Federal Title IV 'Welfare' Part D 'Child Support' (Law) Education & Awareness

[Brick Layer]

How does a parent manipulate and control a child's psyche?
Dr Childress - Parental Alienation educates members of the Pennsylvania State Legislature on the mind control of a child. (8-mins)

 

[Brick Layer]

Michigan Law: Another Win - Parental Rights

 

[Brick Layer]

...remember we live in a republic, a free society.

The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund



"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"

If we lived in a true and or pure democracy a jury decision would only take a majority vote of the jurors to convict VS a one juror hold out to stop a conviction.
12 Angry Men from 12 Angry Men (1957)

(Six Pack Joe's natural rights, inherent rights, inalienable rights, unalienable rights, international contract rights; Six Pack Joe's Rights are - outside of - separate from - and independent of any constitution.)

Constitutional Law

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
_______

Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition p.1693

At arm’s length The term is defined in Black’s 1st Edition (1891) and 4th Edition (1968) as:
“Beyond the reach of personal influence or control. Parties are said to deal ‘at arm’s length’ when each stands upon the strict letter of his rights, and conducts the business in a formal manner, without trusting to the other’s fairness or integrity, and without being subject to the other’s control or overmastering influence.” [Emph. Add.]

Black’s 7th Edition (1999) does not define the term “at arm’s length”. Instead, it defines “arm’s-length” as an adjective that means:
“Of or relating to dealings between two parties who are not related or not on close terms and who are presumed to have roughly equal bargaining power; not involving a confidential relationship <an arm’s-length transaction does not create fiduciary duties between the parties>. [Emph. Add.]

 

[Brick Layer]

At arm’s length The term is defined in Black’s 1st Edition (1891) and 4th Edition (1968) as:
“Beyond the reach of personal influence or control. Parties are said to deal ‘at arm’s length’ when each stands upon the strict letter of his rights, and conducts the business in a formal manner, without trusting to the other’s fairness or integrity, and without being subject to the other’s control or overmastering influence.” [Emph. Add.]

Black’s 7th Edition (1999) does not define the term “at arm’s length”. Instead, it defines “arm’s-length” as an adjective that means:
“Of or relating to dealings between two parties who are not related or not on close terms and who are presumed to have roughly equal bargaining power; not involving a confidential relationship <an arm’s-length transaction does not create fiduciary duties between the parties>. [Emph. Add.]

The beauty of any trust is that the trustees don't get to create it!

Family Guardian (pdf)
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 12 No. 1 (Page 57)
Constructive trusts At Arm's Length by Alfred Adask

 

[Brick Layer]

paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order, federal law requires an affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily [Section 466(a)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(D)) stipulates that an unmarried woman cannot put a man’s name on a child’s birth record/certificate unless the man has voluntarily acknowledged that he is the father of that child…] acknowledging paternity and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state. A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court. In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.

Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).

A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.

Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.

I have spared you from 'Amen Osiris' thus far until now.



Georgia Constitution Article I, Sec. II, Par. IX. (c)
Paragraph IX. Sovereign immunity and waiver thereof; claims against the state and its departments, agencies, officers, and employees.
(c) The state's defense of sovereign immunity is hereby waived as to any action ex contractu for the breach of any written contract now existing or hereafter entered into by the state or its departments and agencies."

Child Support and the Contracts that void it!

Title IV-D Resources – Deception Stoppers

 

[Brick Layer]

CHILD SUPPORT 101: STATE ADMINISTRATION

The Federalization of Child Support Guidelines

Collecting Child Support: A History of Federal and State Initiatives

Policy Clarifications of Automated Systems in Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement Program

Child Support Enforcement under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act - FindLaw

 

[Brick Layer]

A child support payment is a payment from a parent to meet the child's needs for food and shelter. Child support can be in cash or in-kind; it can be voluntary or court ordered.

SSA - POMS: SI 00830.420 - Child Support Payments - 07/13/2017

Social Security in lieu of child support

http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/using social security benefits-16-1_0.pdf

3.07 Social Security Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit Social Security Retirement, Survivor's, or Disability Insurance benefits paid for the children based on the support payer’s earnings record against that parent’s support obligation as follows: (1) Determine the total child support obligation. (2) Determine the monthly benefit amount that is attributable to the payer and that the support recipient receives for the children and then subtract that amount from the total child support obligation. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2013MCSF.pdf

3.07 Dependent Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit government insurance program retirement, survivor’s, or disability benefits that were counted as the support payer’s income under §2.01(I) or §2.01(K) against that parent’s support obligation as follows:
(1) Determine the total child support obligation.
(2) Subtract the monthly benefit amount that the recipient receives for the children and that is attributable to the payer from the total child support obligation owed by the payer. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
(3) Under federal law, the administering agency, like the Social Security Administration, holds the sole authority to designate the person who controls the benefits for a minor child (representative payee), therefore, a State’s legal processes cannot be used to alienate federal benefits from a child’s representative payee. A court should not use a child support order to transfer the children’s benefits from a representative payee to a parent or another individual. Payer-based benefits that exceed the total child support obligation owed must remain under the control of the representative payee.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2017MCSF.pdf

3.07(B) The following cases discuss how Social Security benefits affect support obligations: Frens v Frens, 191 Mich App 654 (1990); Jenerou v Jenerou, 200 Mich App 265 (1993); Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568 (2002); and Fisher v Fisher, 276 Mich App 424 (2007).

http://www.elizabethsilverman.com/p...ioner-needs-to-know-about-social-security.pdf

http://www.alacourt.gov/docs/CreditForSocialSecurityRetirement.pdf

THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ON CHILD SUPPORT
SupportGuidelines.com | Article: The Effect of Social Security

In Re Marriage of Henry

Federal law requires state entities to accept that they “shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment … from suit in Federal court for a violation of... or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
8.1 Enforcing Federal Rights Against States and State Officials | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

The Power of the Federal Puse Waives State Sovereign Immunity from the Rehabilitation Act

OASAM
Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. § 701)

Section 794. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs; promulgation of rules and regulations

(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulations shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date of which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

(b) "Program or activity" defined

For the purposes of this section, the term "program or activity" means all of the operations of --

(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;

(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or

(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section 8801 of Title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system;

(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship --

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services [Title IV-D], or parks and recreation; or

(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or

(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (l), (2) or (3); any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.

(c) Significant structural alterations by small providers

Small providers are not required by subsection (a) to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services is available. The terms used in this subsection shall be construed with reference to the regulations existing on March 22, 1988.

(d) Standards used in determining violation of section

The standards used to determine whether this section has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination under this section shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.) and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201-12204 and 12210), as such sections related to employment.

Section 794a. Remedies and attorney fees

(a)(1) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), including the application of sections 706(f) through 706 (k) [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) through k)] shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place accommodation, and the availability of alternative therefor or other appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate remedy.

(2) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq)shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistant under section 794 of this title.

(b) In any action or proceeding to enforce or charge a violation of a provision of this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

 

[Brick Layer]

The day of the even arrived and as the many people showed up to town center park, for all the reasons they did, the chelas (students of the Guru), were organizing the people in to groups according to similar wishes.

As the Guru was walking through the park, he overheard one group talking, and all this group wanted was peace.

And the Guru walked up to them and said,
"All you want is peace? That's easy!!!"
And he snapped his fingers and extended his hand to them palm up in an offering manner.

One of the people in the group instantly jumped up! And in a loud angry voice shouted,
"YOU CAN'T JUST SNAP YOU FINGERS AND GIVE ME PEACE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT THE CORPORATIONS ARE DOING TO THE TREES IN SOUTH AMERICA?!?!?!? WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF IT ISN'T STOPED!!!!! I CAN'T BE AT PEACE TILL IT STOPS!"
...and the Guru motioned to one of the chelas, the mans money was returned as was promised, and he left very angry.

Another in the group voiced in bitter frustration,
"Do you have ANY CLUE what my ex-husband is doing?!?!?
That deadbeat hasn't paid one cent of child support EVER!
I can't be at peace until he takes care of his responsibilities."
...and she took he refund and left bitterly frustrated.

The next man, starting calm and working up to a frenzied rage, uttered something along of the lines of,
"If only it were so easy, yet I can't be at peace while the government is enslaving the people, did you know that they have been doing thus and so for over 50+ YEARS?!!?! AND IT’S ONLY GETTING WORSE!! AND THEN YOU COME HERE GIVING THE PEOPLE FALSE HOPES AND SNAPPING YOUR FINGERS AS IF THESE WILL SOLVER THE PROBELMS OF THE WORLD!! I SHOULD SNAP YOUR NECK AND BLAH BLAH BLAH."
...and he rudely snatched the money out of the chelas hand, spit on the Guru, and left even more enraged then he came!!!

...and another raged about people not paying their taxes and their "fair share"... and got his refund.

