Knight v. Mercer Island, W.D. Wash. No. C02-879L, appealed, 9th Cir. No. 03-35116 Web Page
See also www.antipeonage.0catch.com
Some practical advice for support contemnors in the State of Washington
A Way to Walk a Mile in a Noncustodial Parent's Moccasins.
This is the Web Page upon which I list the internal links to the briefs and pleadings in the 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit I filed after the extraordinary decision on April 19, 2002 by the Bellevue District Court. The pleadings that I filed in response to the two criminal charges for Driving While License Suspended are listed on Mercer Island v. Knight
Declaration of Roger W. Knight filed with the Complaint.
Declaration of Judith Calhoun filed with the Complaint.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied in spite of my reply brief. Note: A .tif file will download to your hard drive (or other drive as you select). Once downloaded to your computer, then if you have Microsoft-ware, you should be able to read it with Microsoft Office Document Imaging application. If you do not have Microsoft-ware, please let me know by e-mail what happens when you attempt to read this file. I took it off the federal court's website through its PACER service.
Upon denial of preliminary injunction, I filed my Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, I am asking if the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, provides the federal courts jurisdiction independent of any other statute the way the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982, does. To support it, I filed Declaration of Roger W. Knight in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The
City of Mercer Island's brief
in opposition and cross motion and the State Officer's response in opposition
and cross motion are too large for me to try to download as .tif files and then
place on this web site. Those of you with 56k modems could go do the
dishes while it is downloading, so I am sorry I do not have them here. To support their argument, the
City filed the
Declaration of Officer Brian Noel
in Support of
To support my reply brief, I filed my Declaration by Roger W. Knight in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Mercer Island Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
To give you and the federal court an idea of what relief I request, and to meet the requirements of the Local Rules for this court, I submitted a Proposed Order.
I have now filed my Response brief to the cross motions filed by the City of Mercer Island and by the State Officers.
And while at it, my own Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
For some reason, the State Officers did not submit a response brief to my own cross motion. But the City of Mercer Island did. It's a .tif file.
So here is my Reply Brief on my cross motion. After finally obtaining the compact disks of the April 19, 2002 hearing in King County District Court where the Younger abstention exception was created, I filed that with the federal court too.
Finally, on September 25, 2002, Judge Lasnik dismissed my claim and then barred me from litigating in the federal courts in the future. We do not want to allow little old things like the United States Constitution and the Antipeonage Act get in the way of "necessary" public policy, now do we?
The Constitution of the United States. It's not for everyone.
To show how wrong this is, I filed my Motion to Amend Judgment before filing the appeal. The state has filed its Response, and now I filed my Reply. While it was pending, I filed my Supplemental Declaration informing the federal court of my VICTORY in the King County Superior Court. Then our Supplemental Declaration by Judith Calhoun and my Second Supplemental Declaration informing the federal court of Mercer Island's election to not continue the state court prosecution on remand. Finally, on January 30, 2003, he denied my Motion.
I have filed my Motion for Stay of Judgment Imposing Litigation Bar Pending Appeal, FRAP 8.
I now have filed my FRAP 8 Motion in the Ninth Circuit. After the State Officers filed their hysterical response to my Motion for Stay, I filed my Reply brief on this Motion. Then Mercer Island spends taxpayer money unnecessarily, and filed a Reply Brief to their response.
I am now free to disclose to the public that I have settled this appeal with the City of Mercer Island, its officers, and with Superior Towing. However, the State Officers, Fred Stephens, Dennis Braddock, and Gary Locke, remain in the appeal, and issues with respect to the validity of the license suspension and the WorkFirst Act are still on the table for the 9th Circuit to decide. If these issues are not frivolous, then of course the litigation bar is still live for decision.
My Brief of Appellant in the Ninth Circuit.
I have filed the Reply Brief of Appellant.
I can be forgiven if I believe there are strange things afoot in how the Ninth Circuit handles this case. I received on August 29, 2003 two pages of a memorandum decision entered by this Court on June 23, 2003. Something about the Child Support Crusade and my repeated presentations of argument as to law with respect to the Antipeonage Act and to constitutional provisions intended to protect us from this kind of tyranny causes folks with law degrees, bar licenses and judicial offices to get loopy. These people graduated at the top of their classes all the way from kindergarten through law school. One would think they can handle this a little better than they do. Anyway, here is my Appellant's Motion for Recall of Mandate, for Extension of Time to File Petition for Rehearing, and Declaration by Roger W. Knight.
This Motion was Denied on December 1, 2003. I finally received it on April 8, 2004 because this time, the Ninth Circuit sent it to the wrong address.
So, I filed with the Supreme Court of the United States my Motion for Leave to File a Late Petition for Writ of Certiorari. What else can I do?
In response, Mr. Jeffrey Atkins, a deputy clerk for the Supreme Court of the United States returned this paperwork and advised that I must send a Motion directing Clerk to File the Petition Out-of-Time and enclose the proposed Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Which I did. Both the Questions and the Argument.
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, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.
