SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

ROGER W. KNIGHT,                                    )

                                                                        )           No.

                                    petitioner,                     )

            v.                                                         )           9th Cir. No.  03-35116

                                                                        )

FRED STEPHENS, Director of Department     )           DECLARATION OF JOHN R.

of Licensing, DENNIS BRADDOCK,              )           SCANNELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Secretary of Department of Social and              )           FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE PETITION

Health Services, and GARY LOCKE,              )           FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Governor of Washington,                                  )

                                    respondents.                 )

____________________________________)

 

            I, JOHN R. SCANNELL, declare that:

            On April 8, 2004, I received in my Post Office Box, which is P.O. Box 3254, Seattle, Washington 98114, a letter from the United States Court of Appeals at 95 Seventh Street, P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, California 94119-3939.  Beneath the return address of the Court on the envelope is the warning: “OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300”.  It is marked “LEGAL MAIL” and bears the postal marks for San Francisco, California with the date December 1, 2003.

            In the window of the envelope, I could see the address to whom it was mailed:

            Roger W. Knight

            510 South Jackson Street

            Suite B101

            Seattle, Washington 98104

 

A yellow sticker had been added to the right of the window bearing the following text:

ACTI501   981042025  1303  14  12/08/03

NOTIFY SENDER OF NEW ADDRESS

: ACTIONLAW.NET

P.O. BOX 3254

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98114-3254

 

            I have no explanation why it required four months for this parcel to reach my Post Office Box.  I have had some terrible experience with mail from courts, clients, and opposing counsel who address mail to me at 501 South Jackson Street, No. B100 Seattle, Washington which is my physical address, of it being delivered weeks and months after it was sent.  As you can imagine this causes immense problems with my practice.

            The local post office adopted a policy of not delivering mail to more than one office below ground level.  Since we have more than one office below ground level in 501 South Jackson Street, this policy caused me to not receive mail when addressed to 501 South Jackson Street, No. B100.

            For this reason, I had to rent a post office box, No. 3254, in the nearby International Station of the United States Postal Service to timely receive may mail.  Roger W. Knight and Paul H. King likewise rented Post Office Box 3444 in this same building, for the same reasons.  When mail is delivered directly to my Post Office Box, it usually arrives one or two days after being sent.  However, because clients and opposing counsel sometimes have a need to deliver documents to me fast, I have had to maintain the 501 South Jackson Street, No. B100 address in the court records as well as the Post Office Box to facilitate direct delivery.  Unfortunately, sometimes clients, opposing counsel, and even the courts get confused and address mail to me at the 501 South Jackson Street, No. B100 address.

            When this happens, the local post office re-routes mail addressed to 501 South Jackson Street, No. B100 to P.O. Box 3254, however, this re-route can delay the mail for weeks, even months.  Mail addressed to 501 South Jackson Street, No. B101 is supposed to be re-routed to P.O. Box 3444.  However, the parcel from the Ninth Circuit mailed in December, addressed to Roger W. Knight at No. 101, got re-routed to my P.O. Box 3254.  I received it on April 8, 2003.

            My assistant Daphne C. Clarke, handed this parcel to Roger W. Knight, the addressee, on April 8, 2004.  When he discovered that it was a final order from the Ninth Circuit dated December 1, 2003, he was extremely upset.

            I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 12th day of April, 2004, in Seattle, Washington,

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        John R. Scannell,                      WSBA #31035

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.