KLS
IV-D#: 718496
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
NO:
PETITIONER. COUNTER
COMPLAINT
vs. UNLAWFUL FORCED
LABOR
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
PEONAGE
PERRY
L. MANLEY and
JURY DEMAND
RESPONDENT
___________________________________
I
COUNT ONE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Section 1584 of
Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is,
a condition of compulsory service of labor against his will. A
Section
1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his will by actual
force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion.
Section 1584 also
prohibits compelling a person to work against his will by creating a "
climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or
the threat of legal coercions, which is sufficient to compel service against a
person's will.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a term of ten years, depending upon the circumstances of the crime.
TITLE 18 U.S.C., SECTION 1584
Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
II
COUNT TWO
PEONAGE
Section 1581 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in " debt servitude, " or peonage, which is closely related to involuntary servitude. Section 1581 prohibits using force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercions to compel a person to work against his will. In addition the victim's involuntary servitude must be tied to the payment of a debt.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a term of ten years, depending upon the circumstances of the crime.
(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).
III
JURISDICTION
Since a void order has no legal force or effect, there can be no time limit within which to challenge the order or judgment. Further, since the order has no legal force or effect, it can be repeatedly challenged, since no judge has the lawful authority to make a void order valid.
Bates v. Board
of Education,
It is clear and
well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.
Old Wayne Mut. L., Assoc. v. MeDonough, 204
It is also clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court at any time People v. Wade, 116 Ill. 2d l, 506 N. E. 2d 954 (1987) In re Marriage of Magno, 236 Ill. App. 3d 886 ( 2nd Dist. 1992) Evans v. Corporate Services, 207 Ill. App. 3d 297, 565 N. E. 2d 724 ( 2nd Dist. 1990)
The law is
well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before
reversal.
Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 254
Conflicts with federal requirements [ RCW 26.09.020 ] renders the conflicting parts of the law in operative. [ RCW 74.08A.903 ] The rules under this act shall meet federal requirements.
IV
FACTS OF LAW
1. Rights and powers are not necessarily complementary, they
can come into conflict, and when they do, rights always prevail. When the
Ninth Amendment declares the existence of rights not enumerated in the
constitution, it is not saying simply that government lacks certain powers,
rather, it is making a more substantial claim: that the people retain certain
rights which supercede even some of the government's enumerated power.
2. Rights and powers exist independently, when they come into
conflict, rights win out. The government has only certain delegated
powers and may not do anything it is not specifically authorized to do.
3. The people have certain natural rights which are retained by
them when they enter into society, such are the rights of conscience in matters
of religion, of acquiring property, and of pursuing happiness and safety; of
speaking, writing and publishing their sentiments with decency and
freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of
applying to government by petition or remonstrance for redress of
grievances. Of these rights therefore they shall not be deprived by the
government. Natural rights pre-exist, and cannot be changed by social
contract. It is precisely these rights that the Ninth Amendment
protects. It is not the existence of the government that created these
rights: it is the existence of these rights that justifies the existence
of government. The
Ninth Amendment would act as an instruction to the States;
ENFORCE the rights granted to state citizens, even if they aren't
specifically addressed in the Constitution.
4. The State fails to enforce Mr. Manley's right to
5. The State of
6.
The State of Washington
cannot claim
Eleventh Amendment guarantee of Sovereign immunity if the State is
said to be in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d ex seq.], In a suit against a State for a violation of
a statue remedies ( including remedies both at law and in equity) are available
for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such
a violation in the suit against any public or private entity. [RCW 04 92
090] The State shall be liable for damages [ 1963 c 159 2:
1961 c 136 1.]
7. The Government forces labor for the benefit of a woman’s
right to choose.
The enforcement of child
support breaks the law. If this court allows for the enforcement of the State’s
Child Support Requirements Mr. Manley is not obliged. THE LAW MUST BE ENFORCED “EQUAL FOR ALL.” The unwarranted imposition on Mr. Manley
leaves Mr. Manley without the capacity to maintain even the most basic
semblance of existence.
8. The Bible in, Genesis 3: 14-19, God issues three
verdicts. One to the serpent; one to the woman; and one to Adam.
