Now comes the
appellant, Roger W. Knight, to respond to
Mercer Island’s 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.
The
litigation bar does not affect any claim that Mr. Knight may have, presently or
in the future, to challenge the reasonableness of any seizure of his automobile
under the
Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment,
Order, Document No. 65, page 13, ER
27. The
City of Mercer Island, through
its agent,
Wayne Stewart, moved to dismiss their prosecution in the state court
Driving While License Suspended DWLS case from which this litigation arose, and
the dismissal was granted with prejudice,
Supplemental Declaration by Judith
Calhoun (Calhoun Declaration III), Document 74, ER 31-32, and
Second
Supplemental Declaration by Roger W. Knight (Knight Declaration VII), Document
75, ER 29-30. The
Mercer Island appellees no longer have standing to defend Mr. Knight’s claims against the
suspension of his driver’s license and the Washington WorkFirst Act, Laws of
Washington 1997 chapter 58, and
RCW 74.20A.320.
These are the issues affected by the litigation bar. The State Officers have such standing, but
not
DeFunis v. Odegaard, (1974) 416
While
the
It
appears that Jayne Freeman and Keating, Bucklin & McCormack intend to draft
and file a brief for their clients in this case. For this decision to be economically
feasible, they must be charging the
$50.00
already awarded to Mr. Knight by King County Superior Court for his successful
appeal of the criminal DWLS case.
$50.00
claimed by Mr. Knight for the loss of his automobile for one day.
$205.74
for the cost to Mr. Knight to recover his automobile from Superior Towing.
$150.00
for the filing fee paid by Mr. Knight to file the case in district court.
$7.61
for the costs of printing an extra four pages in his
Brief of Appellant, pages
6-10, to cover the issue of the reasonableness under the
Fourth Amendment, of
the seizure of his legally parked automobile.
As argued on page 10 of the
Brief,
The
total cost to
As
to the litigation bar, if Roger Redhail can in good faith bring an argument
that the disability imposed by Wisconsin law arising from his child support
obligation prohibiting him from marrying offended his rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment, then Roger Knight can in good faith bring arguments
against the disability imposed by the WorkFirst Act prohibiting him from
operating a motor vehicle for noncompliance with a pre-existing child support
order.
Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978) 434
Should
the Washington Legislature, pass a bill imposing a prohibition of marriage
against noncustodial parents unable to comply with their support orders, the
litigation bar prohibits Mr. Knight from bringing an action in federal court
challenging it on the basis of
Zablocki.
For
the reasons stated herein, this
Appellant’s Motion for Stay of Judgment
Imposing Litigation Bar Pending Appeal should be granted.
Respectfully submitted this 10th 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.