T1ie Peopk on Stevens County

'Box 448

Cfie:weta/i, Wasliinn ton 99109

Certified Mail: 70113500000186255530

April 20, 2015
Governor Jay Inslee
Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

7 0 11 3 500 0001 862 5 5 5 3 0

Re: Washington State Auditor's Official Misconduct

Governor Inslee:
The duties of the State Auditor are found at Chapter 43.09 RCW.
It our intention to bring to your attention the failure of duty of the State Auditor to audit
and insure that all public servants are collecting the requisite fees for their respective offices.
Various state and county offices have mandatory fees to be paid for filing documents.
The key point in RCW 42.16.030 is in the Historical and Statutory Notes - *Reviser's note

The term "this section" refers to 1907 c. 56 sec. 1, of which RCW 42.16.030 is
but a part. The other parts of 1907 c. 56 sec. 1. as amended are codified as RCW
2.32.070 (supreme court clerk's fees), 2.14.010 (witnesses' fees), 36.18.020
(superior court clerk's fees), 36.18.040 (sheriff's fees), 36.18.010 (county
audilor:~ fees), 36./8.030 (county coroner's fees), 2.36.150 Ouror's fees}, and
47.28.(J9(J notariesPftes}.
Evidence suggests that County Auditors throughout the state of Washington are
exempting certain persons from paying mandatory filing fees for elected and appointed county
officials. This also breaks the chain of recorded office holders at the State Archives. When a fee
is not paid for filing documents required by law to be filed, the document does not reside with
the State Archivist.
For example, a valid filing (RCW 65.04.015(2) ".. .for recording into the offiCial public
records") will have evidence of a stamp, sticker or other printed mark showing a unique Auditor
or Filing Officer Number (RCW 65.04.01S(4)), fee paid ([County Auditor] RCW 36.22.010 (1) "...
other instruments in writing which by law are to be filed and recorded"; [State Auditor] RCW

43.07.030 - General duties. (3) Record all ... other papers filed in the secretary of state's office.
(10) Keep a record of all fees charged or received by the secretary of state)"; and the date, time
and office where the filed record can be viewed or a copy obtained.

EVIDENCE OF A PROPERLY FILED OATH OF OFFICE

2009 0007749

Auditor File #:

Rewo"ded at the request of:

RETURN ADDRESS:
en

STEVENS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

08/27/2009

Total of

page(s)

at

14:47
Paid: $

63.00

STEVENS COUNTY. WASHINGTON

TIM GRAY, AUDITOR

Al\LLEN

DOCUMENT TITLE:

OATH OF OFFICE

GRANTOR(S): Lastr Firstl Middle Initial

1. TVEIT1 GINA A.

For example, when Gina A. Tveit was appointed to serve as District Court Judge in
Stevens County in 2009, she filed her Oath of Office and complied with Washington State Law.
However, upon winning elections in 2010 and 2014, she did not comply with state law. This
wasn't a matter of ignorance or oversight. Tveit had completed the process correctly but then
chose to ignore the Legislative mandates to properly file her Oath so that it could be entered
into the official public records and archived in Olympia in 2010 and 2014. [See Gina A. Tveit's 3
Oaths of Office attached].
Tveit is a BAR licensed attorney, worked in the Stevens County Prosecutor's Office as a
Deputy prosecutor before becoming a District Court Judge. Tveit and all other Attorneys in
Washington have sworn an Oath of Attorney [See example - Oath of Attorney for Timothy
Rasmussen] and they have violated that Oath if they occupy a pubfic office in Washington and
have failed to comply with every legislative mandate.

OATH OF ATTORNEY. The Oath states in part:

1.
2.

