/CITES

 

This Page Updated:

05/20/2022 @ Approx. 00:08

 

Power To The People - (Spring 2022) - American Republic Constitutional Cites (In RE: Of Overt Total Tyranny, Treason, Supreme, Mandatory U.S. Federal and State Constitution(s) abandonment, Seditious Conspiracy/Levying War Against The Constitutional Republic of The United States of America, All 50 Free and Independent States, 5 Free and Independent Territories, 3,134 Free and Constitutionally Guaranteed and Protected Counties in OUR Union, WE THE PEOPLE, WE THE JURY and WE THE CHURCH therein) [Not a Political Party Issue (Democrat and Republican Parties Both Overt Traitors); Letter of Supreme Law Loyalty, Allegiance and Access Issue]:

 

 

Welcome to WE THE PEOPLE Online, True American Patriot; #GetKeyed  :)

 

Update/Update(s): (Case Law & Cites): 05/20/2022 [Located below the Datasets Completed to date]

Latest Update(s): Lightning Bolt Parsed Primary Source .SQL Key Drop! @ Approx. 00:08

 

Exodus (lat. Expod)

United States of America, The Constitutional Republic, for WHICH IT STANDS! #OneNationUnderGod (Jesus Christ of Nazareth per Public Law. 97-280) - #RevivalRoar - Primary Source Parsing -> SQL (Exodus)

WE THE PEOPLE USA | Constitutional Republic of The USA

 

American Constitutional Republic Defense from Total Overthrown American Constitutional Governments (All 50 Free and Independent States, All 5 Free and Independent Inhabited Territories, All 3,134 Free Constitutionally Guaranteed and Protected Counties, Parishes, Boroughs and other U.S. Census Areas! #DEFENDAMERICA #DODSTANDARDS #CONSTITUTIONALAMERICAFOREVER #FREEANDINDEPENDENTSTATESFOREVER #Freedom #Liberty #Independence #Justice #Defense #JesusChristofNazareth #LetHISPeopleGo #EXODUS #MassEmpowerments #DefendAmericanGovernments #DefendAmericanPeople #EnforceConstitutionalSupremeandMandatedLaw #Judgements

 

Angel Warrior Leading The Battle To Victory

 

Update 05/19/2022 @ Approx. 23:55

Lightning Bolt SQL Key Drop!

Power To The People Lightning Bolts

American Constitutional Republic Defense

SQL Key: "Boxing Maneuver"

Filename: Boxing_Maneuver_05.19.2022_21.04.sql

Filesize: 43.2 MB

Primary Source Dataset: U.S. Census 2020 Estimated Populations (CSV's -> .SQL)

Primary Source Dataset Format: .CSV

Primary Source Dataset .GOV URL: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-cities-and-towns-total.html

Parsed Using: Python 3.10.4 on Debian 11 Bullseye x64

Python Modules: Pandas & PyMySQL

 

[DOWNLOAD Boxing_Maneuver_05.19.2022_21.04.sql]

Screenshots:

Boxing Maneuver 1

 

Boxing Maneuver 2

 

Boxing Maneuver 3

 

Update(s): (SQL Keys & Datasets) 02/23/2022 @ Approx. 18:31:

 

Harvard CAP MetaData (US) .SQL

Download [1.2GB] (Archive.org)

Download Source: Archive.org

Source: Harvard Case Law Access Project

 

Instructions for importing the Archive.org .SQL file to a local or remote MariaDB/MySQL Server:

Remote: "mysql -h ipaddress -u username -p databasename < /path/.sql"

Local: "mysql -u username -p databasename < /path/.sql"

 

Screenshots:

 

 

 

 

#JesusChristofNazareth #LetHISPeopleGo #TickTock

 

 

Gold.sql | Gold.sql [U.S. Federal Constitution of September 17, 1787]

Gold.sql Download [123.7KB]

Download Source: US Case Law (WE THE PEOPLE Online)

Source: United States Congress

 

Screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shadow.sql | Shadow.sql [SCOTUS - Overruling of Constitutional Precedent]

Shadow.sql | Shadow.sql [Addendum | Air Superiority Blue]

Shadow.sql Download [131.3KB]

Source: everycrsreport.com

 

Screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light.sql | Light.sql [Washington State RCW - State Acts]

Light.sql | Light.sql [Addendum | Alabaster]

Light.sql Download [60.5KB]

Source: leg.wa.gov [RCW's] [State Statutory Code]

 

Screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ice.sql | ice-sql [Addendum | Absolute Zero]

Wash.Court.Rules.COVID.2021.Supreme.Court.AR.sql

08/22/2021 - 08/26/2021

Source: Washington State Courts - Court Rules (SAR)

DOWNLOAD .SQL [62.3 KB] [Version: Alpha 0.0.1]

 

Screenshot (HeidiSQL 9.5.0 in Linux/Wine32) : Wash.Court.Rules.COVID.2021.Supreme.Court.AR.sql

 

Time.sql | Time-sql [Wash State Constitution (November 11, 1889) Article I - Declaration of Rights | Aero]

Time.sql | Time-sql [Addendum | Aero]

WA_State_Constitution_Article_I_Declaration_of_Rights092021time.sql

08/25/2021 - 08/25/2021

Source: Code Reviser Washington State - Constitution - Article I - Declaration of Rights

DOWNLOAD .SQL [75.4 KB] [Version: Alpha 0.0.1]

Note: if there are any incorrect data entries (excessive spaces, lack of spaces, extra white space, etc; please let me know for a bugfix and I will credit you in the changelog). Under great stress and responsibility!

