Judge Richard Jones

Noted for Friday, July 18, 2003

Without Oral Argument

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

 

ROGER W. KNIGHT,                                    )

                                                                        )           No.  03-2-27325-2 SEA

                                    petitioner,                     )

                                                                        )           DECLARATION OF ROGER W. KNIGHT

            v.                                                         )           IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S

                                                                        )           REPLY BRIEF ON MOTIONS

STATE OF WASHINGTON, and                   )

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND               )

HEALTH SERVICES,                                    )

                                                                        )

                                    respondent.                  )

____________________________________)

 

            I ROGER W. KNIGHT, declare that:

            Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc and to Publish Opinion I recently filed in Knight v. Serpas, 9th Cir. No. 03-35016.

            I do not know what to say about Judge Robert S. Lasnik.  Prior to September 25, 2002, I honestly believed he was indeed honorable.  The reason for this is that during the years I worked with attorney Paul H. King, we brought actions in the federal court for unpaid overtime wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§201-219, and the Washington Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW.  Judge Lasnik consistently ruled on these cases based upon the plain language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction.  He appeared to be the kind of principled conservative judge who would put aside any feelings he may have for the policy of a statute and respect decisions made by Congress and the Washington Legislature as to policy.  He used a “Webster’s Dictionary” approach to interpreting the words of the statute.  In short, what the statute says is.  It is up to the courts to implement and enforce the policy expressed in the statute unless the statute or its application is repugnant to the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

            Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Order Regarding Motion for Clarification entered by Judge Lasnik in Marshall v. Innovative Vacuum Services, Inc., W.D. Wash. No. C99-1988L.

            I pursued Knight v. City of Mercer Island, W.D. Wash. No. C02-879L with the reasonable assumption that Judge Lasnik would apply the same rules of statutory construction to the Antipeonage Act that he applied to the FLSA and respect the English language in which it is written, and the policy expressed by the 1867 Congress and Congress’ decision to not modify what 42 U.S.C. §1994 declares null and void.

            But, as is evident, there is something about the Child Support Crusade that causes otherwise honorable judges to stop being Americans.  Fortunately, this syndrome did not infect Judge Trickey of this Court.

            Attached as Exhibit F are some posters I prepared to communicate with the public what is wrong with this picture.  Some of those posters not included in this Exhibit contain language cruder than what might be appropriate in an Exhibit presented to a court.  All of these posters are available for viewing and download at www.antipeonage.0catch.com/warposters.  A former United States Army Ranger, Micah Wight (Sorry, Micah Wright), came up with the idea of recycling old government propaganda posters to express his opposition to the War in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, to the Bush Administration, and to our failure to conserve fossil fuels.  While I disagree with many of his positions, I found in his reworked war posters an excellent idea for communicating with our fellow citizens.  His work can be found at www.antiwarposters.com.

            I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2003, in Seattle, Washington,

 

                                                            ____________________________________

                                                                        Roger W. Knight, 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 586476 to get to the main page for this case.  Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.