"] am fully sub;ect to the laws ofthe State of Wafihington and the laws ofthe
United States and will ahide hy the same;" [Underlined emphasis]
"1 will support the constitution ofthe State of Washington and the constitution

ofthe United States; "

Washington's Supreme Court has ruled that Superior Court Judges occupy a dual
position. They are both a "state officer" and a "county officer". State ex rei Edelstein v.
Foley, 107 P.2d 901, 6 Wash.2d 244; in re Salary of Superior Court Judges, 82 Wash. 623,
(Wash. 1914); Neal v. Wallace, 15 Wash. App. 506, 550 P.2d 539 (1976). They are both
State and County officials. It is yet to be found in the State of Washington a Superior
Court Judge that has "duly qualified" to hold office as either a County officer or State
officer. They, too, are non-compliant with State law.

RCW 42.20.030: Every person who shall falsely personate or represent

any public officer, or who shall willfully intrude himself or herself into a public
office to which he or she has not been duly elected or appointed, or who shall
willfully exercise any ofthe functions or perform any ofthe duties ofsuch officer,
without having duly qualified therefor, as required by law, or who, haVing been
an executive or administrative officer, shall willfully exercise any ofthe functions
ofhis or her office after his or her right to do so has ceased, or wrongfully refuse
to surrender the offiCial seal or any books or papers appertaining to such office,
upun the demand of his or her lawful successor, shall be guilty uf a gruss
misdemeanor.
BLACK'S LAW, 6 th Edition:
"Duly Qualified" "Being "duly qualified" to fill an office, in the constitutional
sense and in the ordinary acceptation of the words, means that the officer shall
possess every qualification; that he shall in all respects comply with every
requisite before entering on the duties of the office; and that he shall be bound
by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and to petform the duties ofthe
office with fidelity. "
The United States Supreme Court has emphatically stated:

"We have no officers in this govemmentfrom the President down to the most
subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed
duties and limited authority. And while some of these, as the President,
legislature and the Judiciary, exercise powers in some sense left to the more
general definitions necessarily incident to fundamental law found in the
Constitution, the larger portion o(them are the creation of statutory law, with
duties and powers prescribed and limited by law. THE FLO y1)
ACCEPTANCES, 74 US 666 at 676-677; (7 Wall. 666), Supreme Court 1868,
Washington Law Reporter, Vol. XLII Page 297. [Bold and Underlined emphasis
added]
This is background information to expose how the State Auditor has been deficient in
his duty of oversight and accountability at every level of government in Washington. If you
haven't grasped the magnitude of this unlawful conduct, just know that one person in Stevens
County, Gina A. Tveit has deprived the State and/or County Treasury of over $130 in filing fees

in just two terms. Persons such as prosecutor Timothy Rasmussen, sheriff Kendle Allen, county
auditor Tim Gray, county clerk Patti Chester, County Commissioners etc, school board
members, city council members etc. in Stevens County alone, are persons so required by law to
file their Oaths and the Appointments and Oaths of their deputies. Multiply that by thousands
of city, county and state persons across Washington who are required by law to file their
Appointments and Oath but the State Auditor has turned a blind eye and is allowing this
violation of state law to occur unchecked.
It is believed that millions of dollars have remained uncollected over the past years and
the State Auditor is primarily responsible. It is time the State Auditor's Office be audited and
criminally charged if found to have committed Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010 or worse.
When a certain class of persons are exempted from paying filing fees without authority of law it
puts an undue burden upon the remainder of the people not so privileged.
For the full legal background and legislative requirements for the requisite paying of
filing fees and compliance with State Law, see a sample document challenging the jurisdiction
and authority of every judge and prosecutor not in compliance with State law. When
prosecutors and judges have not duly qualified in every way, they have no jurisdiction, no
authority and no immunity. The State Auditor's office could have corrected this situation years
ago. This has created great liability for the people of '. " Washington State.

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be

subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a

government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to

observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent

teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is

contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for

law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To

declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the

means-to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure

the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that

pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Justice Brandeis,

dissenting opinion, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

We th~ PeopJe

_-L

1f:fi

cc.

&~ L,;, R~, dJJ lGjkt.$ ~c-ru ~l

...,.

td.

9J::/tt.-r)
~

~.jj;:r/d~~~

Tr~ington State Auditor

7011 3500 0001 8625 5554

79 l'Jews Media Outlets

tbdf /l'1 ~ Mt RrJh W

4

A proper filing will show

Auditor File Number and
Fee Paid.