...and one who was so consumed with fear they were shaking, and wouldn't have even asked for a refund was noticed by the Guru and her refund was made without her even asking...

...and this went on... and on... and on... and finally the last one left of the group, realizing that to be at peace is ultimately a choice, said,
"You know what... I DO ACCEPT PEACE! Thank you! Best $600 I ever spent."
...and as he started to leave, the Guru motioned to the chelae, and the man's money was returned.

A little shocked at this the man said,
"You have granted my wish as promised. Why are you giving me my money back?"
...and the Guru said,
"I can't give you peace, you already had it."
...and the man left, peaceful.

 

[Brick Layer]

Child Support Enforcement Incentive Funding

Who benefits from Title IV-D CHILD SUPPORT....

3 Ways the Child Support System Rips Apart Families | HuffPost

TITLE IV -D
The State receives 3 to 5 dollars for every dollar they extort from a non custodial parent from the federal government!!!

There are five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program;
Each budget expands off the previous budget’s expenditures;
The child support program generates income for both the federal government and the states;
Cash Flow Generated by the Child Support Program exceed Child Support Enforcement program costs!!!
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf

Six Accounts for Incentive-related Funds are:
1) Prosecutor IV-D Incentive Fund
2) Clerk IV-D Incentive Fund
3) Title IV-D Incentive Fund (previously the “county general” fund)
4) Prosecutor IV-D ARRA Fund
5) Clerk IV-D ARRA Fund
6) Title IV-D ARRA Fund (previously the “county general” ARRA fund).
http://www.in.gov/sboa/files/SBOA_M...6-2011_-_Child_Support_Title_IV-D_Handout.pdf

“Money that is paid to the children are collected for the children (child support money) are matched by the federal government [66% reimbursement] AND THEN [Plus] THERE ARE INCENTIVES for DIFFERENT types of enforcement activities (matching funds at state and local levels as well), and so the judges each time that they grant or approve The Friend of the Court up someone’s child support collection their actually what they’re doing is padding their own pockets because that comes back to them, it indirectly comes back to them.” ~ Carol Rhodes 6:24
Title IV-D Family Court kleptocracy (judicial malfeasance of office).wmv

"The Child Support Industry is the darling of the circuit court and that we actually made money for the judge and the court unlike the Sheriff's Department and so many agencies; our county our state was not an exception to the rule..." ~ Carol Rhodes 1:21
Title IV-D Family Court kleptocracy (judicial malfeasance of office).wmv

Title IV-D Contractors
Federal Title IV-D Program 'Duty of Care' administered at the state level;
Office of Child Support (OCS) who then contracts the legal services of local prosecutors, sheriffs, and foc offices;
How has this term impacted your life?

Civil Servant Child Support Specialist from Developing Capacity to Senior Capacity Operations....
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ChildSupportSpecialist_12394_7.pdf
Capacity

Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements
Sheriff and or Sheriff's Deputies handle warrants (along with other non-traditional enforcement duties) and is a IV-D employee of the Friend of the Court.
https://www.accesskent.com/Courts/FOC/pdfs/FOC_deputies.pdf
Availability of FFP for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process Final Rule: Prohibition of FFP for Incarceration/Counsel for Indigent Absent Parents
Child Support Bench Warrant Enforcement Fund

CPS Corruption? Attorneys, Professors, and Judges Speak Out!

Child Support is a Crime Against Humanity | Georgia Senator (former) Nancy Schaefer

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Social Security Act Title IV

Title IV-D Contractors (Child Support Enforcement Agencies) are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.
Federal Title IV-D Program dollars is what is keeping state and local county government budgets afloat (feeding the statists).

Grant programs are being used for revenue generation by the states as opposed to solving legitimate societal problems. States being able to use the Title IV-D / Child Support Enforcement Program as a tool for State Revenue Generation instead of Aid for Actual Needy Families.

Michigan Analysis,
"Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."


Government for the people by the people; the state and local governments need to find a new source of funding without destroying families.

 

[Brick Layer]

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law | CRT | Department of Justice

That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights - Color of Law

Civil Rights

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

109. RICO Charges | USAM | Department of Justice

Federal Court: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Can Be Prosecuted Using Racketeering Laws Originally Intended For Mobsters

IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM COMMITTED PERJURY IN YOUR CASE AND TWO (2) OTHER PARENTS CASES AND IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM PUT ANY MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENTS IN WRITING IN ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR AN EMERGENCY PICK UP ORDER, SHELTER CARE ORDER, DEPENDENCY, DISPOSITION OF DEPENDENCY AND TERMINATION PETITIONS IN YOUR CASE AND TWO (2) OTHER PARENTS CASES. RESEARCH AND WRITE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS UNDER RULE 3 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RICO LAWS!!!
Luis Ewing

[Brick Layer does not know nor endorse Luis and is simply sharing the thought model; I like that Luis focuses on the Federal Funding, EVIDENCE OF CPS CRIMES APPLYING FOR FEDERAL FUNDS!]

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES
Imputing IV-D Status
The CPS does not indicate whether a child support recipient receives IV-D services. Therefore, this information is imputed onto the file.
Child Support Cost Avoidance in 1999, Final Report

Ron Paul, Stop V.A.W.A. & Title IV d

Michigan CPS has gigantic secret list of parents labeled 'child abusers' without due process - Police State USA

________________

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ALL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES HAD NO AUTHORITY TO RE-DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ANY CIVIL ACTION TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION CALLED THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS ONCE THAT AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED TO THE DULY ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND HIS DEPUTY PROSECUTORS OR SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND ONE (1) MORE TIME TO THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICERS WITHOUT VIOLATING . . . “THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.”

ALL THE CASE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES HOLDS THAT A CORPORATION MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY!

“Because a corporation can act only through its agents, it must be represented by an attorney in legal proceedings in court.” Biomed Comm v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 146 Wn.App. 929, 934, 193 P.3d 1093 (October 13, 2008); RCW 2.48.170; APR 1(b); GR 24; Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 301, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Droker, 59 Wn.2d 707, 719, 370 P.2d 242 (1962); State v. Hunt, 75 Wn.App. 795, 803-05, 880 P.2d 96 (1994).” Advocates v. Hearing Bd., 155 Wn.App. 479, 483, 230 P.3d 608 (March 2, 2010); Lloyd Enters., Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating Co., 91 Wn.App. 697, 701, 958 P.2d 1035 (1988); Dutch Vill. Mall v. Pelletti, 162 Wn.App. 531, 535-36, 256 P.3d 1251 (2011); Cottringer v. Emp’t Sec. Dept., 162 Wn.App. 782, at 787-788, 257 P.3d 667 (July 25, 2011). And;

ALL RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . AND . . . ALL RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS” . . . ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE . . . “THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.”

THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION AT ARTICLE IV, § 1 PROVIDES THAT . . . “JUDICIAL POWER OF THE STATE SHALL BE VESTED IN A SUPREME COURT, . . .”

ALL DEPENDENCY STATUTES AND TERMINATION STATUTES IN EVERY STATE VIOLATE A SECOND PROVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS WHICH ALL CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT THE * * EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY * * * to initiate Executive Process which by the Constitution Article II, section 5 is vested solely in the . . . “ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR.” See STATE v. COOK, 84 Wn.2d 342, 348, 352, 525 P.2d 761 (August 1974); Osborn v. Grant County, 130 Wn.2d 615, 926 P.2d 911 (November 27, 1996); Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 892 P.2d 1067 [No. 60383-9. En Banc. November 22, 1994.], Bates v.School District NO. 10., 45 Wash. 501 (Feb. 1907). And;

It is a well settled principle of law that neither the Courts or the Prosecutors Office to which Discretionary Functions such as Practicing Law have been delegated cannot redelegate such functions to Unqualified Brainless Bimbos such as CPS Social Workers or Guardian Ad Litems to engage in Unauthorized Practice of Law. Noe v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15, 83 Wn.2d 97, 515 P.2d 977 (1973); Ledgering v. State, 63 Wn.2d 94, 385 P.2d 522 (1963); Roehl v. Public Util. Dist. 1, 43 Wn.2d 214, 261 P.2d 92 (1953); Bunger v. Iowa High Sch. Athletic Assn, 197 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 1972); Bagley v. Manhatten Beach, 18 Cal.3d 22, 553 P.2d 1140, 1141, 132 Cal. Rptr. 668 (1976); Schechter v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal.App.2d 391, 65 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1968). Furthermore, with respect to the creation of inferior courts, it is the rule in this state that where such power is expressly vested by the constitution, it cannot be exercised in any manner other than that specifically pointed out.

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d), THAT ALL FIFTY STATES PROSECUTORS ALREADY DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DO . . . “THE INTAKE” . . . OF ALL JUVENILE DELINQUENTS AND ALL ABANDONED AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN TO . . . “THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER.”

