Now comes the
appellant, Roger W. Knight, to respond to the State Officers’ response to his
motion for stay of the judgment below imposing litigation bar,
Order Regarding
Motions for Summary Judgment, Document No. 65, pages 11-14, ER 25-28.
Barbara
W. Tuchman is a historian who has written a series of best selling non-fiction
books about history. Her 1962 work,
The Guns of August, exploring the decisions
and events that led to World War I, was famously read by President Kennedy and
may have given him the insight that allowed him to prevent the Cuban Missile
Crisis from spiraling out of control.
Kennedy admitted that Khrushchev was as rightly concerned about the
threat to his nation’s security posed by American missiles in
Tuchman’s
1984 work,
The March of Folly From Troy
to Vietnam, has some insight that is directly applicable to this case. At the start on the section concerning the
follies of the British government that led to the American Revolution, she
wrote:
Britain’s self interest as
regards her empire on the American continent in the 18th century was clearly to
maintain her sovereignty, and for every reason of trade, peace and profit to
maintain with the goodwill and by voluntary desire of the colonies. Yet, through the fifteen years of
deteriorating relations that led up to the shot heard round the world,
successive British ministries, in the face of constant warnings by men and
events, repeatedly took measures that injured the relationship. However justifiable in principle, these
measures, insofar as they progressively destroyed goodwill and the voluntary
connection, were demonstrably unwise in practice, besides being impossible to
implement except by force. Since force
could only mean enmity, the cost of the effort, even if successful, was clearly
greater than the possible gain. In the
end,
The “shot heard round the world” is
her reference to
the events of
Apply
Tuchman’s logic to this case: However
justifiable in principle, these child support orders and measures to enforce
same, insofar as they progressively destroy goodwill and the voluntary
connection, are demonstrably unwise in practice, besides being impossible to
implement except by force. Since force
can only mean enmity, the cost of the effort, even if successful, is clearly
greater than the possible gain. In the
end, the State Officers make rebels where there had been none. Mr. Tim Eyman suffers from no shortage of
signature gatherers.
What
Mr. Knight has done, like Ben Franklin before, is to attempt, without resorting
to violence or threat, to speak reason to the unreasonable. The problem with the repeated unpublished
decisions against Mr. Knight, and the problem with
Where there
has been a complete breakdown in the rule of law,
as happened in America in
1775, in France in 1789, and in Russia in 1917, it is because there was no rule
of law in the first place that protected the rights of the people. However necessary a well regulated militia
may be to the security of a
No
serious disagreement can be made with the proposition that a statute defining
as a felony the marriage of a man of one race with a woman of another race, to
enforce the state’s interest in the prevention of the birth of children of
mixed race ancestry, is repugnant to the manifest tenor of the
Fourteenth
Amendment. Both as to the rights of the
couple, and as to the implication for respect to the rights of all persons born
of such unions.
Yet
under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
Loving
v. Virginia, (1967) 388
Of
course, for the State Officers to assert that Mr. Knight’s attempt to enforce
the doctrine established in
Troxel v. Granville, (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 147
L. Ed. 2d. 49, 120
The
cases cited by the State Officers where sanctions were imposed upon Mr. Knight
for bringing a frivolous claim predated Brent Moss v. Superior
Court, (1996) 56
The
inherent right to self defense against a felony of enslavement, found in
La Amistad, (1841) 40 U.S. 518, 10 L.
Ed. 826, is expressed by
RCW 9A.16.050 which provides that a homicide is
justifiable when there is reasonable ground on the part of the slayer to
apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony and in an
actual resistance of the attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer.
Mr.
Knight, of course, prefers the nonviolent and nonlethal presentation of
argument as to the law, to any action of violence and homicide, however
justifiable violence and homicide may be.
Because the litigation bar cannot be reasonably sustained to prohibit
assertion of the protection of the
Antipeonage Act and to prohibit claims
against the validity of the Washington WorkFirst Act because none of such
claims are wholly without merit and an arguable basis either in law or fact, it should be lifted
as soon as possible.
For
the reasons stated herein, this
Appellant’s Motion for Stay of Judgment
Imposing Litigation Bar Pending Appeal should be granted.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day
of March, 2003,
_________________________________
Roger W. Knight, appellant 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 C02-879L to get to the main page for this case. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.