This is proper for a two

page filing.

STATE OF WASHINGTON
) ss

OATH OF OFFICE

County of Stevens

I, Gina A. Tveit, do solemnly swear and affirm that I am a Citizen of the United
States of America and the State of Washington; that I will support the Constitution
and Laws of the United States of America and the Constitution and Laws of the
State of Washington, and the laws of Stevens County, and will to the best of my
judgment, skill, and ability, faithfully, diligently and impartially perform the duties
of the office of District Court Judge in and for the County of Stevens, Washington
as such duties are prescribed by law.

Gina A. Tveit

Subscribed and sworn to before me this c17)1-1-

day of December, 2010.

This is not "Filed" according to

the mandates of state law. Tveit
Tim Gray
ceased to be "duly qualified" to
hold the office of District Court Auditor for Stevens Coun ,Washington
Judge in January 2011.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of
Oaths of Office across
Washington are not filed
properly, and fees not paid.
State and County treasuries are
deprived of perhaps millions of
dollars in unpaid mandatory
filing fees.

RECEIVED
DEC 27 ZO-:J
v:

-.r.

Initials / Timeh /Ov~Awr

Stevens County Auditor

"-. >...
--

'c)

+-'

c:

-t:; ::::)
....
-"

r-,u

Again, this is not "Filed"

according to state law.

STATE OF

WASH~01GTON}

COUNTY OF STEVENS

OATH OF OFFICE

Subscribed and sworn to before me this d~

Person administering

day of )J~(~V

Rctu n Document to:

Stevens Count)' Auditor

215 S Oak, Room 106

Colville, W A. 99114-2836

RECEIVED
DEC 22 2014

,t.ro

BY:~

hU"J)

~~~~Fo~~.S~f~e:
I,

~.

(}-"
~-'_. J
JI.tn.t(7}f.Y.. ~('('Jtd~

SS.

, do solemnly declare:

1. 1 am fully subject to the laws of the State of Washington and the laws of the United States and will abide by
the same.

2. I will support the constitution ofthe State of Washington and the constitution of the United States.
3. 1 will abide by the Rules ofProfeSSional Conduct approved by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.

4. I will maintain the respect due to the courts ofjustice and judicial officers.
5. I will not counsel, or maintain any suit, or proceeding, which shall appear to me to be unjust, or any defense
except as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law, unless it is in defense of a person charged with a
public offense. 1 will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me only those means
consistent with truth and honor. I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false
statement.

6. I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no

compensation in connection with the business of my client unless this compensation is from or with the

knowledge and approval of the client or with the approval ofthe court.

7. I will abstain from all offensive personalities, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged.
8. I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or
delay unjustly the cause of any person.

. ~. R~

_~~..(...S..::'ignature)

.,

~
, 2c1?~ ..
Judge

."

Here is what the law says for public officials to "duly qualify".
Usurping a public office after failure to duly qualify is a criminal offense.
In baseball, a batter can hit a home run over the fence, but he is still
REQUIRED to run and touch every base or the home run doesn't count. He
is OUT! Likewise with public servants that fail to duly qualify.
"The officer shall possess EVERY QUALIFICATION; that he shall in ALL
respects COMPLY with EVERY REQUISITE BEFORE entering upon the
duties of the office." Black's Law 5th Edition "Duly Qualify".

The State of Washington

DistrictorSuperior
________________ Court
YourCounty
________________ County

________________________,
Plaintiff,
v.
________________________,

Case No._____________________
Motion to Dismiss and Demand
for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and
a Direct Attack as to the
Courts Want of Jurisdiction

Defendant

COMES NOW the Defendant, in good faith with clean hands and moves this court
to dismiss this case upon taking Judicial Notice as to this Courts Want of Jurisdiction.
Plaintiff seeks an immediate order of dismissal for total lack of authority of persons
usurping the public offices of this County in the State of Washington. Plaintiff has a right
to justice in this court, not on appeal.
There are in general three jurisdictional elements in every valid judgment,
namely, jurisdiction of subject matter, jurisdiction of person and power or
authority to render particular judgment. Little v. Little (1981) 96 Wash.2d 183,
634 P.2d 498.
Elements essential to give court jurisdiction of subject matter of action are that
court have cognizance of class of cases to which one to be adjudged belongs, that
proper parties be present, and that point to be decided be, in substance and effect,

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 1 of 12

within issues before court. State ex rel. Troy v. Superior Court (1951) 38
Wash.2d 352, 229 P.2d 518.

As to the power or authority to render particular judgment

The person (i.e. judicial officer) claiming jurisdiction in this case is believed to be
knowingly and intentionally usurping the office of a duly qualified judicial officer in the
above captioned County in the State of Washington and is therefore without power or
authority to render any judgment, and further is without power or authority to confer, by
order or appointment any pro tem judge/commissioner, power or authority said person
does not possess.
RCW 2.28.030 Judicial officer defined
A judicial officer is a person authorized to act as a judge in a court of justice.

It is believed that the judicial officer presiding over this case has failed to file an
official oath of office as prescribed by the Washington Legislature pursuant to RCW
36.18.005; 65.04.015; and 36.16.060.
RCW 36.18.005 Definitions
The definitions set forth in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the
context clearly requires otherwise.
(2) File, filed, or filing means the act of delivering an instrument to the
auditor or recording officer for recording into the official public record.
(3) Record, recorded, or recording means the process, such as electronic,
mechanical, optical, magnetic or microfilm storage used by the auditor or
recording officer after filing to incorporate the instrument into the public
records.
Even though the above RCW is clear and needs no judicial determination, the legislature
went further by defining the terms again in RCW 65.04.015, so that even the most incompetent
public servant could understand.
RCW 65.04.015 - Definitions
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 2 of 12

(2) File, filed, or filing means the act of delivering an instrument to the
auditor or recording officer for recording into the official public record.