THAT AUTHORITY CANNOT AGAIN BE REDELEGATED TO A CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO IS MERELY AN EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION CALLED THE DSHS!

THIS IS JUST THE BARE TIP OF THE ICEBERG INFO THAT CAN AND WILL TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS IN EVERY STATE!!!!

“. . . regulation of the practice of law and “the power to make the necessary rules and regulations governing the bar was intended to be vested exclusively in the supreme court, free from the dangers of encroachment either by the legislative or executive branches.” Graham v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 86 Wn.2d 624, 548 P.2d 310 (1976); Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 210 N.W.2d 275 (1973); In re Juvenile Director, 87 Wash. 2d 232, 552 P.2d 163 (1976) and State v. Osloond, 60 Wash. App. 584, 805 P(2d) 263 (1991); Lowell Bar Assn. v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E. 27 (1943); People v. ex rel. Chicago Bar Assn. v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941 (1937).

“. . . the selection and completion of form legal documents [such as Dependency Petitions or Termination Petitions], or the drafting of such documents, including deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, promissory notes and agreements modifying these documents constitutes the practice of law.” Hagan Escrow, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 443 (1982); Bar Association v. Great Western Federal, 91 Wn.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870 (1978); Washington State Bar Association v. Washington Association of Realtors, et al., 41 Wn.2d 697, 251 P.2d 619 (1952); Mid land Credit Adjustment Company et al v. Donnelley, 219 111. A 271 (1921); 2 R.C.L., p. 938, § 4. See also APR 9 & APR 12. And;

It seems fair to say that something which can lawfully be done only by an attorney admitted to practice is in fact and in law the “Practice of Law.” State v. Chamberlain, 132 Wash. 520, 232 Pac. 337 (1925).

Moreover, on the basis of the Court’s decision in the Kassler Escrow case, that now must be deemed to be so even in the face of an act of the legislature creating RCW 13.34.040 Dependency Statute and RCW 13.34.180 (1) Termination of Parental Rights Statute purporting to authorize illegal conduct by unqualified, untrained & unlicensed Brainless Bimbos!

“According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law in this country, it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and, in addition, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and, in general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney at law is one who engages in any of these branches of the practice of law.” Ferris v. Snively, 172 Wash. 167, 174, 19 P.2d 942 (1933) (citing Ruling Case Law at page 938, § 4). And;

IF REAL ESTATE AGENTS CAN’T PRACTICE LAW, THEN NEITHER CAN THE BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS!!!!

IF REAL ESTATE AGENTS CAN’T PRACTICE LAW, THEN NEITHER CAN THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS!!!!

WE CAN DEMAND THAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS CHARGE . . . “ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . WITH . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW” . . . ABSENT AN RCW ____________STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM BEING SO CHARGED????

WE CAN DEMAND THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE CHARGE . . . “ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . WITH . . . “CONTEMPT OF COURT” . . . ABSENT AN RCW ____________STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM BEING SO CHARGED????

IF THE PROSECUTORS REFUSES TO PROSECUTE THEM, WE CAN CHARGE THE PROSECUTORS WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, OR BETTER YET, MAYBE WE CAN CHARGE THE PROSECUTORS AS CO-CONSPIRATORS AND AIDERS AND ABETTERS OR ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT OF THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED THE ILLEGAL BOGUS FAKE PRETEND SHAM BOOTLEG . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . AND . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS” . . . THAT HAVE NO LEGAL FOUNDATION AND NO LEGAL STANDARDS!!!!

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED . . . “THE FORGED” . . . AND . . . “PERJURED” . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS.”

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED . . . “THE FORGED” . . . AND . . . “PERJURED” . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS.”

THIS IS WHY THE PROSECUTORS DO NOT WANT TO SIGN THESE FAKE LEGAL DOCUMENTS!!!!

The Prosecutors know that the Family Court Judges and Superior Court Judges and all the Assistant Attorney Generals are committing Subornation of Perjury by soliciting all of the John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and just as dizzy Guardian Ad Litems to Sign and File Forged and Perjured RCW 13.34.040 Dependency Petitions!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL OF THESE CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL COMMITTING FELONY CRIMES IS THE FACT THAT THEY INFILTRATED OUR STATE LEGISLATURE AND REMOVED THE FOLLOWING STATUTES FROM OUR LAW BOOKS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES JUST IN CASE THEY GOT CAUGHT:

“9.72.080 Offering false evidence.
[1909 c 249 § 106; RRS § 2358.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

9.72.100 Subornation of perjury.
[1909 c 249 § 108; Code 1881 § 876; 1873 p 199 § 81; RRS § 2360.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

9.72.110 Attempt to suborn perjury.
[1909 c 249 § 109; Code 1881 § 877; 1873 p 199 § 81; 1869 p 216 § 77; 1854 p 89 § 71; RRS § 2361.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.” And;

71.02.210 Jury trial — Request for — Date, detention pending.
[1959 c 25 § 71.02.210. Prior: 1951 c 139 § 23; 1949 c 198 § 8, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 6953-8, part.]
Repealed by 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 § 66.

71.02.220 Jury trial — Evidence — Order of hospitalization.
[1959 c 25 § 71.02.220. Prior: 1951 c 139 § 24.]
Repealed by 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 § 66.

9.79.100 Sodomy — Penalties.
[1937 c 74 § 3; 1909 c 249 § 204; 1893 c 139 § 2; RRS § 2456.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

OH GEE, I WONDER WHY ANY HONEST (WSBA) ATTORNEY WOULD WANT TO REPEAL CRIMINAL STATUTES, HMMMMMMMMMMMM?????
___

THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND FAMILY COURTS ARE USING THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK!!!!

THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS ARE COMMITTING THOUSANDS OF COUNTS OF SUBORNATION OF PERJURY AND A FRAUD UPON ALL THE FAMILY COURTS AND A FRAUD UPON ALL SUPERIOR COURTS BY GETTING UNTRAINED AND UNLICENSED JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT NUMEROUS AND COUNTLESS FELONY CRIMES BY SIGNING AND FILING FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND FORGED AND PERJURED TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS FOR THEM!!!!

Basically all the John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and Just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems . . . “ARE GETTING PAID OFF TO COMMIT FORGERY AND PERJURY” . . . and for . . . “PRESENTING FALSE INSTRUMENTS FOR FILING” . . . in official court proceedings in furtherance of CPS’s overall general criminal conspiracy to commit the Felony Crimes of Kidnapping, Custodial Interference, Child Stealing, Child Selling, Human Trafficking, Leading Organized Crime and Money Laundering, etc.

Let’s face the facts, these untrained, unqualified and unlicensed John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and Just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems could NEVER get a Job in the Real World with the rest of us that would Pay them any where near as much as they are illegally getting paid right now to commit Unauthorized Practice of Law.

THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

THEY CAN’T USE . . . “TAX PAYERS MONEY” . . . TO PAY UNQUALIFIED . . . “BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . TO ENGAGE IN . . . THE UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL . . . UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW!!!!

THEY CAN’T USE TAX PAYERS MONEY TO PAY UNQUALIFIED BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND FORGED AND PERJURED TERMINATION PETITIONS INTO A OFFICIAL COURT PROCEEDING WHERE THE JUDGES KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THESE DIZZY BROADS TO PLAY ATTORNEY BY ENGAGING IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THEIR PRESENCE!!!!

THE LEGISLATURE HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT OR CREATE THE RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY STATUTE!!!!

It is, of course, fundamental that no county or other municipal corporation, through action of its governing body, can make a law which is in conflict with general law as enacted by the legislature. See Article XI, § 11, of the Washington constitution; also, Miller v. Spokane, 35 Wn.2d 113, 211 P.2d 165 (1949), and Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 356 P.2d 292 (1960).

THE LEGISLATURE HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT OR CREATE THE RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . AND . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION PETITIONS” . . . VIOLATE ARTICLE IV, § 1 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE . . . ““JUDICIAL POWER OF THE STATE SHALL BE VESTED IN A SUPREME COURT, . . .” AND NOT IN A MERE CORPORATION THAT EMPLOYS BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME, EXTORTION, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.

“Legislatures may delegate power to executive or administrative officials to determine the details of, and to establish rules for the execution of a general legislative plan. U.S. v. Rock Royal Cooperative, 307 U.S. 533 (1939); Chas. Uhden, Inc. v. Greenough, 181 Wash. 412, 43 P.2d 983, 98 A.L.R. 1181 (1935); Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); Home Owner’s Loan Corp. v. Rawson, 196 Wash. 548, 559, 83 P.2d 765; State v. Gilroy, 37 Wn.2d 41, 45, 221 P.2d 549; State v. Miles, 5 Wn.2d 322, 325, 105 P.2d 51 (1940). But the legislature must state its purpose, and establish standards by which the purpose is to be achieved, so that the limits of the power delegated are clear.

