UPDATE: Lawyer Kirsten Schimpff, for defendant lawyer Felice Congalton, has filed her 16-WSBA Reply in support of mtn to strike 3.20.14 to Scheidler’s Answer …
Schimpff says Scheidler chose to file his case in a WA court and therefore relinquishes his rights to the jurisdiction of the court. And that includes having the case heard by a judge who is disqualified under law.
Schimpff also claims that it is preposterous to suggest the “legal establishment” is corrupt…. and Scheidler’s claims are without merit.
Today, March 19, 2014, Scheidler filed his answer to defendants‘ — who are all lawyers — claims of “immunity”. Scheidler says lawyers MUST be held to the law! Scheidler says lawyers who serve as judges, must be held to the law. Scheidler says lawyers who serve in government office must be held to the law. And, Scheidler says a lawyer cannot sit as judge on a case against a lawyer due to conflict of interest.
Lawyers Kirsten Schimpff, WSBA #31299, Mary Tennyson, WSBA #11197, and Dionne Padilla-Huddleston, WSBA #38356 who represent lawyers Felice Congalton, WSBA #6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA #16546, claim that their clients, Congalton and Callner, are immune from all civil or criminal actions, that Scheidler has no right to sue these lawyers, that the Superior Court is without jurisdiction to hear Scheidler’s complaint against these lawyers, and that the law, RCW 7.56, doesn’t mean what the words say …. Scheidler says NO to each and every absurd and utterly and blatantly false claim!
From Scheidler’s Answer, he rebuts each and every lie these “lawyers” tell.
Ms Schimpff’s factual and legal version of Scheidler’s case is another gross distortion of the truth.In truth, when Scheidler has ‘official’ dealings with a lawyer either in the lawyers “judicial capacity,” or as an “officer of the court,” or with lawyers who serve in any other public office responsible for “individual protections,” these lawyers must deal with Scheidler lawfully, truthfully, ethically and specifically for Scheidler’s protection. When these lawyers fail to abide by their lawful, ethical and public duties and Scheidler is harmed specifically, he has a due process right to a fair and speedy remedy.
When a cadre of lawyers, i.e., named and non-named defendants, in their various official roles violate the law, cause Scheidler harm and then obstruct Scheidler’s due process right to a speedy remedy under ranging claims of civil and criminal immunities there can be no rational reason other than an abuse of power for the benefit of the legal establishment.
It is a fact Scheidler has a right of action, including an action filed under RCW 7.56, against all those who cause and are complicit in each and every harm suffered and crime committed. See RCW 9A.08, Principles of Liability. This includes an action against the ‘office, franchise or corporation’ – i.e., the WA State Bar and the Commission on Judicial Conduct – who intentionally neglect their duty to hold lawyers/judges to their ethical and legal obligations to “protect Scheidler’s rights”.
Court Presently Lacks Authority/JurisdictionThis Court does not have authority/jurisdiction to hear defendants’ motion to strike due to the following:
1. A WA State lawyer cannot sit as judge on this case due to being disqualified under law, RCW 2.28.030(1); RCW 4.12.050 (see affidavit of prejudice Dkt 2, page 1, and Dkt 42, page 2 incorporated by reference); and disqualified under CJC 2.11(A) because all lawyers are directly interested in their duties mandated by law that are the subject of Scheidler’s case.
a) All defendants, witnesses, judges are lawyers and all are members of the WSBA and all subscribe to the same oath of office – which is to obey the constitutions of the US and state of Washington. A lawyer cannot sit as judge when they are of the same “class” as defendants; bound by the same oath being violated by defendants; and susceptible to the same cause of action – RCW 7.56 – as defendants.
b) Defendants’ arguments to ‘strike’ are based in Court Rules of the Superior Courts. A Superior court judge is disqualified under RCW 2.28.030(1) in hearing this matter as all Superior Court judges have a direct interest and inherent prejudice in how Superior Court Rules are applied with respect to the subject matter of this case in which they are directly interested.
c) All WA State Judges are at professional and personal risk from defendant J. Reiko Callner, Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct. Callner claims absolute immunity from ‘civil or criminal’ conduct. Ms. Callner has the absolute power to criminally set-up any judge without consequence and that judge would have no legal recourse.