This will work with MariaDB & MySQL (Linux & Available on Windows).

- MariaDB

- MySQL

 

Database viewer shown in screenshot(s) is Wine/Wine32 run and executed "HeidiSQL 9.5.0.x 32-bit Portable" which I cannot find a link to online. However; a newer dark version is available which looks very cool (It probably can run white standard; which is the usual for dark based theme options, defaulted white). I will be looking into a switch; however right now I have a lot on my back.

HeidiSQL Portable 11.3 32-bit can be downloaded here. (Does not work with wine; at least not mine).

HeidiSQL Portable 11.3 64-bit can be downloaded here. (Does not work with wine; at least not mine).

If you really need my version; email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 Screenshot (HeidiSQL 9.5.0 in Linux/Wine32) : WA_State_Constitution_Article_I_Declaration_of_Rights092021time.sql

 

Flower.sql | Flower-sql [Addendum | Aero Blue]

Wikipedia_September_2021_Law_Keys_Doctrineflower.sql

09/12/2021

Source: Wikipedia | Appendix - Legal Doctrines

DOWNLOAD .SQL [27.2 KB] [Version: Alpha 0.0.1]

Note: if there are any incorrect data entries (excessive spaces, lack of spaces, extra white space, etc; please let me know for a bugfix and I will credit you in the changelog). Under great stress and responsibility!

This will work with MariaDB & MySQL (Linux & Available on Windows).

- MariaDB

- MySQL

 

Database viewer shown in screenshot(s) is Wine/Wine32 run and executed "HeidiSQL 9.5.0.x 32-bit Portable" which I cannot find a link to online. However; a newer dark version is available which looks very cool (It probably can run white standard; which is the usual for dark based theme options, defaulted white). I will be looking into a switch; however right now I have a lot on my back.

HeidiSQL Portable 11.3 32-bit can be downloaded here. (Does not work with wine; at least not mine).

HeidiSQL Portable 11.3 64-bit can be downloaded here. (Does not work with wine; at least not mine).

If you really need my version; email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Screenshot (HeidiSQL 9.5.0 in Linux/Wine32) : Wikipedia_September_2021_Law_Keys_Doctrineflower.sql

 

Constitutionally Guaranteed and Protected Rights and Constitutional Law Supremacy:

 

(Federal U.S. Constitution "this Constitution" of September 17, 1787):

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." -

U.S. Const. Art. VI, Clause 2 (September 17, 1787).

 

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -

U.S. Const. Art. VI, Clause 3 (September 17, 1787).

 

(Washington State Constitution of November 11, 1889):

 

"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."

Wash. Const. Art. I, Section 1 [POLITICAL POWER] (November 11, 1889).

 

"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

Wash. Const. Art. I, Section 2 [SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND] (November 11, 1889).

 

"No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

Wash. Const. Art. I, Section 7 [INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED] (November 11, 1889).

 

"The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise." -

Wash. Const. Art. I, Section 29 [CONSTITUTION MANDATORY] (November 11, 1889).

 

"All laws now in force in the Territory of Washington, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or are altered or repealed by the legislature: Provided, That this section shall not be so construed as to validate any act of the legislature of Washington Territory granting shore or tide lands to any person, company or any municipal or private corporation." -


Wash. Const. Art. XXVII, Section 2 [LAWS IN FORCE CONTINUED] (November 11, 1889).

 

(Washington State Appellate Court + Supreme Court Cites):

 

Washington State - Public Domain Case Law in Full-Text htm zipped archives - PDR #19-2 from MRSC.org
 
 
[territoryreports.zip]
 
[washreports.zip]
 
[supreme.zip]
 
[appellate.zip]
 
 

“The authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.” - Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, (1888).

 

"We hold that it does not. Over a century ago, we recognized a limitation on copyright protection for certain government work product, rooted in the Copyright Act's "authorship" requirement. Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of-and therefore cannot copyright-the works they create in the course of their official duties.

 

We have previously applied that doctrine to hold that non-binding, explanatory legal materials are not copyrightable when created by judges who possess the authority to make and interpret the law. See Banks v. Manchester , 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425 (1888). We now recognize that the same logic applies to non-binding, explanatory legal materials created by a legislative body vested with the authority to make law. Because Georgia's annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection." - Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 206 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2020).

