case
law to the contrary.

"State courts must follow the interpretations of the federal constitution made by the
United States Supreme Court". State v. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 826 P.2d 685 [no.
58076 -0 En. Bane March 9, 1992].
The leading federal case on the filing of the oath of office is Parker v. Overman, 59 U.S.
137, 15 l. Ed. 318 (1855), which has not been overturned and states in part as follows:

"The Court after concluding that it had jurisdiction over the action held that the deed to
the purchaser was void. At the time the sheriff made the sale, he had not filed his oath
as assessor on or before January 10th as required by law. Although he filed an oath
later, this was not a compliance with the law. and conferred no power on him to act as
assessor. By his neglect to comply with the law, his office as sheriff became ipso facto
vacated and any assessment made by him in that year was void, and could not be the
foundation of a legal sale." See also Martin v. Barbour, 34 F. 701 (1888).
RCW 1.16.065 defines "officer" as a person authorized by law, and the Washington
supreme court went into great detail regarding who is an officer when it interpreted it in
Mcintosh v. Hutchinson (1936) 187 Wash. 61, 59 P. 1117; State ex reI. Johnston v. Melton
(1937) 192 Wash. 379, 73 P. 1334; State ex reI. Brown v. Blew (1944) 20 Wash. 2d 47,145 P. 2d
554; State ex reI. Fitts v. Gibbs (1952) 40 Wash. 2d 444, 244 P.2d 241, and all ofthese cases
require the filing of the oath as part ofthe definition of an "officer".
And, since the legislature defined the word "filed" in RCW 36.18.005 and again in RCW
65.04.015, in very clear language, they left no room for alternate interpretations of the term.
The issues above are the things that need to be officially determined by a grand jury,
because they would have no conflict of interest, unlike judges and other persons who failed to
duly qualify for a public office, and who could be required to give up the office they are
usurping and all the benefits that go with that office.
There is also the issue that under Washington Court Rule ER-902(d} and ER 1005, an
oath of office document, which is a public record cannot be legally submitted into evidence in
court, for the purpose of supporting a claim to a public office, unless it has actually been filed
and recorded according to law.
And, since a court can only acquire jurisdiction through proper parties and the plaintiff's
pleadings, any case heard without a judge "authorized by law", a prosecutor "authorized by
law", or a peace officer "authorized by law", is subject to Court Rule CR 60 (b) (5) as void.
Page 30f4

The longer this issue is covered up by criminal usurpers at every level of Washington
state government, the more the public's Right to Due Process, Redress of Greivance, Equal
Protection of the Law and the People's Right to a Republican form of Government, not a
defacto government, remains in peril.
One final quote from State ex reI. Zempel (supra) regarding the public policy expressed
by the legislature regarding RCW 42.12.010:

"Removal from office is simply a consequence of a reasonable and sound public policy,
and a condition imposed upon a public official in furtherance of the public interest in
good government State ex reI. Guthrie v. Chapman, supra. "Officers are not elected for
the benefit of the individuals, but for the benefit of the community..." State ex reI. Lysons
v. Ruff (1892), 4 Wash. 234, 243, 29 Pac. 999. Public officials can and should be removed,
irrespective of detriment to the individuals involved if the interests of the community so
require. That is precisely the legislative policy and purpose of RCW 42.12.010, and the
reason the statute was enacted and has been continued on the books. Thus, the statute
is an expression of public policy by the legislature, clearly within the ambit of the
constitutional prerogative of that branch ofstate government, pursuant to Art. 5 sec. 3
of the state constitution.
The public policy as expressed by the legislature has stood unaltered for ninety-five years
- in fact, since territorial days. Basically the statute is a legislative statement of
qualifications for holding public office. One such qualification is that a public offiCial
convicted of "any offense involving a violation of his official oath" shall not hold a
position of public trust. This court should not lightly brush aside determinations as to
public policy duly and officially made by the legislative branch of government. Certainly,
in the instant case we should not alter and revise qualifications established by the
legislature for public officers' qualifications which are so well recognized and of such
long standing."