2. A judge’s sole authority in dealing with Scheidler is derived from law, not a court rule. See RCW 2.08.080; RCW 2.28..050-060 (Judge distinguished from court and Judicial powers respectively); RCW 2.28.080, (Powers of Superior court judges). Court rules extend only to the ‘government of the superior courts’, NOT the government of the people of this state. See Article 1, Sec 1; Article 4, Sec 24; RCW 2.08.230
3. A judge may only issue a “lawful order.” See RCW 2.28.060(2). Judge Forbes’ orders, which are the only foundation of defendants’ motion, are VOID as they are unlawful. This is a matter for a ‘trial’ not a basis for another improper order. See RCW 4.36.070; See also RCW 4.72..020-030. See amended complaint Section III et seq.
4. A jury is not yet convened as demanded to decided issues of fact (See RCW 4.44.090). Therefore there is no due process at this point in the proceeding;
5. For argument sake, without waiving any substantive right or matters of jurisdiction, the “Complaint” was properly amended per court rules:
a) CR 10(a)(2). It names additional defendants that were originally noted as Jane Does. And notes additional factual matters of judicial and attorney misconduct occurring during the course of this case – including violations of law and civil rights – which are clearly violations of CR 11, RCW 2.48.210 and RPC 8.4.
b) Court Rule 15(a). This rule allows for an amended complaint as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Defendants’ never entered a “responsive pleading” as required by RCW 7.56.050 and therefore an amended complaint can be filed as a matter of course.
6. Defendants’ claim the Supreme Court, not Superior Court, has ‘exclusive responsibility for lawyer discipline’ … This statement by defendants’, regardless of its merit or implication in a ‘third party claim’, is completely irrelevant and constitutes yet another unlawful deceptive tactic. Scheidler’s case is against lawyers Felice Congalton and J. Reiko Callner concerning their unlawful conduct to conceal from the Supreme Court, by dismissing sua sponte, Scheidler’s grievances noting the perjury, false reporting, subornation of perjury, violations of privacy … committed by lawyers and lawyers serving as judicial officers as described in the Complaint (Dkt 2) and exhibits referenced therein and attached thereto. There is NO immunity from the unlawful conduct noted by an “information”, amended or otherwise, filed per RCW 7.56.010. See Art. 2, Sec 28(12, 17)
7. Defendants’ claimed remedies available to Scheidler as justification to strike the Amended Complaint are not “due process” remedies for the following reasons:
a) An “appeal” to the Court of Appeals is not a remedy as a “jury” is not available at the appellate level to apply law to fact. , Due process will be denied in such circumstance.
b) The appellate justices, particularly Joel Penoyar, Jill Johanson, of the COA are witnesses and “disqualified” under the same laws and circumstances that disqualify lawyers sitting as judge at the trial level. The Justices of the Supreme Court, as noted by lawyer Kristen Schimpff, Dkt 45, page 2, ln 19, are potential witnesses or ‘third parties’ and are therefore disqualified to make any ruling about this case.
c) Substantive Due Process Violation – When Harm Occurs. A plaintiff claiming a violation of substantive due process may commence suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first waiting for the State to deny an adequate post deprivation remedy; substantive due process is violated, and the applicable limitation period begins to run, the moment harm occurs.
d) The premise underlying defendants motion, a claim of authority provided by a court rule, would eviscerate Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec. 10, Sec 12, Sec 21, Sec 29; Article 4, Sec 28… and would require an “unlawful” act by a judge (already disqualified under law) who takes an oath to uphold WA constitution and not eviscerate it.
Defendants’ want the court to issue an unlawful order to close a case, direct the clerk not to file or accept pleadings unless by leave of the court. This is contrary to Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec 10, and in conflict with the duties imposed upon the Clerk by RCW 2.32.050(4) “To file all papers delivered to him or her for that purpose in any action or proceeding in the court as directed by court rule or statute.”
ConclusionA fair and impartial court has not been convened; there can be no due process at this point in the proceedings. Defendants’, by their unlawful conduct, WAIVE any defense that would exempt them or prolong the case due to their unlawful tactical choices. (Akin to the ‘invited error doctrine’ which bars a party from benefiting by their misconduct.)
Defendants’ motion must be denied and sanctions imposed upon defendants for ‘seeking to delay and mislead a judge by any of their false statements of fact and law.’
Any order by a WA state judge, under the present circumstances would be void to the same extent as the orders by Judge Forbes similarly complicit in defendants’ crimes as Judge Forbes.