 

Update(s): 09/29/2021: (1 More Update Counter Below this Sub-Section)

 

Harvard Law Library: CaseLaw Access Project (The Entire United States)

500 case views per day until 2024 when Harvard will be releasing all bulk data to the public for free!

 

 

 

 

Wash. Const. Art. I, Section 7 [INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED] (November 11, 1889). (Privacy; Property, Search and Seizure, etc.) heavily weighed and ruled.

 

Read the opinion for the Judicial Holdings: (Extreme American Constitutional Defense and Counters [Automobiles]):

State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (2003).

 

Discovered in an Honorable Justice's Government Public Works while Serving Kitsap County, WA along with countless other beautiful Constitutional Cites for Free American Citizens:

Traffic Stops In Washington: A Judge's Bench Guide by Honorable Justice Jeffrey J. Jahns (Kitsap County District Court)

NEW LINK (09/13/2021) - [Self-Hosted] : Someone got upset I shared Public Government Works with you! They deleted it from the Server(s). 100% Tyranny/Treason.

NEW LINK DOWNLOAD

 

Update(s): 10/09/2021 (Final Sub-Section Update Counter for Cites):

 

Washington Law Review (University of Washington) - Volume 45, Number 2 (04/01/1970)

"Civil Procedure - Filing Fees - Indigents: Washington Courts Have Inherent Power to Waive Filing Fees for Indigents in Civil Actions. - O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wash. Dec. 2d 759, 458 P.2d 154 (1969).

Latin Name for Filing Waiver: "Forma Pauperis"

Case Abstract (Verbatim from Washington Law Review: University of Washington Law Digital Commons):

"Mrs. Glennie O'Connor's sole source of support for herself and five children was a $325 monthly grant from the Washington State Department of Public Assistance. Through her attorney she tendered a complaint for replevin and damages in the amount of $215.50 to the judge and clerk of the Yakima Justice Court, and filed a motion and affidavit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The judge and his clerk refused to accept the complaint and issue notice of suit to the named defendants on the grounds that she had not paid the statutorily prescribed court fees of $3.50. Mrs. O'Connor then began an original proceeding in the Washington Supreme Court to obtain a writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to accept and file her complaint without payment of any fees. Her petition for a writ of mandamus was tendered to the clerk of the supreme court without the filing fees required by Supreme Court Rule on Appeal 10 along with her request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted Mrs. O'Connor's petition to proceed in forma pauperis in the supreme court, and issued mandamus directing the Justice of the Peace to exercise his discretionary powers to determine whether justice court fees should be waived. Held: All Washington state courts have the inherent power to waive both statutorily prescribed court fees and court rules pertaining to fees where a civil action is brought by an indigent in good faith and presents an issue of probable substance. O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wash. Dec. 2d 759, 458 P.2d 154 (1969)."

 

English Definition of "Indigence": (Public Domain: Websters Unabridged Dictionary 1913 Edition) | Extracted from HTML version without pictures/images from GutenBerg Project (Public Domain eBooks):

Websters Unabridged Dictionary 1913 Edition | Gutenberg HTML Public Hosted Edition URL

"INDIGENCE
In"di*gence, n. Etym: [L. indigentia: cf. F. indigence. See
Indigent.]

 

Defn: The condition of being indigent; want of estate, or means of comfortable subsistence; penury; poverty; as, helpless, indigence. Cowper.

Syn.
 — Poverty; penury; destitution; want; need; privation; lack. See
Poverty."

 

Matthew Wreagan has also created a JSON format edition of Websters Unabridged English Dictionary by Project Gutenberg on his GitHUB Repository found here.

 

MRSC.org (courts.mrsc.org) - 76 Wn.2d 589, Glennie O'Connor, Petitioner, v. Charles Matzdorff et al., Respondents (HTML Case Brief) can be found here.

 

CaseText.com (Partially Free / Commercial Case Law Website) [Has provided 6 Key Case Law Holding Extracts from: O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn. 2d 589 (1969).

 

 

"Where constitutional right conflicts with common-law principle guaranty of Constitution must prevail." - Tilton v. Cowles Pub. Co., 459 P.2d 8, 76 Wash.2d 707, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 2238, 399 U.S 927, 26 L.Ed.2d 792. Wash. (1969).

 

"The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of organic law." - Filan v. Martin, 684 P.2d 769, 38 Wash. App. 91. Wash.App. (1984).

 

"Where there is public dissatisfaction and/or disenchantment with the functioning or responsiveness of government institutions to the social needs and desires of the electorate, the power unquestionably has been reserved in the People or the electorate to alter the form and substance of the social compact by constitutional amendment." - Fritz v. Gorton, 517 P.2d 911, 83 Wash.2d 275, appeal dismissed 94 S.Ct. 2596, 417 U.S. 902, 41 L.Ed.2d 208 and Simmons v. Gorton, 94 S.Ct. 2596, 417 U.S. 902, 41 L.Ed.2d 208. Wash. (1974).