Demanded by:
Jimmy Ellis, Clark

2567 Bodie Mountain Road

Colville, Washington 99114
PH: 509-675-5988

Page 4of4

This page not included in Governor/AG letter

ATTACHMENT TWO
Linda Tompkins, a Superior Court judge from Spokane, who, herself, cannot
prove she has followed state law cited State v. Stephenson, an appellate court
decision, authored by two judges who did not have an oath on file with the
secretary of State during that term of office, and the third judge who subscribed
an Oath AFTER the time prescribe by law to take the Oath. All three were
impersonating judges at the time of the authoring of the Stephenson case.

QuotinganofficialAttorneyGeneralOpinionAGO6364,no.17:
"The fact that the candidate is qualified at the time of his election is not sufficient to
entitlehimtoholdtheoffice,if,atthetimeofhiscommencementtohistermofoffice,orduring
thecontinuanceoftheterm,heceasestobequalified.Eligibilitytopublicofficeisofacontinuing
nature, and must subsist at the commencement of the term, and during the occupancy of the
office."
Everycandidateelectmustpreciselyfollowthelegislativemandatestodulyqualifyto
hold office. An Oath of Office must be taken [RCW 36.16.040], and bond secured [RCW
36.16.050], both filed with the County Auditor [RCW 36.16.060] for recording into the official
public records [RCW 65.04.015(2)], fee paid [RCW 65.04.030(3)], BEFORE assuming official
duties.Similarmandatesarerequiredfortheirofficialbond.Acandidateelectwithouthaving
duly qualified therefor, as required by law" has created a vacancy in the office [RCW
42.12.010(6)]andhasintrudedintooffice[RCW42.20.030].Refusaltosurrenderthatofficeisa
Gross Misdemeanor. [Google these RCWs. Statutes must be written so men and women of
commonintelligenceallderivethesamemeaning.]
AGLO 1980 no. 2, also addresses and upholds the elements of RCW 42.12.010 as to
vacancy occurring immediately upon the happening of those events. Causes of vacancy. Every
electiveofficeshallbecomevacantonthehappeningofanyofthefollowingevents:(6)Hisorher
refusalorneglecttotakehisorheroathofoffice,ortogiveorrenewhisorherofficialbond,orto
depositsuchoathorbondwithinthetimeprescribedbylaw;

RECEIVED

COPy

RIG/NAL FILED

STEVE.NS COUNTY .
;JROSECUTING :J.TTORNE'y

Superior Court
Stevens County
The State of Washington

Jimmy Ellis, Clark, Petitioner

v.
Susan Harnash, Tim Gray,
Steve Parker, Wes McCart

No. 2014-02-00355-1
Motion to Demand
Mandatory Judicial
Notice ER-201 (d)

And Don Dashielt Respondents

Demand was made for Ms. Tompkins or any other person claiming authority to hear or
rule on any ofthe issues contained in Petitioners Writ of Prohibition to produce lawful
authority to do so by producing a lawfully executed and recorded official oath of office into the
case, but she arrogantly refused to even address any jurisdictional issues.

"In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed.2d (1982), the Supreme
Court held that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded
from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. /D. At 818,
102 S. Ct. at 2738; see also Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913,920 (2 nd Cir. 1987). The doctrine is not,
however, a license for lawless conduct and purpose is to force officials to hesitate in situations
where they should know that certain conduct will violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights. Mitchell, 1055. Ct. at 2814; Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819, 102 S. Ct. at 2739."

Page 1 of3

"Personal involvement in the deprivation of constitutional rights is a prerequisite to an

award of damages. William v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323 (2 nd Cir. 1986) (42 U.S.c. section 1983);
see Black v. United States, 534 F.2d 524,527-28 (2 nd Cir. 1976) (action against federal officials).
A defendant may be personally involved in a constitutional deprivation in several ways: (1)
direct participation; (2) failure to remedy the wrong after learning about it; (3) creation of a
policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur; or (4) gross negligence in
managing subordinates who cause the violation. Williams, 781 F.2d at 323-24" Gallegos v.
Haggerty, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).

'7he public entity also has a duty if the public agent has actual knowledge of a statutory
violation, the agent fails to take corrective action, and the plaintiff is within the class the statute
was designed to protect. This was called the '1ailure to enforce" exception in Bailey, 108 Wn.2d
at 268." Coffell v. Clallam County, 58 Wn. App. 517, 794 P.2d 513 (1991).

