Noconfidence.Com Courses Teach Aggressive Litigation
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
STATE OF WASHINGTON, and) No. 03-3-00444-5
Jane Lunchbucket,)
Plaintiff,)
) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH
vs.) Contempt proceedings and to modify
) support order; exoneration of bail.
Joe Lunchbucket,)
Defendant.) MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE.
______
I. INTRODUCTION.
COMES NOW, Defendant hereto, seeking specific relief in the form of a modification of the Court’s support order to a manageable sum, and the quashing of contempt proceedings for nonpayment of support under order.
Statutory and constitutional violations are found in the measures employed by the Court in its handling of Defendant’s delinquency in meeting support requirements imposed by the Court in this case. This Court and its policy makers are hereby on mandatory judicial notice of the authorities cited herein. (See Fairley v. Luman, #99-56483 (CA9 2002), citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481-82 (1986)).
Solely due to his property status, Defendant must live under threat of arrest and confinement under the Court’s existing order. This violates due process and equal protection rights as complained and briefed. Defendant’s memorandum in support of this motion is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein, Any and all emphasis employed herein may be construed to have been added.
II. BASIS OF MOTION.
Defendant can point to a lack of statutory authority as well as constitutional violations in the form and substance of this Court’s orders concerning contempt sanctions and bail types. Defendant’s arguments are as follows:
A. Because imprisonment cannot rightfully be deemed a valid or reasonably way to compel a solution to one’s poverty, the sanctions imposed by the Court violates RCW 7.21. Imprisonment solely upon the basis of a debt violates WA Constitution Art. I, § 17 and other.
B. To hold Defendant’s property status against him violates fundamental rights to reside and to work under the U.S. Const. Amdt. 5 and 14.
C. Property status is not a valid basis for the exercise of state police power. The sole basis for the Court’s imprisonment of the Defendant is because his poverty conflicts with this Court’s order(s). This is a violation of rights to equal protection.
D. Cash only bail and confinement thereunder violates WA Const. Art. I, §§ 14 and 20. Court rules and WA Constitution are void of any delegation of authority or latitude to the courts to restrict bail to “cash only.”
E. Defendant is without counsel until his defender is replaced after being terminated for cause. Defense counsel refuses to argue to protect the constitutional rights of the Defendant and must therefore be replaced, counsel’s ineffectiveness poses a deprivation of rights to counsel in violation of WA Constitutional Art. I, § 22, and RCW 10.101. Defendant’s demand for replacement defender is incorporated by this reference as if fully restated herein.
Snohomish County’s policymakers are hereby on notice of these proceedings and the issues complained of herein. (See Fairley v. Luman, #99-56483 (CA9 2002), citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481-82 (1986)).
III. RELIEF REQUESTED.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court exonerate any bail already paid under prior warrants for contempt of this nature.
FURTHER, Defendant requests that contempt proceedings be quashed due to substantial contributory financial hardship currently experienced by the Defendant, and for a lack of reasonable grounds to believe that imprisonment serves a legitimate coercive purpose in this matter.
FURTHER, Defendant requests that this Court’s order of support be modified to impose amounts not impossible for Defendant to pay thereunder. In the alternative, Defendant requests that the Court accept as compliant whatever sums the Defendant is willing to declare are all those affordable for him to pay under the subject order.
Dated:______Respectfully submitted:
______
Joe Lunchbucket
5050 Myway Hiway
Nice Place, WA 12345
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
MOTION TO MODIFY SUPPORT
ORDER and to exonerate bail. Page 1 of 3