 

"Constitution is expression of people's will, adopted by them." - State ex rel. Albright v. City of Spokane, 394 P.2d 231, 64 Wash.2d 767. Wash. (1964).

 

"Changed economic conditions or developments do not amend constitution." - Burns v. Alderson, 322 P.2d 359, 51 Wash.2d 810. Wash. (1958).

 

"Change in constitutional provisions can only properly be achieved through amendment." - State ex rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 279 P.2d 645, 46 Wash.2d 166. Wash. (1955).

 

"Constitutions cannot be amended by estoppel, and intent of framers of constitution and people who adopted such instrument cannot be changed by failure to act on part of legislature." - State ex rel. Lemon v. Langlie, 273 P.2d 464, 45 Wash.2d 82. Wash. (1954).

 

"A constitutional court cannot acquire jurisdiction by agreement or stipulation." - Wesley v. Schneckloth, 346 P.2d 658, 55 Wash.2d 90. Wash. (1959).

 

"Courts cannot decline to exercise their jurisdiction because of motive or purpose of parties bringing action. (Per Andersen, J., with one Judge concurring in separate opinion and other Judge concurring in part.)" - Giambattista v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 586 P.2d 1180, 21 Wash.App. 723. Wash.App. (1978).

 

"The jurisdiction of Supreme Court in original mandamus proceeding cannot be conferred by stipulation, assent, or waiver." - Const. art. IV, section IV. State ex rel. Pacific Bridge Co. v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 112 P.2d 135, 7 Wash.2d 337. Wash. (1941).

 

"Jurisdiction to grant writ of prohibition cannot be conferred on Supreme Court by stipulation, waiver, or consent." - People v. Hinkle, 227 P. 861, 140 Wash. 419. Wash. (1924).

 

"Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Supreme Court, in habeas corpus, by stipulation accompanying the petition." - Steiner v. Nerton, 32 P. 1063, 6 Wash. 23. Wash. (1893).

 

"Jurisdiction of federal court cannot be expanded by consent of parties where jurisdiction does not otherwise exist." - R. A. Hanson Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 550 P.2d 701, 15 Wash.App. 608. Wash.App. (1976).

 

"Neither statute authorizing judgment by confession without service of process nor New York Simplified Procedure for Court Determination of Disputes, allowing defendant to consent to jurisdiction of New York courts, violates due process clauses of State and Federal Constitutions." - RCWA 4.60.050; CPLR N.Y. 3031-3037. Copeland Planned Futures, Inc. v. Obenchain, 510 P.2d 654, 9 Wash.App. 32. Wash.App. (1973).

 

"In a statutory proceeding, jurisdiction and authority of courts are prescribed by legislative enactment, and court does not have any power which cannot be inferred from a broad interpretation thereof." - State v. Womack, 510 P.2d 1133, 82 Wash.2d 382. Wash. (1973).

 

"Judicial discretion" is a sound judgment which is not exercised arbitrarily, but with regard to what is right and equitable under circumstances and law, and which is directed by reasoning conscience of the judge to a just result." - MacKay v. MacKay, 347 P.2d 1062, 55 Wash.2d 344. Wash. (1960).

 

"Method of obtaining jurisdiction of resident defendant is valid if it is reasonably designed to achieve notice of claim asserted so that defendant can appear and defend if he wishes." - Dobbins v. Beal, 483 P.2d 874, 4 Wash.App. 616. Wash.App. (1971).

 

"Where necessary diversity of citizenship does not exist, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, and the court of its own motion will dismiss the action when it appears to it that the necessary jurisdictional fact does not exist." - Columbia Digger Co. v. Rector, 215 F. 618. D.C. Wash. (1914).

 

"One is not amenable to process when, even if he can be found, he is not subject to law because courts cannot obtain jurisdiction over him." - State v. Lee, 738 P.2d 1081, 48 Wash.App. 322, reconsideration denied. Wash.App. (1987).

 

"Analysis of jurisdiction under long-arm statute involves two separate issues; does statutory language purport to extend jurisdiction, and would imposing jurisdiction violate constitutional principles." - U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. V, XIV. Grange Ins. Ass'n v. State, 757 P.2d 933, 110 Wash.2d 752, review granted, reconsideration denied. Wash. (1988).

 

"The "subject matter of a suit", when reference is made to questions of jurisdiction, means the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought." - Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Min. Co., 445 P.2d 334, 74 Wash.2d 519. Wash. (1968).

 

"The term "jurisdiction over subject matter" means authority of a court to hear and determine the class of actions to which the one adjudicated belongs and authority to hear and determine a particular question which it assumes to determine." - Washington Optometric Ass'n v. Pierce County, City of Tacoma, 438 P.2d 861, 73 Wash.2d 445. Wash. (1968).

 

"Unless action is commenced in county in which subject of the action is located, court does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues involved." - RCW 4.12.010(1, 2). Snyder v. Ingram, 296 P.2d 304, 48 Wash.2d 637, 60 A.L.R.2d 482. Wash. (1956).