(3) Record, recorded, or recording means the process, such as electronic,
mechanical, optical, magnetic or microfilm storage used by the auditor or
recording officer after filing to incorporate the instrument into the public
records.
The legislature made it crystal clear in RCW 65.04.015 that each instrument was to
contain a unique number so that it could be located when needed and also for the purpose of
preserving it.
(4) Recording number means a unique number that identifies the storage
location (book or volume and page, reel and frame, instrument number, auditor
or recording officer file number, receiving number, electronic retrieval code, or
other specific place) of each instrument in the public records accessible in the
same recording office where the instrument containing the reference to the
location is found.
Nothing in these definitions could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, justify
placing official public documents into a filing cabinet in the auditors office, a recording
officers office, RCW 40.14.040, the sheriffs office, or in any other office by anyone, period.
Full compliance with the legislative requirements is requisite. An Oath of Office or other
document void of evidence of: 1) a unique file/recording number, and 2) the required fee paid,
and 3) the date and time of filing and 4) place/office where said document can be located, affixed
or printed on the face of the document is non-compliant with state law.
Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law. Pierce v. United
States, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869).
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. State v. Spence, 81 Wn.2d 788, 792, 506
P.2d 293, 296 (1973); Every sane person is presumed to know the law. State v.
Patterson, 37 Wash. App. 275, 679 P.2d 416 (1984); and mistake of law is not a
defense. State v. Takacs, 35 Wash. App. 914, 671 P.2d 263 (1983), remand for
reconsideration by Court of Appeals, 102 Wn.2d 1012, 689 P.2d 368 (1984).

Every Citizen is supposed to know the law and that includes those that administer the
law. No one can claim authority to conduct judicial business while reliant upon a defective
instrument as authority for to do so would be to fail to duly qualify for that office. The office
holder is deprived of authority to administer the duties of the office and the office becomes
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 3 of 12

vacant. To remain in office after authority to do so have ceased, is to usurp the office and/or
intrude into office.

RCW 42.20.030 Intrusion into and refusal to surrender public office.

Every person who shall falsely personate or represent any public officer, or who
shall willfully intrude himself or herself into a public office to which he or she has
not been duly elected or appointed, or who shall willfully exercise any of the
functions or perform any of the duties of such officer, without having duly
qualified therefor, as required by law, or who, having been an executive or
administrative officer, shall willfully exercise any of the functions of his or her
office after his or her right to do so has ceased, or wrongfully refuse to surrender
the official seal or any books or papers appertaining to such office, upon the
demand of his or her lawful successor, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
The key words above are duly, duly qualified and willfully and these words have been
defined in law as follows:
Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition defines:
Duly- In due and proper form or manner; according to legal requirements.
Regularly; properly; suitable; upon proper foundation, as distinguished from
mere form; according to law in both form and substance.
Duly QualifiedBeing "duly qualified" to fill an office, in the constitutional
sense and in the ordinary acceptation of the words, means that the officer shall
possess every qualification; that he shall in all respects comply with every
requisite before entering on the duties of the office; and that he shall be bound
by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and to perform the duties of the
office with fidelity.
The United States Supreme Court ruled:
We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most
subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties
and limited authority. And while some of these, as the President, legislature and
the Judiciary, exercise powers in some sense left to the more general definitions
necessarily incident to fundamental law found in the Constitution, the larger
portion of them are the creation of statutory law, with duties and powers
prescribed and limited by law. THE FLOYD ACCEPTANCES, 74 US 666 at
676-677; (7 Wall. 666), Supreme Court 1868, Washington Law Reporter, Vol.
XLII Page 297. [Bold and Underlined emphasis added]
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 4 of 12

For anyone to be elected or appointed to a judgeship in the state of Washington, they

must first be a member of the BAR Association. Every BAR member swears and subscribes an
OATH OF ATTORNEY. The Oath states in part:
1.
2.

I am fully subject to the laws of the State of Washington and the laws of the
United States and will abide by the same; [Underlined emphasis]