“. . . the delegation of legislative power is justified and constitutional, and the requirements of the standards doctrine are satisfied, when it can be shown (1) that the legislature has provided standards or guidelines which define in general terms what is to be done and the instrumentality or administrative body which is to accomplish it; and (2) that procedural safeguards exist to control arbitrary administrative action and any administrative abuse of discretionary power. . . .” Barry & Barry v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 81 Wn.2d 155, 500 P.2d 540 (1972).

“Legislatures my confer upon other bodies the power to determine the existence of facts upon which the application of facts upon which the application of the legislative acts is made to depend. Again it is essential that the legislature establish the standard by which the fact finding body is to be guided. Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446; Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 157; Kelleher v. Minshull, 11 Wn.2d 380, 297, 119 P.2d 302 (1941); Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 195 Wash. 636, 643, 82 P.2d 120

It is a well understood principle that an agency may not legislate under the guise of its rule making power, and that its rules must be written within the framework and policy of the applicable statute. Agency rules may not amend or change an enactment of the legislature. Kitsap-Mason Dairymen v. Tax Comm’n, 77 Wn.2d 812, 467 P.2d 312 (1970). See also State ex rel West v. Seattle, 50 Wn.2d 94, 309 P.2d 751 (1957); and Juanita Bay Valley Com. v. Kirkland, 9 Wn.App. 59, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973).

“There is no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in nature; an administrative board” such as the CPS Division of DSHS “cannot” legally confer upon its Brainless Bimbo Employees “authority that under the law may be exercised only by the” . . . duly elected County Prosecutor. Schechter v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal. App.2d 391, 65 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1968). See also Bagley v. Manhatten Beach, 18 Cal.3d 22, 553 P.2d 1140, 1141, 132 Cal. Rptr. 668 (1976).

THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS A STATE AGENCY CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
“As such it enjoys only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied in furtherance of its statutorily defined duties.” Human Right’s Comm’n v. Cheney Sch. Dist. 30, 97 Wn.2d 118, 125, 641 P.2d 163 (1982).

THE ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE HIS DISCRETIONARY DUTIES TO INITIATE AND PROSECUTE ALL CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS WHO ARE NOT DULY QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEYS FOR WHOM HE HAS APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF DEPUTY OR SPECIAL PROSECUTORS!!!!

A specific application of this rule is the well settled principle that a public administrative body to which discretionary functions have been delegated cannot redelegate such functions, absent express authorization. Noe v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15, 83 Wn.2d 97, 515 P.2d 977 (1973); State ex rel. School Dist. 301 v. Clausen, 109 Wash. 37, 186 P. 319 (1919); Howard v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. 10, 88 Wash. 167, 152 P. 1004 (1915); McGilvra v. Seattle Sch. Dist. 1, 113 Wash. 619, 194 P. 817 (1921); American Fed’n of Teachers Local 1485 v. Yakima School Dist. 7, 74 Wn.2d 865 (1968); Seattle High School Ch. 200 v. Sharples, 159 Wash. 424 (1930); Juntilla v. Everett School District, 178 Wash. 637, 35 P.2d 78 (1934); Ledgering v. State, 63 Wn.2d 94, 385 P.2d 522 (1963); Roehl v. Public Util. Dist. 1, 43 Wn.2d 214, 251 P.2d 92 (1953); Mulkilteo Education Association v. Mukilteo School District, 11 Wn.App. 75, 524 P.2d 441 (1974).

THE PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO REDELEGATE HIS AUTHORITY ONLY TO DEPUTY PROSECUTORS AND SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.27.010, RCW 36.27.020, RCW 36.27.030 AND RCW 36.27.040 AND THE FOLLOWING CRR 1.1 DECISIONAL LAWS OF THIS STATE:

“The legislature has enacted RCW 36.27.010 and .040, which require that a prosecuting attorney and his deputies qualify and limit be regularly admitted attorneys at law, which provisions, in turn, the general authority to employ deputies extended to a prosecuting attorney, as a county elective official, by 36.16.07. ...FINLEY, STAFFORD, WRIGHT, UTTER, and BRACHTENBACK, JJ., concur. HALE, C.J. (Concurring only in the result)–At the time this appeal was heard, the statute prescribed that no one not a member of the bar of this court could serve as prosecuting attorney: No person shall be eligible to the office of the office of prosecuting attorney in any county of this state, unless he is a qualified elector therein, and has been admitted as an attorney and counselor of the courts of this state. RCW 36.27.010 Deputy prosecuting attorneys were given the same power and authority as the prosecuting attorney and were required to be members of the bar in a statute declaring that “Each deputy thus appointed shall have the same qualifications required of the prosecuting attorney.” RCW 36.27.040. Because the prosecuting attorney and his deputies hold offices created by the constitution, they are in law public officials. Const. Art. 11, section 5. Since the prosecuting attorney and his deputies hold “public offices” and their qualifications are prescribed by statute under the constitution, it follows that the courts are and should be without power to either abrogate or enhance the power and authority of prosecuting attorneys and their deputies, or to establish other and different public offices with either the authority or power to fullfill the functions of prosecuting attorneys and deputy prosecuting attorneys. Accordingly, this court cannot, within the lawful exercise of its judicial power, create the office of prosecuting attorney, or one like it, nor can it authorize such office to be filled by persons who do NOT possess the qualifications prescribed by statute for that office. I would therefore, reject the rationale of the majority opinion and hold that the statute requiring that prosecuting attorneys and their deputies must be members of the bar be upheld and that this court is without power to prescribe lesser qualifications or to otherwise amend such statutes.” STATE v. COOK, 84 Wn.2d 342, 348, 352, 525 P.2d 761 (August 1974). And;

“Appointment of the Special Prosecutor
RCW 36.27.030 enables a superior court to appoint a special prosecutor when the elected prosecutor is under a disability which prevents him form performing his responsibilities in a certain case. . . . [14] A court can only appoint a special prosecuting attorney in instances where a statute provides for such an appointment. Hoppe v. King Cy., 95 Wn.2d 332, 339, 622 P.2d 845 (1980); State v. Heaton, 21 Wash. 59, 62, 56 P. 843 (1899). RCW 36.27.030 provides: Disability of prosecuting attorney. When from illness or other cause the prosecuting attorney is temporarily unable to perform his [or her] duties, the court or judge may appoint some qualified person to discharge the duties of such officer in court until the disability is removed. Under Hoppe, a prosecutor must have both a duty to represent an official act and a disability that prevents the prosecutor from representing the official before the appointment of a special prosecutor is justified. The prosecutor’s duties are enumerated in RCW 36.27.020, which provides: The prosecuting attorney shall: . . . (4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, defend all suits brought against the state or county, ... Specifically RCW 36.27.030 provides: When any prosecuting attorney fails, from sickness or other cause, to attend a session of the superior court of his [or her] county, or is unable to perform his [or her] duties at such session, the court or judge may appoint some qualified person to discharge the duties of such session, and the appointee shall receive a compensation to be fixed by the court, to be deducted from the stated salary of the prosecuting attorney, not exceeding, however, one-fourth of the quarterly salary of the prosecuting attorney.” WESTERMAN v. CARY, 125 Wn.2d 277, 892 P.2d 1067 [No. 60383-9. En Banc. November 22, 1994.] And;

As you can see above RCW 36.27.010, RCW 36.27.020, RCW 36.27.030 and RCW 36.27.040 requires Deputy prosecuting attorneys shall have the same qualifications required of the prosecuting attorney, DUH, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO BE DULY QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!

THE BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS ARE NOT LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!!

THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE NOT LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!

THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT FAMILY COURT JUDGES AND THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT FAMILY COURT JUDGES ARE LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME BY ALLOWING THESE UNQUALIFIED AND UNLICENSED BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO PLAY ATTORNEY AND PRACTICE LAW IN ALL THE FAMILY COURTS!

“The courts have consistently held that a public body may not redelegate its powers unless they are administrative or ministerial as opposed to discretionary.” Bunger v. Iowa High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 197 N.W.2nd 555 (Iowa 1972).

This means the CPS Social Workers and Guardian Ad Litems can get a job as a Clerk or a Receptionist or as a Deja Vu Stripper or a Toilet Scrubber or any other administrative or ministerial duty, but they cannot engaged in any “discretionary” functions such as Initiating Executive Process unless they want to be charged with Unauthorized Practice of Law.

“The relation of attorney and client is that of master and servant in a limited and dignified sense, and it involves the highest trust and confidence. It cannot be delegated without consent, and it cannot exist between an attorney employed by a corporation to practice law for it, and a client of a corporation, for he would be subject to the directions of the corporation, and not to the directions of the client.” In re Cooperative Law Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15 (1910).