 

"Jurisdiction of subject matter" means not only authority in court to hear and determine class of actions in which particular action is comprised, but also authority to hear and determine the particular question which it assumes to determine." - State ex rel. Troy v. Superior Court, King County, 229 P.2d 518, 38 Wash.2d 352. Wash. (1951).

 

"Where automobile was located in another county at time of commencement of action for recovery and possession of the automobile, together with damages for loss of use, or, in alternative, for value of the automobile, court did not have jurisdiction to retain such action." - RCW 4.12.010(2). Snyder v. Ingram, 296 P.2d 305, 48 Wash.2d 637, 60 A.L.R.2d 482. Wash. (1956).

 

"Judicial power is never exercised for purpose of giving effect to will of the courts, but always for purpose of giving effect to will and intent of legislature." - Buffelen Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. State, 200 P.2d 509, 32 Wash.2d 40. Wash. (1949).

 

"Court has exclusive personal jurisdiction over any part why appears before it, regardless of how that appearance was effected." - State v. Wilson, 704 P.2d 1217, 41 Wash. App. 397, reconsideration denied, review denied. Wash.App. (1985).

 

"A foreign cause of action will not be enforced where to allow suit there on would be contrary to the strong public policy of the state in which enforcement is sought." - Richardson v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 118 P.2d 985, 11 Wash.2d 288. Wash. (1941).

 

"In order to acquire complete "jurisdiction" so as to be authorized to hear and determine a cause or proceeding, court necessarily must have jurisdiction of the parties thereto and of the subject matter involved." - State ex rel. N. Y. Cas. Co. v. Superior Court for King County, 199 P.2d 581, 31 Wash.2d 834. Wash. (1948).

 

"Generally speaking , the public policy of a state is to be found in its Constitution, its statutes, and the settled rules laid down by its courts." - Richardson v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 118 P.2d 985, 11 Wash.2d 288. Wash. (1941).

 

"The mere fact that the "lex loci" and the "lex fori" are different is not enough to justify the court of the forum in refusing to enforce the statutes of the locus of the tort on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of the state in which suit is brought." - Richardson v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 118 P.2d 985, 11 Wash.2d 288 (1941).

 

"Generally sufficiency of complaint to state cause of action is not a jurisdictional question, and court has jurisdiction of subject-matter of action, if matters in litigation fall within general class into which court, under its inherent or statutory powers, is authorized to inquire and enter judgment on basis of its decision." - Williams v. Steamship Mut. Underwriting Ass'n, 273 P.2d 803, 45 Wash.2d 209. Wash. (1954).

 

"In transitory action complaint may be filed in office of clerk of superior court in which summons is filed and when service of summons and complaint has been made superior court acquires jurisdiction over person and subject matter and may proceed to hear and determine action." - Public Utility Dist. No. 1, of Kitsap County v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 260 P.2d 315, 43 Wash.2d 1. Wash. (1953).

 

"Jurisdiction" depends on various matters, such as fact that process has been properly served as provided by statute, and that subject matter is one on which the court has constitutional authority or implied power to exercise judicial authority." - Const. art. 4, section 1. Tucker v. Brown, 150 P.2d 604, 20 Wash.2d 740. Wash. (1944).

 

"Concept of jurisdiction of courts is generally split into two branches, jurisdiction over subject matter and jurisdiction over the parties; to properly act in a case, it is necessary that the court be vested with both jurisdictions." - State v. Swanson, 554 P.2d 364, 16 Wash. App. 179, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 509, 434 U.S. 967, 54 L.Ed.2d 453. Wash.App. (1976).

 

"Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is an elementary prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power." - Matter of Adoption of Buehl, 555 P.2d 1334, 87 Wash.2d 649. Wash. (1976).

 

"A personal tort claim is transitory in nature." - Richardson v. Pacific Power &  Light Co., 118 P.2d 985, 11 Wash.2d 288. Wash. (1941).

 

"An action for damages for personal injuries being transitory, defendant could be sued wherever found." - Reynolds v. Day, 140 P. 681, 79 Wash. 499, L.R.A.1916A, 432. Wash. (1914).

 

"Where statutory or common law right is given by laws of a sister state, such right may be enforced by action in courts of Washington, if such action be transitory, unless by terms of statute creating it, right is required to be enforced by prescribed proceedings within state of enactment of statute, or existence of cause of action is conditional on some act or event." - Grant v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 154 P.2d 301, 22 Wash.2d 65. Wash. (1945).

 

" "Due process of law", as used in Fifth Amendment, refers to the law of the land which derives its authority from legislative power conferred upon Congress by federal Constitution, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law." - U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. V., Payne v. Smith, 192 P.2d 964, 30 Wash.2d 646. Wash. (1948).

 

" "Due process of law", as used in Fourteenth Amendment, refers to the law of the land in each state, which derives it authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." - U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XIV., Section I., Payne v. Smith, 192 P.2d 964, 30 Wash.2d 646. Wash. (1948).