God's command to the woman was
her desire to her husband, and his rule over her. God held
each [ the serpent, the woman, and Adam ] responsible for
their action in the garden, God does not, [if a woman rejects God's precepts
and principals] hold a man responsible and obligated for a woman.
The woman's moral responsibility holds her accountable. The laws of the
land conclude that a woman has a right to choose to be a single parent, God
does not impose a moral responsibility and financial obligation on a man.
9. Mr. Manley nether acquiesced to the the State’s conduct nor
caused the State to alter their position in reasonable reliance on Mr. Manley’s
acceptance of the status quo, or otherwise permitted a situation to arise which
it would be unjust to disturb.
10. An overwhelming sense of grief, and pain has been compounded
by a general inability to access the courts. [Kitsap Superior Court
ordered the " Crawford Firm " represent Mr. Manley; 5 (five)
Attorneys denied their service and representation].
11. Federal law mandates FIDUCIARY DUTY to act under the color of
law. The obligation exists in [the placing special trust and confidence]
the government. Mr. Manley relies upon the government to exercise
discretion and expertise in acting towards Mr. Manley's rights.
[
12. When the State undertakes to act under color of law, the
law forbids the State from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the
interests of Mr. Manley, or from acting
for their own benefit in relationship to Mr. Manley's labor. Mr. Manley
is entitled to the best efforts of the State on his behalf and the State must
exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at their disposal when acting
under color of law on behalf of Mr. Manley. The State is forbidden to
obtain an unreasonable advantage at Mr. Manley's expense.
13. Mr. Manley has inherent right to control what happens to his
body. "[E]very human being of adult
yearsand sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own
body..." [see: Scholendroff v. Society of N Y Hospital, 211 NY 125,
129-130, N.E. 92-93 (1914)]. ibid
14. "All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has
a right to any authority over another, without his consent: all lawful
government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it."
15. Facts are " Stubborn things," and as stubborn
as any of the large facts bearing heavily in this case is the Unlawful
condition of compulsory service of labor, and the use of force and legal
coercion to compel labor used for payment of the State’s induced debt called
Child Support.
16. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
TITLE VII, section 7118 (a)
(7) requires authorities to impose certain
effective remedies that will achieve status quo ante.
7116 (a) (5) A status quo ante remedy takes
the form of an order requiring a return to the situation that existed before
the commission of the unlawful practice.
Agency managers failed to enforce law in good faith, thereby encouraging
the unilateral agency decision making that the statute was designed to
prevent. Restoration to the status quo
ante requires that Mr. Manley be placed as nearly as possible, in the same
situation that he would have been if the action had never occurred. Dellera v. Department of Housing and Urban
Development., 65 M.S.P.R.
636, 641 (1994) aff’d.
82 F. 3d
434 (fed.cir. 1996) (table); see also Roja v. Department of The Navy, 55
M.S.P.R. 618, 621, (1992); cf.
Burning v. Veterans Admin.,
834 F. 2d 1019, 1021
(Fed. Cir. 1987)
17. Do we live in a free, federal republic, or a judicial
dictatorship? Can it be, that laws are
enforced by the government, against its citizens, while the citizens are
without hope against the “tyrant” government?
The government will put down a citizen revolt, as it did with the
citizen revolt against W.T.O., in
18. FORCED LABOR is an act of government tyranny. Child support, though promoted as a “greater
good;” denies liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The right of CHOICE [the woman’s right to choose birth] cannot be
deemed appropriate to deny liberty and property.
19.
“SLAVERY
IS AN EVIL of Colossal magnitude.”
John Adams
V.
CONCLUSION
As Mr. Manley has been
aggressively pursued by agencies of the State of Washington, since the granting
of divorce to Ms. Calhoun, it would appear, to even the most disinterested,
that the State of Washington has engaged in a vendetta to insure that Mr.
Manley was fully aware that he was living only with what the State would allow
and that the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the laws that protect
it, and the rights guaranteed thereby,
had absolutely no bearing upon what should, or would happen within the
boundaries of the State of Washington.
VI.
JURY DEMANDS
Respondent, Perry L. Manley,
demands that this case be tried to a jury.
DATED:
Presented by:
____________________________________
Perry L. Manley
Pro Se```
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Click 02-3-04633-2sea to get to the main page for this case. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.