Quoting from an official Attorney General Opinion - AGO 63-64, no. 17:

'7he fact that the candidate (Judges and all other elected and appointed officials
Petition's addition) is qualified at the time of his election is not sufficient to entitle him to hold
the office, f1 at the time of his commencement to his term of office, Q[ during the continuance of
the term, he ceases to be qualified. Eligibility to public office is of a continuing nature, and must
subsist at the commencement of the term, and during the occupancy of the office."
For examples of the application of this rule, see State ex reI. Coe v. Harrison, 217 ALA. 80,
114 50.905 (1927); and Krulish v. Evans, 16 NJ. 200, 108 A.2d 177 April 23, 1962.

Further stated - "Our supreme court has held that the occurrence of an event designated
in RCW 42.12.010 occasions immediate forfeiture of office and creates a vacancy. State ex reI.
Guthrie v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327, 60 P.2d 245 (1936); State ex reI. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59
Wn. (2) 419, 367 P. (2d) 985 (1962)."
And - "We have noted that 1927-28 AGO 357 [[Superintendent of Public Instruction on
December 5, 1927J) appears to opine to the contrary. That conclusion was based on supreme
court cases that have lost their virility with the passing of time. Compare State ex reI. Lyons v.
B.Yf[, 4 Wash. 234, 29 Pac. 999 (1892), with State ex reI. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wn. (2d) 419,
367 P. (2d) 985 (1962), supra. Recent supreme court cases compel the conclusion that 1927-28
AGO no longer conforms with the law of this state and is for that reason overruled."
AGLO 1980 no. 2, also addresses and upholds the elements of RCW 42.12.010 as to
vacancy occurring immediately upon the happening of those events.

Page 2of3

As to State v. Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. 794,808,950 P.2d 38 (1998), in addition to the

fact that none of the three usurpers acting as judges had lawful oaths of office, they still had no
authority to overrule supreme court rulings.

"A Supreme Court holding constitutes binding authority that may not be overruled by the
Court of Appeals. State v. Williams, 93 Wn. App. 340, 969 P.2d 106 (December 4, 1998).
II

"When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid
statutes, expressly depriving him ofjurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. II Rankin v. Howard, 101
S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326.
Petitioner demands Ms. Tompkins produce lawful authority to occupy the office of
SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Judge and to receive its benefits or remove herself from
this case and the people's public office.

Jimmy Ellis, Clark/Petitioner

Page 3 of 3

ffir of tbe
~Llm

~rretrrrp

of ~tat

l",pb, ~prrrtarp of ~tl1t

<!C rti ftcate

I, f),','/f'IIl!!> f-r,;/~, in ;:ccorlLncl \\'irh rhe pr()\'i:,i()n::; ()f Ch:mtcr -!-O, 14. RtTi~{:u Code of \Va~h.u1QJ(Jn.
Cl:rtiE\ rh:n i h;\\,1.: cl;rnj'-:H",d the arl:lched C()P~', or ~p(:cific parr rhl.:rt:of, Listed belO\\', \I:irh rhe
n,:C!)rJ" in ou, CLi:,r(,J::. ;\nd [h:tr [h<: :,am.::, or each of rh<.: ~aI1K, io a rrw: and CfJrrl'C[
of dlL'
Recl )!,d in ,h ... ()ff!ci:d (u,.;[(,d\ :,f rh..: :)Ll(C . \rch.i,'isr of rhe Stare of \\':1~hingtnn,
.,

cc'r:.

FRO\j THL RECORDS OF:

/993 {J,I/!;

to;'

E/i!i;r' ,\1.

f-[o/<g/}!Oll

OJ

,-f/J/)t!(t/"
JOO 3 1),,.//:

(0"

ElcI!w .\ 1.

HOI/lf/itOIJ

({.I'

",fppca/.\',

r/~dg~ ~/dN Ir~7.f/.Jjl{2/0}f S/alf!

DW!J"toll

If

CfJ/tri

~/

r'~a.'si! ?/iJh: IT t!J/Jifi'!/MI Sf:/!'! COII/-f '!/

DIl'ij'/O!!

II

!
j

1.': .~.