 

"The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of due process of law is to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government." - Const. Art. I., Section 3., State v. Cater's Motor Freight System, 179 P.2d 496, 217 Wash.2d 661. Wash. (1947).

 

"The Fourteenth Amendment cannot be invoked as a mantel of protection under which a wrongdoer can plead immunity from the judicial processes of the courts." - U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XIV., Shively v. Garage Employees Local Union No. 44, 108 P.2d 354, 6 Wash.2d 560. Wash. (1941).

 

"Liberty" defined.  - Weber v. Doust, 146 P. 623, 84 Wash. 330., Wash. (1915).

 

"Due process of law is not applicable unless one is being deprived of something to which he has a right." - Yantsin v. City of Aberdeen, 345 P.2d 178, 54 Wash.2d 787, Wash. (1959).

 

"The term "law of the land" is a broad principle which has been said to be synonymous with "due process of law". Washington Local Lodge No. 104 of Intern. Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of America v. International Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of America, 203 P.2d 1019, 33 Wash.2d 1., Wash. (1949).

 

"Due process requires governments to treat citizens in fundamentally fair manner." - U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. V, XIV. - Valley View Indus. Park v. City of Redmond, 733 P.2d 182, 107 Wash.2d 621., Wash. (1987).

 

"The "common law" is comprised of that body of court decisions in the nonstatutory field to which the doctrine of stare decisis applies." - Windust v. Department of Labor and Industries, 323 P.2d 241, 52 Wash.2d 33. (1958).

 

 

"Upon the State courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them; for the judges of the State courts are required to take an oath to support that Constitution, and they are bound by it, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under their authority, as the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." If they fail therein, and withhold or deny rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the party aggrieved may bring the case from the highest court of the State in which the question could be decided to this court for final and conclusive determination." - Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624, 637 (U.S. 1884).

 
"Held:

1. The Eleventh Amendment does not in some circumstances bar an action for damages against a state official charged with depriving a person of a federal right under color of state law, and the District Court acted prematurely and hence erroneously in dismissing the complaints as it did without affording petitioners any opportunity by subsequent proof to establish their claims.Pp. 235-238.

2. The immunity of officers of the executive branch of a state government for their acts is not absolute but qualified and of varying degree, 'depending upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the particular office and the circumstances existing at the time the challenged action was taken. Pp. 238-249.471 F. 2d 430, reversed and remanded."

- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232-233 (1974).

 

"The substance of our holding has been that the ascertainment of the facts are, subject to certain qualifications, left to the commission, while the determination of law has been retained in the courts. This was as far as the legislature could go, because it could not take from the courts the right to determine the law. Neither may courts surrender the duty imposed upon them by the constitution to determine the law." - In re the Employees of Buffelen Lumber & Manufacturing Co., 32 Wash. 2d 205 (1948).

 

"Police acting in their official capacity may not actively misrepresent their purpose to gain entry or exceed scope of consent given." - State v. McCrorey, 70 Wn. App. 103, 851 P.2d 1234 (1993).

 

"When a person with an obvious mental disability or incapacity gives what appears to be a consent to search, that apparent consent is not necessarily rendered voluntary simply because the police asked for consent in a nonthreatening manner." - State v. Sondergaard, 86 Wn. App. 656, 938 P.2d 351 (1997).

 

"There must be voluntary consent to constitute waiver of constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures; mere acquiescence or submission to search is insufficient." - State v. Johnson, 16 Wn. App. 899, 558 P.2d 1380 (1977).

 

"In determining whether consent to search was voluntary, court should consider all circumstances of case including age, education and intelligence of person who allowed search, whether he was advised of constitutional rights, whether he was detained and for how long and whether there was repeated and prolonged interrogation and physical and mental coercion." - State v. Johnson, 16 Wn. App. 899, 599 P.2d 1380 (1977).

 

"Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure's "mission." which is to to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are- or reasonably should have been- completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U.S., at 327-328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U.S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop "become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the[e] mission" of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407. Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer's mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658-659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer's traffic mission." - Rodriguez v. United States 575 U.S. (2015). - Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616-17 (2015).

 

"Any evidence seized based upon an illegal stop is subject to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, and may be suppressed." - Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

 

"It is already well established that article I, section 7, of the state constitution has broader application than does the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d at 69-70 n. 1, 917 P.2d 563; State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 148, 720 P.2d 436 (1986); Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d at 63-64, 720 P.2d 808; see also State v. Myrick, 102 Wash.2d 506, 510, 688 P.2d 151 (1984). In City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wash.2d 454, 755 P.2d 775 (1988), article I, section 7, was interpreted independently of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the same legal issue which is present in this case, namely warrantless stops of automobiles for the purpose of investigation. Mesiani, 110 Wash.2d at 457, 755 P.2d 775. Therefore, pursuant to established precedent governing this case, we appropriately turn directly to an examination of article I, section 7.