I will support the constitution of the State of Washington and the constitution
of the United States;

Lawyers and judicial officers have sworn upon oath that they are required to abide by all
the laws of the state and United States as well as the Constitutions. They are not permitted to
pick and chose which ones they will be compliant with or even substantially compliant with.
They must be fully compliant for they are fully subject to the laws.
When law making branch of government has spoken, courts may interpret, but
cannot add to or take away from clear and unambiguous meaning of law since to
do so would be legislative rather than interpretation and policy, expediency and
wisdom of statute are legislative and not judicial questions. Ranson v. South
Bend (1913) 76 Wn. 396, 136 P. 365.
When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition,
even if it varies from the terms ordinary meaning. Steinburg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.
914 (2002).
It is axiomatic that statutory definitions of the terms includes unstated meanings
of that term. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987); see also Western Union
Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490 (1945).
Definitions are integral to statutory scheme and of highest value in determining
legislative intent. To ignore section is to refuse to give legal effect to part of
statutory law. State v. Taylor, 30 Wash. App. 89, 632 P.2d 892 (1981).
When legislative body provides definitions for statutory terms, it is that
definition to which person must conform his conduct. City of Seattle v. Koh, 26
Wash. App. 708, 614 P.2d 665 (1980).

The argument that RCW 36.18.010 does not list a fee for filing an oath of office does not
stand. It still would come under subsection (8) relating to miscellaneous records, or RCW
36.18.050 Fees in special cases, RCW 36.18.060 Fees payable in advance, and two other that
leave no room for doubt are RCWA 42.16.030 Disposition of fees and RCWA 42.16.040
Official fees payable in advance.
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 5 of 12

But, the key point in RCW 42.16.030 is in the Historical and Statutory Notes - *Revisers
note
The term this section refers to 1907 c. 56 sec. 1, of which RCW 42.16.030 is
but a part. The other parts of 1907 c. 56 sec. 1, as amended are codified as RCW
2.32.070 (supreme court clerks fees), 2.14.010 (witnesses fees), 36.18.020
(superior court clerks fees), 36.18.040 (sheriffs fees), 36.18.010 (county
auditors fees), 36.18.030 (county coroners fees), 2.36.150 (jurors fees), and
42.28.090 (notaries fees).
All of the RCWs relating to oath of office require that they be filed. The legislature
defined the word filed as recording into the public record and all of the RCWs relating to
fees are listed as filing fees, not recording fees.
Now, back to RCWA 42.16.040 above and its Notes of Decisions.
When papers are received by officer for filing, filing will not become effective
until necessary fees have been paid. State v. Conners 91942) 12 Wash.2d 128,
120 P.2d 1002; State v. Nelson 91940) 6 Wash.2d 190, 107 P.2d 113.
Provision requiring payment of fees in advance is mandatory. State v. Nelson
91940) 6 Wash.2d 190, 107 P.2d 113.
Although state is not required to pay its fees in advance, it is not relieved of
liability for fees. State ex rel Hamilton v. Ayer (1938) 194 Wash. 165, 77 P.2d
610.
As to the auditors defined duties RCW 36.22.010
The county auditor:
(1) Shall be recorder of deeds and other instruments in writing which by law are
to be filed and recorded in and for the county for which he or she elected.
Now, as to the duties of the secretary of state:
RCW 43.07.030 General duties.
(3) Record all articles of incorporation, deeds, or other papers filed in the
secretary of states office.
(10) Keep a record of all fees charged or received by the secretary of state.

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 6 of 12

There is one more issue regarding the oath of office and the term officer, the
Constitution for the united States of America, at Art. VI, cl. 3 mandates that all officers, not just
elected officers take an oath to support the Constitution.
The legislature provided for all officers not elected in RCW 1.16.065 and the state
supreme court interpreted this RCW as requiring that they are to take and file an oath of office.
See Nelson v. Troy (1895) 11 Wash. 435, 39 P. 974; McIntosh v. Hutchinson 91936) 187 Wash.
61, 59 P.2d 1117; State ex rel. Brown v. Blew (1944) 20 Wash. 2d 47, 145 P.2d 554; State ex rel
Fitts v. Gibbs 91952) 40 Wash.2d 444, 244 P.2d 241.
Under the authority of RCW 40.14, the State Records Committee in 2003 declared the
oath of office as an official Historical Document for elected and appointed officers, in document
no. 79-03-22079 REV-1, but set the retention time as 0 (zero), in other words, the oath is to be
recorded in the proper office and then sent directly to the state archives.
The legislature also addressed what happens if anyone elected to public office fails to
take, subscribe an oath of office or to secure their bond and to deposit either as required by law,
in RCW 42.12.010, which has been law and almost unchanged for over one hundred and fifty
years.
Vacancy occurs in office by operation of statute at time event takes place. State