“A statute authorizing the formation of corporations to carry on any lawful business does not include the work of the learned professions [such as practicing law]. Such an innovation with the evil results that might follow, would require the use of specific language clearly indicating the intention. The reasons lie deeper than lack of statutory sanction for it. Human personal qualifications for such professions cannot be possessed by a corporation [such as the CPS Division of DSHS]. They would inhere in the members as distinct from the corporation, and it could not have the power to do illegally an act requiring a license which only they could obtain.” Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm. Ed.) chapter 5, § 97, at page 339. And;

“A corporation being an impersonal, artificial entity existing only by virtue of the law can not be subject to the personal discipline and qualifications required of natural beings for a professional life. People v. Woodbury (1908) 192 N. Y. 454, 85 N. E. 697; Hannon v. Siegel Cooper Co. (1901) 167 N. Y. 244, 60 N. E. 597. The legislature in its general law authorizing the creation of corporations to carry on "any lawful business" did not intend to include the work of the learned professions. (1913) 22 Yale Law Journal 590. . . . In the legal profession it is flatly laid down both by the courts and by statute that a corporation can neither practice law nor hire lawyers to carry on the business of practicing law. (Harker's Illinois Statutes Annot. Chap. 32, par. 362, p. 1160); (N. Y. Law Chap. 484 Law 1909); In re Co-operative Law Co. (1910) 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. E. 15; In re Association of Lawyers (1908), 119 N. Y. S. 77; L. Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers Board of Trade (1915) 90 N. Y. Misc. 19, 152, N. Y. S. 913; Buxton v. Lietz (1912) 136 N. Y. S. 829 (affirmed 139 N. Y. S. 46); 2 R. C. L. 946; 32 L. R. A (N. S.) n55; State ex. rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1919) 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694. The "practice of law" is not limited to the conduct of cases in courts. It includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments — the mere fact that the instrument is in printed form does not change its character and give license for any one to fill in the blanks — collecting claims, conveyances, wills, and the drawing of any contract by which the legal rights of parties are secured; although such matters may or may not be pending in the courts. L. Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers Board of Trade, supra. It seems clear then that the term "practice of law" includes more within its field than the term "practice of medicine" or the other professions. Therefore, the same theory that supports a corporation of licensed physicians in its pursuit of the "practice of medicine" will not aid a corporation composed of attorneys in their attempt to- "practice law". The instant case is a striking example of an attempt upon the part of a corporate organization to invade the legal profession. Situations of this nature are all too prevalent. Although the corporations do not appear as attorneys of record, yet they are the real masters in the nature of Banks, Title Companies, Collecting Agencies, Insurance Claim Departments, and Corporate Charter Companies. The lawyer is a mere agent under the control and direction of these invisible powers.” Illinois Law Quarterly, Volume 4, page 143.

Therefore, since the CPS Division of DSHS is a mere corporation, it cannot engage in the practice of law through unqualified and unlicensed John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that the CPS Division of DSHS is a mere Corporation!!!!

The Washington State Supreme Court held n State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Corp., 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694 (1919), that a corporation could not engage in the practice of law profession through licensed agents!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that CPS Social Workers are NOT licensed attorneys!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that most Guardian Ad Litems are NOT licensed attorneys!

DO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ANY KIND OF A BUSINESS LICENSE????

DO GUARDIAN AD LITEMS HAVE ANY KIND OF A BUSINESS LICENSE????

In the legal profession it is flatly laid down both by the courts and by statute that a corporation such as the CPS Division of DSHS can neither practice law nor hire lawyers to carry on the business of practicing law. (Harker's Illinois Statutes Annot. Chap. 32, par. 362, p. 1160); (N. Y. Law Chap. 484 Law 1909); Midland Adjustment Credit Adjustment Company et all v. Donnelly, 219 Ill. A. 271 (1921); In re Cooperative Law Company, 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15 (1910); In re Association of Lawyers, 119 N.Y.S. 77, L. Meisel & Company v. National Jewelers Board of Trade, 90 N.Y. Misc. 19, 152 N.Y.S. 913 (1915); Buxton v. Lietz, 136 N.Y.S. 829, (affirmed 139 N.Y.S. 46); 2 RCL 946; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) n. 55; 73 A.L.R. 1327; 105 A.L.R. 1364; People ex rel. Lawyers Institute of San Diego v. Merchants Protective Ass’n, 189 Cal. 351, 209 Pac. 363 (1922); State ex rel. Boynton v. Perkins, 138 Kan. 899, 28 P. (2d) 765 (1934); State ex rel. Miller v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 335 Mo 845, 74 S.W. (2d) 348 (1934) (leading case in Missouri); The Bar Association of St. Louis v. H. Pagels d. b. a. Mutual Adjustment Co. (St. Louis Cct. Ct., Mo. 1935) No. 2632-C, Div. No. 2 (layman who solicited claims and threatened suit as a collection firm held engaged in unlawful practice of law); Van Hee v. Kauffman (St. Louis Cct. Ct., Mo. 1935) No. 211420 Div. No. 3.

Therefore, since the Office of Guardian Ad Litems is a mere corporation, it cannot engage in the practice of law through unqualified and licensed and just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems!

The CrR 1.1 Decisional laws of Washington has consistently held to the above reasoning in State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Association, 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694 and State ex rel. Standard Optical Company v. Superior Court, 17 Wn.2d 323, 135 P.2d 839, which latter case quotes at p. 331 from Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39, 198 S.E. 419 as follows:

“If such a course were sanctioned the logical result would be that corporations and business partnerships might practice law, medicine, dentistry or any other profession by the simple expedient or employing licensed agents. And if this were permitted professional standards would be practically destroyed, and professions requiring special training were commercialized, to the public detriment. The ethics of any profession is based upon personal and individual responsibility. One who practices a profession is responsible directly to his patient or his client. Hence he cannot properly act in the practice of his vocation as an agent or a corporation or business partnership whose interests is in the very nature of the case are commercial in nature.” Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39, 198 S.E. 419. And;

If a corporation were formed for the purpose of practicing one of the learned professions, as shown by its articles of incorporation which must set forth the purpose of the corporation, it would be the duty of the Secretary of State to refuse to file such articles. RCW 23.01.050 provides in part, that:

“. . . if the Secretary of State finds that the articles of incorporation conform to law he shall put an endorsement of his approval upon each set, and . . . he shall file one of such sets of articles in his office, . . .”

Concerning the duty of the Secretary of State, our court said in State ex rel. Gorman v. Nichols, 40 Wash. 437, 82 Pac. 743 (1905) that:

“. . . the secretary of state was under no duty to file articles not entitled to be filed, and that this court will not compel him to do a vain or illegal act.” State ex rel. Gorman v. Nichols, 40 Wash. 437, 82 Pac. 743 (1905).

“While the delegation of legislative power must be circumscribed by guiding standards, details and specifics may be determined by the body to which the power is delegated. “[T]he complexity of the subject matter of legislation, and its character as an exercise of police power or otherwise, are to be taken into consideration in determining whether there has been an unlawful delegation of legislative power.” Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); Vail v. Seaborg, 120 Wash. 126, 207 Pac. 15 (1922); McMillan v. Sims, 132 Wash. 265, 231 Pac. 943 (1925); State v. Nelson, 146 Wash. 17, 261 Pac. 796 (1927); State v. Miles, 5 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951). Cited as support for this rule of common sense and practicality is Kelleher v. Minshull, 11 Wn.2d 380, 397, 119 P.2d 302 (1941).

"It will be noticed that the Laws of 1925, Ex. Ses., p.187 (Rem. 1927 Sup., section 13-2), provides that, "Sec. 2. When and as the rules of courts herein authorized shall be promulgated all laws in conflict therewith shall be and become of no further force or effect." STATE EX REL. FOSTERWYMAN LUM. CO. v. SUP'R CT., 148 Wash. 1, 13, [No. 21107. En Banc. May 29th, 1928.] And;

IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ONLY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT CAN PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF LAW!!!!

"[1-3] There are several grounds which justify our rule. First, the legislature has authorized the Supreme court to adopt rules of procedure. RCW 2.04.190: "The supreme court shall have the power to prescribe ... the forms of all writs and all other process ... Quite apart from the statutory authority, this court has the inherent power to govern court procedures. State ex rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior Court, 148 Wash. 1, 267 P. 770 (1928). This stems from the constitutional provision that all judicial power of the state is vested in the Supreme Court and various other courts designated in the constitution. Const. art. 4, section 1." STATE v. FIELDS, 85 Wn.2d 126, 128, 129, 530 P.2d 284 [No. 43278. En Banc. January 10, 1975.1 And;

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ONLY . . . A DULY QUALIFIED APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN . . . OR . . . A REAL ESTATE AGENT . . . OR . . . A REAL ESTATE BROKER . . . OR . . . A ESCROW OFFICER . . . WHO IS . . . A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 12 LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICER . . . CAN ENGAGE IN THE LIMITED PRACTICE OF LAW IN ALL COURTS!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…

APR RULE 12 LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT HAS PROMULGATED TWO (2) RULES THAT ALLOWS ANY PERSON WHO QUALIFIES TO ENGAGED IN LIMITED PRACTICE OF LAW UNDER APR RULE 9 FOR LEGAL INTERNS AND APR RULE 12 FOR LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT COURT RULES SUPERCEDE THE STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS . . . “SUPERCEDES” . . . THE DEPENDENCY STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS . . . “SUPERCEDES” . . . THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS HAS STANDARDS!!!!