Washington Constitution article I, section 7

Washington Constitution article I, section 7, provides:

"No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

Article I, section 7, is explicitly broader than that of the Fourth Amendment as it "'clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations'" and places greater emphasis on privacy. State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173, 180, 867 P.2d 593 (1994) (quoting State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 178, 622 P.2d 1199 (1989). Further, while the Fourth Amendment operates on a downward ratcheting mechanism of diminishing expectations of privacy, article I, section 7, holds the line by pegging the constitutional standard to 'those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant." State v. Myrick, 102 Wash.2d 506, 511, 688 P.2d 151 (1984) (emphasis added).

 

We begin our analysis by acknowledging the essence of this, and every, pretextual traffic stop is that the police are pulling over a citizen, not to enforce the traffic code, but to conduct a criminal investigation unrelated to the driving. Therefore the reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic infraction has occurred which justifies an exception to the warrant requirement for an ordinary traffic stop does not justify a stop for criminal investigation.

"'As a general rule, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable.'" State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d 61, 70, 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (quoting State v. Houser, 95 Wash.2d 143, 149, 622 P.2d 1218 (1980)). They are, however, subject to "a few" '"jealously and carefully drawn" exceptions' - which 'provide for those cases where the societal costs of obtaining a warrant outweight the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate.'" Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Houser, 95 Wash.2d at 149, 622 P.2d 1218 (quoting Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 759, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2590-91, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), abrogated on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991))).

- State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d (1999).

 

"those privacy interests which the citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant." - State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 349, 979 P.2d 833 (1999).

 

"The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure." - State v. Doughty, 170 Wn.2d 57, 6, 239 P.3d 573 (2010).

 

"Wash. Const. Art. I, § 7 protects against unwarranted government intrusions into private affairs." - State v. Doughty, 170 Wn.2d 57, 6, 239 P.3d 573 (2010).

 

"Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution protects against unlawful intrusions into private affairs. State v. Harrington, 167 Wn.2d 656, 663, 222 P.3d 92 (2009). Warrantless searches and seizures are presumed unlawful unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135, 141, 187 P.3d 248 (2008). Consent is a recognized exeption to the warrant requirement. State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 131, 101 P.3d 80 (2004)." - State v. Libero, Wn.App. 168, 612 16, 277, P.3d 708 (2012).

 

"Standing to challenge a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Const. Art. I,  § 7 ordinarily requires a defendant to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the thing seized." - State v. Libero, 168 Wn.App. 612, 12, 277 P.3d 708 (2012).

 

"A person lawfully in possession of a vehicle has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment and Const. Art. I, § 7." - State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144, 152, 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled in part by State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761, 32, 224 P.3d 751 (2009); State v. Simpson, 95 Wn.2d 170, 187-188, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980).

 

"For constitutional purposes, a "seizure" occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in property and a government official exercises dominion and control over the property. Washington courts consider a person "seized" when an officer, by physical force or show of authority, restrains the person's freedom of movement and a reasonable person would not believe that he or she is (1) free to leave given all the circumstances, or (2) free to otherwise decline an officer's request and terminate the encounter." - State v. O`Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 574, 62 P.2d 489 (2003).

 

"A defendant has the burden of proving that a seizure occurred in violation of the constitution." - State v. O`Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 574, 62 P.2d 489 (2003).

 

"Const. Art. I, § 7 recognizes a person's right to privacy with no express limitations. "The right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into one's private affairs encompasses automobiles and their contents." - State v. O`Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 62 P.2d 489 (2003).

 

"The activation of a patrol vehicle's emergency lights constitutes a display of authority requiring the driver to submit to that authority. Accordingly, a seizure occurs." - State v. Gantt, 163 Wn.App. 133 ¶25, 257 P.3d 682 (2011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1011 (2012).

 

"When an officer commands a person to halt or demands information from the person, a seizure occurs." - United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); State v. O`Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 577, 62 P.2d 489 (2003).

 

"The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States." - Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479; 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

 

"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government." - Elrod v. Burns, 96 S. Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347 (1976).

 

“State courts have power to interpret their state constitutional provisions as more protective of individual rights than parallel provisions of United States Constitution and such independent interpretation of state constitutional provisions is particularly appropriate when language of state provisions is particularly appropriate when language of state provision differs from the federal and the legislative history of the State Constitution reveals that the difference was intended by the framers.” - State v. Simpson, 522 P.2d 1199, 95 Wash.2d 170. (1980).

 

“The wisdom of statutes or of constitutional provisions is not subject to judicial review, and the courts cannot engraft exceptions on the Constitution, no matter how desirable or expedient such exceptions might seem.” - State ex rel. Anderson v. Chapman, 543 P.2d 229, 86 Wash.2d 189. Wash. (1975).

 

“Constitutions should receive a consistent and uniform interpretation, so that they shall not be taken to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time, even though the circumstances may have so changed as to make a different rule seem desirable.” - State ex rel. Evans v. Brotherhood of Friends, 247 P.2d 787, 41 Wash.2d 133. Wash. (1952).