ex rel. Austin v. Superior Court of Whatcom County (1940) 6 Wash.2d 61, [No.
28088 Department One. Supreme Court October 28, 1940]; State ex rel Guthrie
v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327, 60 P.2d 245 (1936); State ex rel Zempel v.
Twitchell, 59 Wn.2d 419, 367 P.2d 985 91962); Vanderveer v. Gormley, 53 Wash.
543, 102 Pac. 435 91909); see also AGO 63-64, no. 17, April 16, 1963; AGLO
1980 no. 2, January 11, 1980.
Not only did the legislature declare under what conditions an office became vacant, it
also declared what happens if anyone knowingly continues in office without duly qualifying.
RCW 42.20.030 has been law since 1909 and has remained unchanged. This RCW declares what
penalty applies for willfulness in performing the duties of an office without being duly qualified.
[See RCW 42.20.030 Intrusion into and refusal to surrender public office quoted herein above]

Since RCW 42.20.030 is a criminal offence, RCW 9A.08 definitions apply.

RCW 9A.08.010 General requirements of culpability
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 7 of 12

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that

an offense be committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with
respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further
requirements plainly appear.

The above definitions establish that no one can duly qualify after the time set by law to
qualified has passed, as defined in RCW 29A.04.133 or RCW 29A.60.280.
Further, as shown earlier, Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so knowledge is
established by the act.
Because RCW 42.12.010 also lists failure to secure ones bond and deposit it as required
by law or the office is vacant, see the following:
RCW 36.16.060 requires not only the oath to be timely filed, but also the bond.
RCW 36.18.020 does not state a charge or even mention a bond, but again, the filing
required under RCW 36.16.060 would be covered by RCW 36.18.050 and RCW 36.18.60.
But, there is more. Even though RCW 48.28.040 made the appropriate government entity
responsible for paying the premiums on its officers bonds, RCW 42.08.100 still requires state
officers bonds to be approved by the governor and then filed pursuant to statute.
RCW 42.08.100 also applies to counties and township officers, except county
superintendent of schools, be approved by board of county commissioners and then filed with the
proper authority, or else the office becomes vacant as stated in RCW 42.12.010 for failure to
deposit within the time prescribed by law.
There are three offices within the county that also need more clarification. 1) Offices
of superior court judge, 2) deputy prosecutors and 3) deputy sheriffs.
First, superior court judges are required to qualify according to qualifications set by
the legislature.
, but the court held that judges right to hold public office was subject to
qualifications imposed by the legislature. State ex rel Carrol v. Simmons, 61
Wn.2d 146, 377 P.2d 421 91962).

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 8 of 12

RCW 36.16.040 Oath of office

Every person elected to county office shall..

RCW 36.16.060 Place of filing oaths and bonds.

Every county officer, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall file his
oath of office with the county auditor and his bond in the office of the county
clerk.
Oaths and bonds of deputies shall be filed in the office in which the oaths and
bonds of their principals are required to be filed.
Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition defines (under subtitle County office)
Office- Public office filled by the electorate of the entire county.
Washington Constitution Art. 4, sec. 5 (in part) Superior Court Election of
Judges, Term of, Ect. There shall be in each of the organized counties of this state
a superior court for which at least one judge shall be elected by the qualified
electors of the county at the general election.
Washington Constitution Art. 4 sec. 13 (in part) Salaries of Judicial Officers
How paid, Ect.. One- half of the salary of each superior court judge shall be paid
by the state, and the other one-half by the county or counties for which they are
elected.
See also amendment 21 and take note that the following cases define superior
court judges as occupying a dual position, and is both a state officer and a
county officer. State ex rel Edelstein v. Foley, 107 P.2d 901, 6 Wash.2d 244; in
re Salary of Superior Court Judges, 82 Wash. 623, (Wash. 1914); Neal v.
Wallace, 15 Wash. App. 506, 550 P.2d 539 (1976).

Second, deputy prosecutors are public officers as defined in;

State v. Cook, 84 Wn.2d 342, 525 P.2d 761 (1974) Hale, C.T. (concurring only in
results) each deputy thus appointed shall have the same qualifications
required of the prosecuting attorney. RCW 36.27.040. Because the prosecuting
attorney and his deputies hold offices created by the state constitution, they are
in law public officers. Const. art. II, sec. 5
The term of office for a deputy prosecutor appointed under RCW 36.27.040
coincides with the term of the elected prosecutor and is, thus, a specified term of
office. As such, the Deputy Prosecutor fits the exception found in RCW
41.56.030 (2) (b), are not public employees, and the Act does not apply.
Spokane County ex rel County Comm. V. State, 136 Wn.2d 644, 966 P.2d 303