THE DEPENDENCY STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT . . . ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . AND . . . ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . ARE THEREFORE COMMITTING . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.”

“It is essential to the administration of justice and the proper protection of society that unlicensed persons be not permitted to prey upon the public by engaging in the practice of law.” Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977 (1937). See also Auerbacher v. Wood, 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863 (1947) and State ex rel. Hunter v. Kirk, 133 Neb. 625, 276 N.W. 380 (1937). And;

Everyone who is fighting CPS needs to look at your . . . STATE CONSTITUTION . . . and the . . . PROSECUTOR STATUTES!!!!

You have an absolute . . . CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT . . . to be prosecuted civilly or criminally by “A DULY ELECTED PROSECUTOR” . . . or . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR” . . . or . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.”

ONLY THE ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR CAN BRING A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ANYONE IN THIS STATE IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY BOTH STATUTES, CASE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

It is undisputed that the . . . “EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY” . . . is vested solely in the office of the elected . . . “PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” . . . or his . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR” . . . or his . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR” . . . by the Washington Constitution Article 11, section 5 and Article 12 and has been codified by the legislature at RCW 36.27.005 and RCW 36.27.020(3) and (4) only.

Both statutes, RCW 13.34.040 the dependency statute and RCW 13.34.180 (1) the termination of parental rights statute, are clearly unconstitutional as they violate the separation of powers doctrine and the Washington state constitution and the prosecutor statutes which provide that the executive authority is vested solely in the office of the prosecutor. Article III, Section 1, Article IV, Section 1, Article XI, Section 5, RCW 36.27.020(4), RCW 43.10.232, pursuant to the case of Lorraine Kirtley v. Diane Frost, Carol Rainey, Michael Stowell, and Does 1-100, Kitsap County District Court No. 980000004; People v. The Municipal Court for the Ventura Judicial District, 27 Cal. App. 3d 193, 103 Cal. Rptr. 645 (1972); In re Petition of Padget, 678 P.2d 870 (Wyo. 1984); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926).

It is undisputed that RCW 36.27.020 (3)(4) and (6) clearly provides that the Prosecutor shall: . . . (3) Appear for and represent the state, county, . . . in all criminal and civil proceedings in which the state or the county . . . may be a party; . . . and (4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, . . . and (6) Institute and prosecute proceedings before magistrates whereas RCW 13.34.040 & RCW 13.34.180 (1) provides [n]o such authority, without violating RCW 2.48.180 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

It is undisputed that it has long been the rule in this State that the court’s power to appoint a special prosecuting attorney is limited to cases where such an appointment is provided by statute. Bates v. School District No. 10, 45 Wash. 498, 88 Pac. 944 (1907); In re Lewis, 51 Wn.2d 193, 201, 202, 316 P.2d 907 (1957); State v. Heaton, 21 Wash. 59, 62, 56 Pac. 843 (1899); Ladenburg v. Cambell, 56 Wn.App. 701, 704, 784 P.2d 1306 (1990); Hoppe v. King County, 95 Wn.2d 332, 339, 622 P.2d 845 (1980); Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 298 (1994), RCW 36.27.030.

It is undisputed that . . . NO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . or . . . “GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . have been appointed to the position of either . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR’S” . . . or . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S” . . . by the Elected Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Haige as required by RCW 36.27.040 which also requires that said appointment . . . “SHALL BE IN WRITING.”

CPS SOCIAL WORKERS & GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE NOT IN FACT AND LAW. . . "DEPUTY PROSECUTORS" . . . AND ARE THEREFORE PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180.

RCW 13.34.1040 is illegal and unconstitutional because it violates the . . . “SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE” . . . and reads:

“RCW 13.34.040 Petition to court to deal with dependent child — Application of federal Indian child welfare act.

(1) ANY PERSON may file with the clerk of the superior court a petition showing that there is within the county, or residing within the county, a dependent child and requesting that the superior court deal with such child as provided in this chapter. There shall be no fee for filing such petitions. . . .” And;

ANY PERSON CANNOT BE A PROSECUTOR!!!!

ANY PERSON CANNOT PRACTICE LAW!!!

ONLY A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR TRIBAL COURT LAWYER CAN PRACTICE LAW!!!!

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS SUPERCEDES RCW 13.34.040!!!

COURT RULES SUPERCEDE STATUTES!!!!

See also RCW 13.34.180 (1) which similarly reads:

“RCW 13.34.180 Order terminating parent and child relationship — Petition — Filing — Allegations (as amended by 2009 c 477).

*** CHANGE IN 2013 *** (SEE 1284-S.SL) ***

(1) A petition seeking termination of a parent and child relationship MAY BE FILED in juvenile court BY ANY PARTY to the dependency proceedings concerning that child. Such petition shall conform to the requirements of RCW 13.34.040, shall be served upon the parties as provided in RCW 13.34.070(8), and shall allege all of the following unless subsection (2) or (3) of this section applies: . . .” And;

ANY PERSON CANNOT PRACTICE LAW!!!!

ONLY A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR TRIBAL COURT LAWYER CAN PRACTICE LAW!!!!

ANY PERSON CANNOT BE A PROSECUTOR!!!!

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS SUPERCEDES RCW 13.34.040!!!

COURT RULES SUPERCEDE STATUTES!!!!

BOTH STATUTES . . . RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE . . . AND . . . RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE . . . ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY ALLOW ANY PERSON WHO IS . . . NOT A PROSECUTOR . . . NOT A DEPUTY PROSECUTOR . . . NOT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR . . . TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE!!!!

I remember that they had to pass a special law (APR 12) here in Washington State to allow Real Estate Agents to be Exempt from being charged with Unauthorized Law for preparing and submitting or filing Legal Documents and Legal Forms that affected peoples legal rights over chattel property such as Real Estate!!!!

WOW, IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT CARES MORE ABOUT THEIR GREEDY WSBA BAR ATTORNEY MAFIA REACHING THEIR GREEDY HANDS AND STICKY FINGERS INTO EVERY REAL ESTATE DEAL AND GETTING TO STEAL REAL ESTATE AGENTS MONEY THAN THEY DO ABOUT UNQUALIFIED, UNTRAINED AND UNLICENSED BRAINLESS BIMBOS PLAYING ATTORNEY AND SIGNING AND FILING FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR OVERALL FAMILY COURT CHILD STEALING RING CALLED THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS THAT IS STEALING AND SELLING PEOPLES CHILDREN KIDS FOR CASH MONEY UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW!!!!

See, ADMISSION TO PRACTICE RULES RULE 12. LIMITED PRACTICE RULE FOR LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS at:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…


Children are NOT Legal Forms and are NOT chattel property of the Corporate States!

If they can’t show us a special statute specifically authorizing or exempting the dizzy broads who work for the CPS Division of DSHS and the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem from practicing law charges, we can nail all of these John 8:44 Liars with charges of Unauthorized Practice of Law!!!!

BOTH STATUTES . . . RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE . . . AND . . . RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE . . . ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ALLOW ANY PERSON TO PRACTICE LAW AND INSTITUTE A CIVIL ACTION IN BOTH THE FAMILY COURTS AND THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF THIS STATE THUS ALLOWING NON-LAWYERS WHO HAVE NO LEGAL TRAINING AND NO BUSINESS LICENSES TO REPRESENT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OUR CHILDREN IN OPEN COURT IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE!!!!

BOTH STATUTES RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE AND RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

Even . . . “THE STANDARDS” . . . for . . . “APR 9 LEGAL INTERNS” . . . clearly show that . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . and . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . cannot be admitted to Limited Practice unless that individual CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or individual . . .GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . is in fact and law a duly qualified . . . . “RULE 9 INTERN.”

