STATE OF
) No.
respondent, )
) APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO
v. ) STATE’S MOTION FOR ORDER
) CONTINUING ORAL ARGUMENT
ROGER W. KNIGHT, ) AND STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS
) PENDING
DECISION BY
appellant. ) SUPREME COURT
____________________________________)
COMES
NOW ROGER W. KNIGHT, appellant, to
respond to the
State’s Motion for Order Continuing Oral Argument and Staying
All Proceedings Pending Decision by Supreme Court.
The
State moves to continue all proceedings in this case and announces its intent
to continue all proceedings in cases on RALJ appeal in
this Court challenging
the validity of
RCW 46.61.688 on due process grounds as void for
vagueness. The State contends that it is
a waste of resources to proceed with such cases before the
Supreme Court of
Washington decides State v. Trevor
Eckblad, No. 74109-3.
As to
the issue of whether
RCW 46.61.688 is void for vagueness, Mr. Knight
agrees. However, to the best of Mr.
Knight’s knowledge, Mr. Eckblad has not raised the issue of whether the 1990
amendment to
RCW 46.61.688 in void for being outside the subject set forth in
the title of its bill, as required by
Article II Section 19 of the
Washington
Constitution, and he has not raised the substantive due process issue of
whether the state violates a citizens fundamental rights by dictating which set
of risks to take when operating or riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, proceeding to decision on these
two other issues would not be futile.
However,
deciding these issues without deciding the issue identical to that at stake in Eckblad would cause problems with
respect to appeal. Deciding the void for
vagueness issue before the decision in Eckblad
could require litigation in the Court of Appeals that is otherwise unnecessary.
Therefore,
Mr. Knight must conclude that the two non-Eckblad
issues he has raised can wait until Eckblad
is decided.
However,
Mr. Knight also believes that every person should be equal before the law. If Mr. Knight and others who have challenged
RCW 46.61.688 should enjoy a stay of enforcement pending Eckblad, then ALL persons who ride motor vehicles in the State of
Therefore,
Mr. Knight respectfully requests that the order granting stay of proceedings
shall stay all proceedings for seat belt violations pursuant to
RCW 46.61.688
in all of the courts of this state, and that the police agencies cease issuing
notices of such infraction except upon a grant of automatic stay pending Eckblad, such stay made known to the motorist
or passenger upon service of such notice of infraction, until Eckbald is decided. The signs warning of a $101 fine for not
wearing a seatbelt should be taken down.
Such
an order should be published on this Court’s website and sent out as a press
release so as to make known to the public that the seat belt statute is not and
cannot be enforced until Eckblad is
decided.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Roger
W. Knight, pro se
appellant
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, click Allies for the Allies page, or click I3697882 to get to the main page for this case. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.
See also www.antipeonage.0catch.com