 

“Though precision may be enacted in determining the meaning of the language of a statute, the provisions of a Constitution should be construed in the common and natural view; the important thing being to determine, if possible, what the real intention was.” - State v. Clausen, 182 P. 610, 107 Wash. 667. Wash. (1919).

 

“Where a constitutional amendment is proposed in the form of a bill with proper title, it is sufficiently entered in the journals of the Houses of the Legislature to comply with Const. Art. 23, § 1, by entry on the journals of the number and full title of the bill.” - Cudihee v. Phelps, 136 P. 367, 76 Wash. 314. Wash. (1913).

 

“State courts have power to interpret their state constitutional provisions as more protective of individual rights than parallel provisions of United States Constitution and such independent interpretation of state constitutional provisions is particularly appropriate when language of state provision differs from the federal and the legislative history of the State Constitution reveals that the difference was intended by the framers.” - State v. Simpsons, 522 P.2d 1199, 95 Wash.2d 170. Wash. (1980).

 

“The wisdom of statutes or of constitutional provisions is not subject to judicial review, and the courts cannot engraft exceptions on the Constitution, no matter how desirable or expedient such exceptions might seem.” - States ex rel. Anderson v. Chapman, 543 P.2d 229, 86 Wash.2d 189. Wash. (1975).

 

 

"Conviction reversed because defendant was denied his constitutional right to represent himself at trial." - State v. Barker 75 Wn.App 236, 881 P.2d 1051 (1994).

 

"The lower court improperly denied defendant's suppression motion where defendant had shown that the warrantless search of his person was not viable as a Terry-type search for weapons. - State v. Alcantara 79 Wn.App. 362, 901 P.2d 1087 (1995).

 

"A section of a Washington statute that required a defendant to disprove a necessary element of the offense violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." - State v. Crediford Wn.2d 747, 927 P.2d 1129 (1996).

 

"Stare decisis", "was developed to accomplish requisite element of stability in court-made law, so that law would not become subject to whims of current holders of judicial office, but is not absolute impediment to change when reason and considerations of current relevance so require." - In re Stranger Creek and Tributaries in Stevens County, 466 P.2d 508, 77 Wash.2d 649 Wash. (1970).

 

"Stare decisis requires clear showing that established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned." - In re Stranger Creek and Tributaries in Stevens County, 466 P.2d 508, 77 Wash.2d 649 Wash. (1970).

 

"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree an extension of the exclusionary rule established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). This doctrine holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the "fruit" of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence." - 

 

 

Secondary Source Cites and Legal Definition Cites: (Non State of Washington [Administrator/Developer & Neighbors Jurisdiction(s)], 9th Circuit Cites):

 

Obstructing Justice. "Impeding or obstructing those who seek justice in a court, or those who have duties or powers of administering justice therein." - People v. Ormsby, 310 Mich. 291, 17 N.W. 2d 187, 190 (1945).

 

Obstructing Justice. "The act by which one or more persons attempt to prevent, or do prevent, the execution of lawful process. The term applies also to obstructing the administration of justice in any way--as by hindering witness from appearing. Melton v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 642, 170 S.W. 37, 42, L.R.A.1915B, 689; People v. Hebbard, 162 N.Y.S. 80, 89, 96 Misc.Rep. 617. Any act, conduct, or directing agency pertaining to pending proceedings, intended to play on human frailty and to deflect and deter court from performance of its duty and drive it into compromise with its own unfettered judgment by placing it, through medium of knowingly false assertion, in wrong position before public, constitutions an obstruction to administration of justice." - State v. Shumaker, 200 Ind. 623, 157 N.E. 769, 774, 58 A.LR. 954; Toledo Newspaper Co. v. U.S., 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 564, 62 L.Ed. 1186.

 

Obstructing Process. "In criminal law, the act by which one or more persons attempt to prevent or do prevent the execution of lawful process. Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by the law to serve process or order of a court, or in the discharge of any official duty." - (Black's Law Dictionary - 5th Edition with Pronunciations).

 

Open Court. "This term may mean either a court which has been formally convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial business, or a court which is freely open to spectators." - (Black's Law Dictionary - 5th Edition with Pronunciations).

 

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED PRIMARY SOURCE LAW (Includes "Common Law" ) AND RESPECTIVE SOURCES:

1.) Sharpen Your Sword Ministries - Law Library

2.) Honorable Justice Jeffrey J. Jahns - Kitsap County, WA - American Government Public Works - "Traffic Stops in Washington - A Judge's Bench Book" (May 2013).

3.) Facebook Friends - Myers Stronghold, Eric Mapes

4.) Facebook Source - Roach

5.) Public.Resource.Org (PRO)

6.) Washington State Legislature - Office of The Code Reviser

7.) Washington Courts (courts.wa.gov)

8.) University of Maryland - State Constitutions Project

9.) CourtListener.com - Executive Director | Mike Lissener | (Free Law Project) - GitHub

10.) Harvard University, Cambridge, MA - Caselaw Access Project (CAP)

11.) Washington Appellate Project (WAP)