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN . . . . reads in part:

“APR 9 LEGAL INTERN
(a) Admission to Limited Practice. Qualified law students, enrolled law clerks, and graduates of approved law schools may be admitted to the status of legal intern and be granted a limited license to engage in the practice of law only as provided in this rule. To qualify, an applicant must:

(1) Be a student duly enrolled and in good academic standing at an approved law school with legal studies completed amounting to not less than two-thirds of a prescribed 3-year course of study or five-eighths of a prescribed 4-year course of study, and have the written approval of the applicants law school dean or a person designated by such dean; or

(2) Be an enrolled law clerk in compliance with the provisions of rule 6 with not less than five-eighths of the prescribed 4-year course of study completed, and have the written approval of the tutor; or

(3) Make the application before the expiration of 9 month following graduation from an approved law school, and submit satisfactory evidence thereof for the Bar Association; and

(4) Pay such fees as may be set by the Board of Governors with the approval of the Supreme Court; and

(5) Certify in writing under oath that the applicant has read, is familiar with, and will abide by, the Rules of Professional Conduct and this rule. . . .”

Even . . . “THE STANDARDS” . . . for . . . “APR 9 LEGAL INTERNS” . . . clearly show that neither . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or . . . A GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . can be admitted to Limited Practice unless that individual . . . CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or individual . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . is in fact and law a duly . . . “QUALIFIED LAW STUDENT . . . ENROLLED LAW CLARK . . . AND . . . GRADUATE OF APPROVED LAW SCHOOLS . . . MAY BE ADMITTED A LIMITED LICENSE TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW ONLY AS PROVIDED IN THIS RULE!!!!

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE ARE COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SECOND DEGREE PERJURY, FIRST DEGREE FORGERY AND PRESENTING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN A OFFICIAL COURT RECORD WHEN THEY PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE NEXT TO THE SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS SIGNED BY . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . OR . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . WHO IS NOT A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN!!!

“. . . (1) The supervising lawyer or another lawyer from the same office shall direct, supervise and review all of the work of the legal intern and both shall assume personal professional responsibility for any work undertaken by the legal intern while under the lawyer's supervision. All pleadings, motions, briefs, and other documents prepared by the legal intern shall be reviewed by the supervising lawyer or a lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer. When a legal intern signs any correspondence or legal document, the interns signature shall be followed by the title "legal intern" and, if the document is prepared for presentation to a court or for filing with the clerk thereof, the document shall also be signed by the supervising lawyer or lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer. In any proceeding in which a legal intern appears before the court, the legal intern must advise the court of the interns status and the name of the interns supervising lawyer. . . .” And;

It is undisputed that Rule 9 the Rule for Legal Interns provides in part . . . “[W]hen a legal intern signs any correspondence or legal document, the interns signature shall be followed by the title "legal intern" and, if the document is prepared for presentation to a court or for filing with the clerk thereof, the document shall also be signed by the supervising lawyer or lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer.”

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE WHO PUT THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON THE SAME DOCUMENT AS A CPS SOCIAL WORKER IS A CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR WHO IS COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE COURT LEADING ALL OF US CPS VICTIMS INTO BELIEVING THAT CPS SOCIAL WORKER IS A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN WHO HAS IN FACT BEEN GRANTED A LIMITED LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW AND SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE, MISFEASANCE OF OFFICE, PERJURY OF HIS OR HER OATH OF OFFICE AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT FOR RUNNING A LAW PRACTICE WITH A CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW!

ALL JUDGES WHO ARE ATTORNEYS CAN BE DISBARRED FOR PUTTING THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY COURT ORDERS THAT HAS THE ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE OF ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY OR WHO IS NOT A RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN PURSUANT TO RCW 2.48.220 (5)(9).

WE CAN DISBAR THE JUDGES AND ONCE THEY ARE DISBARRED, THEY CAN’T BE A JUDGE ANYMORE!!!!

THE WASHINGTON STATE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BOARD CAN KICK ROCKS!!!!

SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THE WASHINGTON STATE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO CLEAN UP THE MESS IN THEIR OWN HOUSE FIRST BEFORE THEY START LOOKING AT TRIBAL COURT LAWYER LUIS EWING!!!!

YOU FECKLESS PETTY FOGGER WSBA BAR CARD ATTORNEYS ARE SO GOD DAMNED STUPID, YOU WOULDN’T KNOW THE LAW IF I HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH A LAW BOOK!!!!

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE WHO PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATING RULE 5.4 & RULE 5.5 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT!!!!

“RULE 5.4 PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A LAWYER
. . .
(5)(b) A LAWYER SHALL NOT FORM A PARTNERSHIP WITH A NONLAWYER IF ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTNERSHIP CONSIST OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
. . .
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:
. . .
(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.” And;

“RULE 5.5 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW
(a) A LAWYER SHALL NOT practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or ASSIST ANOTHER IN DOING SO. . . .” And;

“RCW 18.130.180 Unprofessional conduct.

The following conduct, acts, or conditions constitute unprofessional conduct for any license holder under the jurisdiction of this chapter:

(1) The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption relating to the practice of the person's profession, whether the act constitutes a crime or not. If the act constitutes a crime, conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disciplinary action. Upon such a conviction, however, the judgment and sentence is conclusive evidence at the ensuing disciplinary hearing of the guilt of the license holder of the crime described in the indictment or information, and of the person's violation of the statute on which it is based. For the purposes of this section, conviction includes all instances in which a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is the basis for the conviction and all proceedings in which the sentence has been deferred or suspended. Nothing in this section abrogates rights guaranteed under chapter 9.96A RCW;

(2) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact in obtaining a license or in reinstatement thereof;

(3) All advertising which is false, fraudulent, or misleading;
. . .
(10) AIDING OR ABETTING AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PRACTICE WHEN A LICENSE IS REQUIRED;
. . .
(13) Misrepresentation or fraud in any aspect of the conduct of the business or profession; . . .” And;


ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS WHO PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN CAN BE DISBARRED PURSUANT TO RCW 2.48.220 (5)(9) WHICH CLEARLY READS:

“RCW 2.48.220 Grounds of disbarment or suspension.
An attorney or counselor may be disbarred or suspended for any of the following causes arising after his or her admission to practice:
. . .
(5) Lending his or her name to be used as attorney and counselor by another person who is not an attorney and counselor.
. . .
(9) PRACTICING LAW WITH OR IN COOPERATION with a disbarred or suspended attorney, or maintaining an office for the practice of law in a room or office occupied or used in whole or in part by a disbarred or suspended attorney, or permitting a disbarred or suspended attorney to use his or her name for the practice of law, or practicing law for or on behalf of a disbarred or suspended attorney, or practicing law under any arrangement or understanding for division of fees or compensation of any kind with a disbarred or suspended attorney or WITH ANY PERSON NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY. . . .” And;

RCW 2.48.220 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT . . . “AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSELOR MAY BE DISBARRED OR SUSPENDED FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CAUSES ARISING AFTER HIS OR HER ADMISSION TO PRACTICE . . . (9) PRACTICING LAW WITH OR IN COOPERATION . . . WITH ANY PERSON NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY.”

ARE ANY OF THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . LICENSED ATTORNEY’S????

ARE ANY OF THE CPS GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . LICENSED ATTORNEYS????

IF NOT, WE CAN FILE A MOTION FOR ANY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE DISBARRED IF HE PLACED HIS ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DOCUMENT WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT IN FACT AN ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN!!!!

IF NOT, WE CAN FILE A MOTION FOR ANY JUDGE TO BE DISBARRED IF HE PLACES HIS ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT IN FACT A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN!!!!

DOES A . . . “CPS SOCIAL WORKER” . . . OR . . . “GUARDIAN AD LITEM” . . . EVEN HAVE . . . “A BUSINESS LICENSE” . . . TO BE WORKING IN THE COURT????

Neither 1 of the two statutes, RCW 13.34.040 or RCW 13.34.180 (1), provides any . . . "EXEMPTION" . . . to CPS Social Workers or Guardian Ad Litems from being charged with . . . "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW."

CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . and . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . have NO legal or statutory authority to . . . "REPRESENT ANY CHILDREN” . . . unless they are . . . “LICENSED ATTORNEYS.”

ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE ALSO GUILTY OF VIOLATING RCW 9.62.020 AS THEY DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO INSTITUTE A SUIT ON BEHALF OF ME TO TAKE AWAY MY CHILDREN AND THEY CAN’T LEGALLY OBTAIN MY CHILDREN’S PERMISSION TO TAKE THEIR PARENTS AWAY BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORS AND NOT COMPETENT OR ABLE TO CONTRACT UNDER THE LAW!!!!

“RCW 9.62.020 Instituting suit in name of another.
Every person who shall institute or prosecute any action or other proceeding in the name of another, without his consent and contrary to law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 124; RRS § 2376.]” And;

THE STATE CANNOT CONSENT TO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR GUARDIAN AD LITEMS PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT VIOLATING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE RCW 2.48.180.

THEY BETTER SHOW US THE STATUTE OR THE STATUTES THAT SAYS THAT THE DIZZY BROADS WHO WORK FOR CPS ARE EXEMPT FROM BEING CHARGED WITH VIOLATING RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE . . . OR . . . WE CAN CHARGE ALL OF YOU AS CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS . . . AND/OR . . . AS ACCESSORY’S AFTER THE FACT . . . OR . . . AIDERS AND ABETTERS . . . AND WITH . . . LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME.