(1998).
Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 9 of 12

Third, Deputy Sheriffs are public officers as defined in;

[1] The concluding sentence in Rem. Rev. Stat., sec. 4157 [cf. RCW 36.28.010]
relieves the county of liability for sheriffs acts, and this court held in Carter v.
King County, 120 Wash. 536, 208 Pac. 5, that a deputy sheriff was not a servant
of the county. A deputy sheriff is a public officer. Gray v. DeBretton, 192 La.
628, 188 So. 722; Maxwell v. Andrews County, 347 Mo. 156, 146 S.W.2d 621;
Scott v. Endicott, 225 Mo. App. 426, 38 S.W.2d 67; Towe v. Yancey County, 224
N.C. 579, 31 S.E.2d 754; Blake v. Allen, 221 N.C. 445, 20 S.E.2d 552; Gowens v.
Alamance County, 216 N.C. 107, 3 S.E.2d 339; Borders v. Cline, 212 N.C. 472,
193 S.E. 826; Willis v. Aiken County, 203 S.C. 96, 26 S.E.2d 313; Murray v. State,
125 Tex. Crim. App. 252, 67 S.W.2d 274; Gross v. Gates, 109 Vt. 156, 194 Atl.
465 State ex rel Day v. King County, 50 Wn.2d 427 [no. 33771 Department Two.
Supreme Court June 13, 1957]

Immunity Lost
When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid
statute expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin
v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den.; Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451
U.S. 939, 68 L. Ed.2d 326.

Total and inarguable absence of jurisdiction cannot be adequately remedied by

appeal. Barnes v. Thomas (1981) 96 Wash.2d 316, 635 P.2d 135.
Parties to action cannot, by stipulation, confer upon court jurisdiction with
which it is not vested. Miles v. Chinto Mining Co. (1944) 21 Wash.2d 902, 153
P.2d 856, 156 P.2d 235.

Criminal usurpers cannot claim any immunity to civil or criminal action, nor to salaries,
benefits or pensions.

Under the law of standing, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction without proper
pleadings by proper parties.

Neither affidavits nor reports by a person criminally usurping the office of a police
officer can grant jurisdiction.

Neither Informations nor pleadings filed by a person criminally usurping the office of
a prosecutor, elected or appointed, can grant jurisdiction.

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 10 of 12

Neither rulings nor orders filed by a person usurping the office of a judge can grant
jurisdiction.

There is one RCW in particular that applies to all criminal usurpers when filing instruments
into the public record; read closely.
RCWA 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 5 years, or by a
fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
Notes of Decisions
In this section making it a crime to knowingly file any false or forged instrument
in a public office, the term instrument encompasses a document which is
required or permitted by statute or valid regulation to be filed, registered, or
recorded in a public office if the claimed falsity relates to material fact
represented in the instrument and the information contained in the document is of
such a nature that the government is required or permitted by law, statute or valid
regulation to act in reliance thereon, or the information contained in the
document materially affects significant rights or duties of third persons, when
such effect is reasonably contemplated by the express or implied intent of the
statute or valid regulation which requires the filing, registration, or recording of
the document. State v. Price (1980) 94 Wash.2d 810, 620 P.2d 994.
Test for determining whether a document is an instrument, within meaning
statute making it a crime to offer a false instrument for filing, contains three
separate requirements: first, the document must be required or permitted by
statute or valid regulation, that is, it must be within the literal scope of a state
law; secondly, the content of the document must be scrutinized for materiality;
finally, the court must consider the likelihood and extent of others reliance on the
document. (2001) State v. Hampton, 143 Wash.2d 789, 24 P.2d 1035.
The substantial penalties of statute making it a crime to offer a false instrument
for filing are not to be universally applicable whenever a piece of paper may be
filed in a public office; the document filed must first be required or permitted by
law. State v. Hampton (2001) 143 Wash.2d 789, 24 P.2d 1035.

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 11 of 12

Conclusion

As clarified by unambiguous statutes, Legislative mandates and proper and legitimate

case law, this case must be dismissed for total lack of jurisdiction. Defendant has a right to
justice in this court, not on appeal. Furthermore, appeal is not an appropriate remedy when the
facts and evidence clearly establish the total lack of jurisdiction.

Date_______________
All Rights Reserved.
__________________________
Defendant

Certificate of Service

I, _________________________, did personally deliver a true and correct copy of the above:
Motion to Dismiss and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the
Courts Want of Jurisdiction,

to:

____________________________
____________________________
____________________________

On this ____ day of ________________, 20___.

__________________________

Motion and Demand for Judicial Notice ER-201(d) and a Direct Attack as to the Courts Want of Jurisdiction
Page 12 of 12