_-'f i ; .. :

-,

.""

..

'

..

!i

ARCHIVES 3. RECORDS r'.'IAN.A.GE~i~ENT OiVIS!C)f\

11 29 WaS~l;nQWP

St,e2~

Sf

PO 30:< 40238
O:ympia. 1//,1..98504.-02:>8

Apri114,20l0

Jimmy Clark

2094 Onion Creek Road, Lot A

Colville, WA 99114

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for your patience. Attached please find the 1993 oath and 2003 oath for Elaine
M. Houghton as Judge ofthe Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II. These are the
only documents I can certify as being within the State Archives. Although the archives does
hold Division II oaths from 1988-2003, I was unable to find another Houghton oath.
Again, thank you for contacting the Washington State Archives.

I
'_

BenjitR1in Helle

ARCHj\/ES 2< RECORDS MANAGEMENT DiViSiOj\)

',I 29 Washinqton St,2&! SE
PO Sox 40238
OI~jmpj2..

'{VA 98504-0223
-:ei: 36C.586.1L'2

'.yV/I;\'. sees t<2 te. ~N&.. gO\lia:ch i"i? c,

March 2, 2010

]immyClark
2094 Onion Creek Road, Lot A
Colville. W A 99114

Dear Mr. Clark,

I'm \-vriting this letter to infonn you that after a search of the \Nashington State Secretary of
State's Oaths of Office record group, I was unable to find the Judge Karen Seinfeld and Judge C. J.
Hutton oaths for their terms in 1998.

''-o.JI

Benjamin Helle
\Nashington State Archives
1129 \Vashington Street SE
Olympia, \VA 98504-0238

I +.l C-\.-'-'O,toJ '-

OA"'(IP-\-:" ~
~

"fH-

f'e.\O~"TO

.t\1..(...

c;;f=--rH"

~tV6-"'S ..j-tOL-D

OF APPEALS

e.c.=e::N~-r6cJ u~-s

L~<:18.

F I LED
JAN 15 1997
~t. ...... l_.' .'

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON

)
)
COUNTY OF PIERCE

I, JOYCE ROBIN HUNT, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution
of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge the duties of the office of judge of the court of appeals of the State of
Washington to the best of my ability.

~~ f41J~ ldJ=
Joyce RobIll Hunt

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

I J day of

:}

a-vz ~

,A.D. 1997.

,,-- J,, .I' t- 0

JAN 152003
SECRETARY OF STATE
ST"'TE OF WASHINGTON

O.-\TH OF OFFICE

I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of\Vashington, and that I \vill faithfully and impartially discharge the

duti;:s of the offie;: of judge of the court of appeals of the State of\Vashingtol1
ability.

Administered by:

Dated:

to

the best of my

F i LED

SEP 16 1996

~c.\.;I't:. ./~Il

"""

.... , . -

SiATE OF WASHING;G~1

RECElVED

JUri 1 8 1993
STATE OF WASHL."IGTON

County of

~~

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

j
I, Elaine M. Houghton,

do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United

States and the Constitution of State of \Vashington, and that I will
perform the duties as a Judge of the Washington State Court of Appeals,
Division II to the best of my ability.

~ -~.

I.

.j

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

A.D.19~.

~day of

~.

U/Jt.L/ ,

Notary
lie in and for the
state of ashington residing at !
My commission expires: 1c9-/1 9S

BC:EA33

WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

F \ LED

JAN 15 1997

OATH OF OFFICE

STATE OF WASHINGTON

~=''''''''-' . . . .
STATE OF WASHINGTON

COU1\1fY OF PJERCE

I, JOYCE ROBIN HUNT, do solemnly swear or affinn, that I will support the Constitution
of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge the duties of the office of judge of the court of appeals of the State of
Washington to the best afmy ability.

~fi/.- (2dJ~

?dJ=

Joyce Robm Hunt

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

I J day of

::s t't--vz UdVlJ

, A.D. 1997.

~~~ ~./ [)~~.

Washingt~

Chief Judge,
of Appeals, Division Two

This page and Tompkins Order following, were not included in

Governor/AG letter

Tompkins Order Denying Writ of Prohibition and

Vacating Assignment citing State v. Stephenson