I am doing the research on the proper procedure for filing a formal complaint with the KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE KITSAP COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION specifically requesting that they bring criminal charges against . . . ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS IN KITSAP COUNTY . . . for violating RCW 2.48.180, the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE.

And if the KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF DOESN'T INVESTIGATE AS REQUIRED BY RCW 36.28.011, we can charge him with . . . OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT!

“RCW 36.28.011 Duty to make complaint. In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it shall be the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law, which shall come to their knowledge, within their respective jurisdictions.”

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.28.011




EVERYBODY NEEDS TO START FILING COMPLAINTS WITH THEIR LOCAL COUNTY SHERIFF AND DEMAND HE DO HIS DUTY AND MAKE COMPLAINTS AGAINST ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS IN HIS COUNTY THAT ARE PRACTICING LAW IN VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF EVERY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND DEMAND A FORMAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF ALL FAMILY COURTS AND SUPERIOR COURTS FOR ALLOWING ALL OF THE JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO ENGAGE IN . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.”

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS WITH THE FBI ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE ALL THESE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT STATE OFFICIALS FOR RICO VIOLATIONS!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO BOYCOTT ALL THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FIRE THEIR STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS!

IN MY OPINION, ALL STATE LICENSED BAR ATTORNEYS ARE ALL LAZY WORTHLESS FECKLESS PETTY FOGGERS WHO CHARGE WAY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR DOING WAY TOO LITTLE WORK!!!!

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE ATTORNEYS ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN!!!!

IT IS MY OPINION THAT ALL FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS WHETHER THEY ARE FOR HIRE ATTORNEYS OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE WORKING IN COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE ILLEGAL FAMILY COURT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS ALL THESE BRAINLESS BIMBOS THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO PLAY ATTORNEY AND PRACTICE LAW IN OUR COURTS THAT OUR TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL THE WSBA BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS ARE EITHER GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE INCOMPETENT OR THAT THEY ARE ALL CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THEIR PRESENCE!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL THE WSBA BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS ARE EITHER GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE INCOMPETENT OR THAT THEY ARE ALL CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILED FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS TO STEAL AND SELL PEOPLES CHILDREN FOR MONEY!!!!

HOW COME NOT 1 IN 30,000 PLUS MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS HAVE NOT COMPLAINED ABOUT CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS PRACTICING LAW IN OUR COURT ROOMS????

HOW COME NOT 1 IN 30,000 PLUS MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS HAVE NOT COMPLAINED ABOUT ALL THE DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS AS BEING A FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENT AND ARE THEREFORE LEGALLY DEFECTIVE AND GRANTING THE COURT NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED????

EITHER ALL THE WSBA ATTORNEYS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FECKLESS PETTY FOGGERS WHO ARE ALL IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISBARRED AND PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED FROM EVER PRACTICING LAW EVER AGAIN????

OR:

ALL OF THE WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO PRACTICE LAW IN OUR FAMILY COURTS KNOW THAT ALL THE DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION PETITIONS ARE FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENTS AND ARE THEREFORE CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS WHO ARE LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME OF COUNTLESS FELONY COUNTS OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, EXTORTION, MONEY LAUNDERING, MAIL FRAUD AND VIOLATIONS OF THE HOBBS ACT????

IT’S TIME TO TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS WITH A QUO WARRANTO!

FIRE YOUR ATTORNEYS AND HIRE ME TO WRITE YOUR LEGAL PLEADINGS FOR YOU!!!!

YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MANAGE AND PLEAD YOUR OWN CAUSES AND DEFEND YOUR SELF IN PERSON!!!!

WHEN YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR SELF, YOU ARE ACTING AS YOUR OWN ATTORNEY!!!!

WHEN YOU ARE DEFENDING YOURSELF AND ACTING AS YOUR OWN ATTORNEY, YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HIRE ANYONE TO BE YOUR . . . “PARA-LEGAL.”

HIRE ME TO DO THE RESEARCH TO TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS!!!!

HIRE ME TO BE YOUR SUPER RESEARCHER, PARA-LEGAL ON STEROIDS AND SUPER LAWYER ALL COMBINED!!!!

YOU DON’T NEED AN BAR ATTORNEY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF BRAINS FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ JESUIT OWNED LAW SKOOL!!!!

LEGAL RESEARCH IS VERY TEDIOUS AND VERY TIME CONSUMING AND I AM LEAVING NO LAW BOOK UNREAD, I WILL DESTROY THE CPS AND GET A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ENTIRE DEPENDENCY SCHEME AND TERMINATION SCAM IS IN FACT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE DESIGNED WITH INTENT TO FACILITATE KIDNAPPING, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, DEFRAUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BANK FRAUD, POSTAL FRAUD VIOLATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF THE HOBBS ACT AND RICO VIOLATIONS SO WE CAN SEND ALL THESE JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO PRISON FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES!!!

I HOPE THIS HELPS EVERYONE FIGHTING CPS IN WASHINGTON STATE AND EVERY WHERE ELSE!!!!

Luis Ewing

 

[Brick Layer]

TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,

I am a divorced Michigan father of three boys (now adults) who have experienced Parental Alienation after I was abandoned by my ex spouse and her taking my children along for the ride her. The children and I have suffered untold damage at the hands of the Federal Title IV-D Program and the duty of care administered at the state and local county level. I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.

I offer this personal information as my first attempt at starting this thread was censored and deleted.
Reason: You must have some content of your own with every OP."
I am guessing OP means opening post? Anyway life is good and it is an honor to bring you this thread....
Please stay on topic (education and awareness) Title IV-D discussion for practical application. My point of this thread is not to hash out family matters; or solve anyone's legal wows-child support or otherwise; nothing here is to be considered legal advice.

Kindest regards,
Brick Layer

_____________________________________

This thread is dedicated to my worst friend 'Wargames';
[at one time in my life my children told me "dad he is your only friend".]

Thank you 'Wargames'!!!

Thanks for wargames 101, wargames 102, [multiple sui juris forum(s) 'past and gone'] and all of your [our] years of endless research and development learning the inner workings of Title IV and more specifically the attached inseverable Part D of Title IV (Welfare), Law & Education federal and state, and the litigation experience... plus those friends whom [are no longer with us, yet] have come before and pasted on their experiences (practical applications);

Thank you for your dedication, hard work, and perseverance - 'Wargames' as you know most of what we have shared here today was co-authored over time and pasted onto this forum through my thread postings here and other forums under the Title IV-D Topic;

Thank you for the barbecues & fish fries and my early days in the shed when I came to you green with my own domestic relations matters, again [friend] thank you....

 

[Brick Layer]

Fraud upon the court

 

[Brick Layer]

Legally Kidnapped

 

[Brick Layer]

USMessageBoard where your voices count

TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,
I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.

It is an honor to bring you this thread....
Please stay on topic (education and awareness) Title IV-D discussion for practical application. My point of this thread is not to hash out family matters; or solve anyone's legal wows-child support or otherwise; nothing here is to be considered legal advice.

Kindest regards,
Brick Layer

_____________________________________

Hihil tam proprium imperio quam legibus vivere.
Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.

 

[Brick Layer]

Legally Kidnapped

Legally Kidnapped University - Following the Money

 

[Brick Layer]

Most Poor Children Love Their ‘Deadbeat’ Dads But Government Bureaucrats Don’t Care

 

[Brick Layer]

Too Many States Have Laws That Literally Offer Financial Incentives To DESTROY Families

On the Missouri House floor, Republican Rep. Paul Curtman discussed Title IV-D, saying:

“But unfortunately, that dollar does not go toward the child for child support. What I’m trying to figure out right now is when Missouri gets that money, where does that money go? Because if that money goes to the courts or goes to a bureaucracy, that means we have institutionalized a financial incentive to make sure that parents don’t have equal shared parenting. And if that’s the case that is a financial incentive, to quite literally, rip families apart.”

He continued:

“Government should never profit off of splitting children unequally between the mother and the father.”
__



Americans for Equal Shared Parenting
5050Parenting

 

[Brick Layer]

While the law allows expungement, Warner said it isn’t adequate, and is a slow process.

“The only quick way to get off the registry is to die,” Warner said.

Federal lawsuit says Michigan's registry for child abuse and neglect is unfair, unconstitutional

 

[Brick Layer]

Lawsuit targets Child Protection Services, alleging 'legal kidnapping'

 

[Brick Layer]

On July 1, Kentucky’s laws will begin supporting joint custody with equal parenting time when families separate.
New shared custody legislation becomes law in Kentucky July 1, existing arrangements not impacted | NKyTribune