Make your own free website on

Realize This, Most people are in denial! We believe that the family courts are basically fair, just and follow the most basic laws enumerated in our Constitution. WRONG! For a candid, realistic and accurate assessment of family courts throughout our nation Please check out Family Courts - What Every Man Should Know, an article by Stephen Baskerville. If the current liberal, politically correct trends continue, it will mean an end to the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society, significant loss of individual freedoms as established by our Constitution, and possible return to a Dark Age society. Contrary to popular belief, we live in a constitutional republic based on democratic principles, NOT a simple democracy where popular opinion rules. The Constitution sets the fundamental rules under which the democratic principles are applied. This only works if the majority are rational and operate under rule of law. If our society operates on rule by emotions and political correctness ignores the Constitution and we become a simple democracy, we are doomed to fate of previous fallen democracies.

Few have said it better;
“Not since the overthrow of the Weimar Republic have the leaders of a major democracy used their offices and the mass media to disseminate invective against millions of their own citizens. In fact it was Adolf Hitler who urged that “the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people” and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that “as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.” Using children to tug on our heartstrings may be not only a weakness of the sentimental. It also may be a ploy by those cynical and unscrupulous enough to exploit children for their own purposes. This is likely to be remembered as one of the most diabolical perversions of governmental power in our history, a time when we allowed children to be used and abused by fast-talking government officials and paid for it with our families, our social order and our constitutional rights.” - Stephen Baskerville

Motion for revision

I filed a motion of revision in an attempt to allow the courts a chance to rectify their two previous accounts of gross negligence, failure of duty, bias, incompetence, wanton disregard for law, and official misconduct. This court date was set for February 9, 2001. Once I had arrived for the hearing on the Motion , the bailiff announced that the judge wanted to review at the videotapes of the two prior hearings. In the King County Regional Justice Center they use video tape for their records. I was under the erroneous impression that this would actually make a difference and force these people to follow live their sworn oaths. At first I did not want to surrender my personal copies since I was afraid they would mysteriously disappear. I made that fact well known to the bailiff and questioned why he could not simply review the tapes that were in the court clerks office 2 floors below. I was not given an answer to this question, instead I was told that is how things work and if I wanted this to be heard I would have to give him the tapes. I reluctantly surrendered my copies of the videotapes to the bailiff for the judge’s review.  The hearing was then postponed until February 20, 2001.  

At the hearing on February 20, 2001, the judge stated that my Motion for Revision had not been properly filed, that there was nothing in the court clerk’s file relating to this motion, and that no judge’s working copies had ever been delivered for his review.  All of this is untrue. As I could prove that I had properly filed all documentation in the Court Clerk’s office at the RJC, Room 2C, on January 26, 2001, and not only once but twice delivered working papers. Not only that but my lawyer held up a copy of the paperwork that was stamped by the court clerks office. Most importantly he would have never known or been able to ask for the video tapes in the first place unless this information had been furnished since it could only be found in my documentation and no where else. I again offered to immediately supply to the court date-stamped copies received in receipt of the filing of all documentation in the Court Clerk’s office, both on January 26, 2001, and the supplemental documentation filed on February 2, 2001.

 I also informed the court that my witness, who had been present at all of the afore-mentioned filings, was present in the courtroom. The judge flatly refused to listen, and denied my Motion for Revision. This was in direct violation of RCW 5.44.010, for failure to admit court records and proceedings, RCW 5.44.040 certified copies of public records as evidence, and RCW 5.44.060 certified copies of recorded instruments as evidence.  He stated that they could not have been properly filed, or they would have been in the court file.  He refused to even consider that his office, or that of the Court Clerk had made an error, and to allow me to have the opportunity to prove this point. This act shows incompetence, negligence and bias on his part. Making him guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b). However, the court chose to hear The Petitioner/Mother’s counter-Motion for Revision at this hearing, even though it had not been filed in a timely manner, and I had only been served notice of her motion on Wednesday, February 7, 2001.  This was only two days prior to the originally scheduled hearing of my motion on February 9, 2001. Well after the ten day filing period had elapsed. This too creates more instances of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b). The misconduct and complete lack of competence on the part of judge White when he told me, after knowing I could produce the documents, proving that they had, in fact, been appropriately and legally filed in a timely manner in the court clerk’s office is absolutely appalling. 

Further, for the court to hear The Petitioner/Mother’s improperly filed motion, and to refuse to even hear my properly filed and legal motion, was completely inappropriate, intolerable, outrageous, and illegal, and immoral. As soon as I left the courtroom, less than a mere twenty minutes of this denial of my Motion for Revision, my attorney, my witness, and I went downstairs to the Court Clerk’s office to check the court file for ourselves.  Naturally we found my motion was, in fact, in the court file. This concept of a judge (a person who is held to a higher standard then everyone else) lying to people while sitting on the bench itself is appalling in nature and shows again the bias, and incompetence. Making him guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b). I was quickly losing faith in the judicial system since there was obviously so much corruption within the judiciary. I knew I still had to try, so my next step was to file for an appeal.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: 

Copyright © 2003