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, . . .”

The Washington State Supreme Court in Graham v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 86 Wn.2d 624, 548 P.2d 310 (1976), citing to Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 210 N.W.2d 275 (1973), held that the:
“. . . 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). See also 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). And;
The definition of the practice of law is the province of the courts, rather than the legislatures. 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).

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that in Hagan v. Kassler Escrow, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 443 (1982), that the Washington State Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Bar Association v. Great Western Federal, 91 Wn.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870 (1978), that:
“. . . 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). And;
In Ferris v. Snively, 172 Wash. 167, 174, 19 P.2d 942 (1933), it is said:
“The practice of law is defined in 2 R.C.L., p. 938, § 4, as follows:
“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;
As a matter of fact, long before the Great Western and Kassler decisions, it was already enjoinable conduct for a real estate broker to select and complete form deeds in closing real estate transactions. See Washington State Bar Association v. Washington Association of Realtors, et al., 41 Wn.2d 697, 251 P.2d 619 (1952) in which the Court barred a real estate broker from doing precisely that.
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 STUPID LYING 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 A 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 KIDNAPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.
THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND FAMILY COURTS ARE USING THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK!!!!
THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND FAMILY COURTS ARE USING THE GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK!!!!
My Free Flyers proves that all Dependency Petitions and Termination of Parental Rights Petitions are forged and perjured documents at:

http://www.luisewing.com/flyers/index.html
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, 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).
IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY 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 GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME, EXTORTION, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.
IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL . . . “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 GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPING, 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.
“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
“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).

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); 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).

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 fulfill 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 those 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 from 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 STUPID LYING 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 AND STUPID LYING BITCHES TO PLAY ATTORNEY AND PRACTICE LAW IN ALL THE FAMILY COURTS, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????
“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 Toilet Scrubber or any other administrative or ministerial duty, but they cannot engage in any “discretionary” functions such as Initiating Executive Process unless they want to be charged with Unauthorized Practice of Law.
“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;
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 be 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 on 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;
“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 processes… 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 THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ONLY . . . A DULY LICENSED ATTORNEY . . . OR . . . A TRIBAL LAWYER . . . OR . . . 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!!!!

Everyone needs to start researching and pulling the case law that says that . . . “STATUTES THAT HAVE NO STANDARDS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL” . . . and please send me a list of any case cites you come up with to <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@live.com or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com>
I just discovered these new arguments to use against CPS and have not yet had time to fully research this out yet, but this is so important to all those fighting CPS, I just had to let it out!
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;
It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that in Hagan v. Kassler Escrow, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 443 (1982), that the Washington State Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Bar Association v. Great Western Federal, 91 Wn.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870 (1978), that:
“. . . 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); 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!

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 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!!!!
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 dumb bitches who work for CPS from practicing law charges, we can nail them 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 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 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!!!!

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 will be 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, I 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 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 PIECES OF SHIT 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!!!!

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 STUPIDs 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 KIDNAPING, 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 PARA-LEGAL!!!!

YOU DON’T NEED AN ATTORNEY!!!!

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

Sincerely

Luis Ewing

>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB9gGklTlqg

>>

https://famguardian.org/subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/DefYourRightToTravel-040920ch07s.pdf

>>

PS – YOU CAN HELP ME DESTROY CPS BY SUPPORTING MY RESEARCH AND SENDING ME CASH ONLY DONATIONS TO:

Luis Ewing
c/o 34218 S.E. 22nd Way,
(City of) Washougal,
The State of Washington [98671]

If you want more information and/or want to see my list of testimonials, please send me an e-mail requesting that I add you to my e-mail list and please don’t forget to tell me what STATE you live in to Luis Ewing at: <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@live.com> or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> or SKYPE me at: <luisewing> or you can call me Monday through Saturday, from 12:00 NOON through 10:00 PM on PACIFIC STANDARD TIME at my home office phone at: 1 – (360) 335-1322 or my cellular phone: 1 – (253) 226-3741

http://www.luisewing.com/flyers/index.html