Time for a recall election in Washington?
No, WA law only provides for a recall election if she does something that would be a recallable offense "while in office". Cheating, lying and stealing to get INTO office does not count. Our only hope at this point is for the courts to find fault with the actual election and call for a re-vote.
Which is to say, no chance. I hope you guys on the other side of the state line can crush her in four years.
As a Washington State employee and Idaho resident, I couldn't vote in this election.
Rossi in 2008!
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:43:13 -0800
Subject: Criminal Anarchy and the Rule of Law, which is being expounded by the Gregoire supporters.
Proof the unqualified legislators claiming legislative office under the authority of the state of Washington lacked subject matter jurisdiction to "certify the election of a governor" or any other official act in the name of the state of Washington is found by reading the face of the laws identified as Title 4, United States Code, Sections 101 & 102, which are discussed in the 4th & 5th paragraphs immediately below. Sections 101 & 102, supra & infra, clearly state the jurisdictional hurdle needed to be cleared by each of these anarchists [legislators, executive officers, and judicial officers]. Anyone not willing to accept the plain statements in these two laws must read the House Debates [Congress] for May 6, 1789. Then, the enormity of the crimes against the people of the state of Washington by these public servants immediately becomes apparent to any rational reader. Whether Sections 101 & 102 have been violated rests within the jurisdiction of the United States Courts.
You have prior knowledge of my comments on the failure of our state legislators, executive officers, and judicial officers to qualify to begin to execute the duties of the office each one claims. You know or should know the failure to qualify commenced with the first legislators, executive officers, and judicial officers on November 11, 1889 and continues to this day. [At least I have received no notice of any recent attempts to qualify by any legislator, executive officer, or judicial officer. On my last checking with the Office of the Secretary of State and with the State Archives, this was true and correct. My recent communications to various legislators indicate there has been no effort to obey the laws of Congress on this issue. You also know the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land as declared in both the United States and Washington Constitutions.]
The Code of 1881 by application of Washington State Constitution at Article XXVII, Section 2, applies to this communication. One or more of the following sections from Chapter LXXII [Offenses by and Against Public Officers] may apply to the facts stated herein: Sec. 126.--889, Sec. 127.--890, Sec. 128--891, Sec. 129.--892, Sec. 130--893, Sec. 131--894, Sec. 132--895, Sec. 133--896, and Sec. 134--897, and [Offenses Against Public Policy] Sec. 171--934. The common law as expressed in the Official Misconduct statute [RCW 9A.80.010], Criminal Profiteering Act [Chapter 9A.82, RCW], and laws of the United States [Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241, 242, 286, 287, 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1951 and the RICO Act may also apply because these unqualified persons may have made claims against or received the benefit of United States' money or other property.
Based on news reports in newspapers and over the radio, I know criminal anarchy was committed on January 11, 2005 in Olympia, Washington by each member of the state legislature, who failed to qualify him or herself to proceed "to execute the duties of his office." Congress said in its First Act [Act of June 1, 1789 (Statute I, Chapter I)] "Every member of a State legislature ... shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: 'I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.'" See Title 4, United States Code, Section 101, which originally was in the Act of June 1, 1789; then was R.S. Section 1836; later becoming Title 4, United States Code, Sec. 9; and now is the aforesaid Sec. 101. Congress realized a need for memorializing the taking of the aforestated oath and made the following language part of the Act of June 1, 1789.
"Such oath may be administered by any person who, by the law of the State, is authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person so administering such oath shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made in the same manner, as by the law of the State, he is directed to record or certify the oath of office." Originally part of the Act of June 1, 1789; then R.S. Section 1837; later Title 4, United States Code, Sec. 10; and now at Title 4, United States Code, Section 102. Please note Sec. 102, supra, recognizes the existence of the state's oath of office, which is additional to the Congressional oath specified in Sec. 101, supra.
I write by authority of Sec. 171--934, Washington's Territorial Code of 1881. Will you please contact the sheriff for Thurston County and arrange with him to bring this matter to the attention of the United States Attorney's Office in either Tacoma or Seattle or other appropriate authority? I will cooperate in every way that I am able with any investigation. Exhibit # 1, which follows may provide further background for you. To date, I have not seen or read any correction to the misstatement of fact in The Daily World's Article. [As you can read, my copies of this message are going to a fair number of unqualified legislators. Over the last 3 to 5 years, I have attempted to keep these and other such persons informed of their duty to qualify per the Congressional command. As you may surmise, I have failed.]
Thanking you for your attention to this matter, I am
Dated: January 12, 2005. (signed)____________________________________
1521 Simpson Avenue, Aberdeen, Washington, Ph: 533-3563
Cc: Sheriff, Thurston County [By personal service]
Exhibit # 1
The Jan. 8, 2005 article in "The Daily World" about the Republican plan to challenge Gregoire's declared election to Governor of Washington reads as follows: "The deadline is ten days after the Legislature issues a certificate of election, which is expected to happen Tuesday." "The deadline" means the time allowed for challenging Gregoire's purported election.
The sentence quoted above evidently was written with the approval of AP Writer David Ammons and was printed with the approval of "The Daily World's" editor. I am writing to point out both Mr. Ammons and "The Daily World" editor know or should know the sentence indicates a legislative power not available to the members of Washington's legislature.
Both Ammons and the Editor know or should know Congress declared in its First Act that no state legislator can begin to execute legislative duties prior to taking "an oath in the following form, to wit: 'I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.'" There is no dispute from any personnel in the Office of the Secretary of State and in the State Archives, when asked, that no legislator, since day 1 of statehood, i.e., November 1, 1889, has obeyed this command of the Congress. Therefore, only one conclusion can follow from this fact, i.e., by application of Washington State Constitution's Article XXVII at Section 2, the land mass identified as the state of Washington is governed by the Washington Territorial Code of 1881 until the transition to statehood is completed through taking and certifying [or recording] of the required oaths by each properly elected legislator, executive officer, and judicial officer claiming authority to act in the name of the state of Washington. The conclusion also applies to any appointed state officer whether a legislator, executive officer, or judicial officer.
Lacking the execution of the commanded oath, any certification next week or next month or next year, will be just as unlawful as has every such certification, since Nov. 11, 1889. By applying "The Daily World's" Statement of Policy, the factual error presented in the above-quoted sentence must be corrected. I believe AP should also correct its Article under the terms of its Statement of Policy, if it has one. Certainly, the "Society of Professional Journalist's" "Code of Ethics" demands my requested correction. I invite Mr. Ammons and The Editor to test the accuracy of my statements against the premise stated in the last sentence of the article featured on Page 1 of the Jan. 8 issue of "The Daily World."
I just read the article on the Business page [A6] of the Jan. 8 issue of "The Daily World" by President Don C. Brunell of the Association of Washington Business. Mr. Brunell wrote a very interesting and informative article in my opinion. After reading the article, I decided to send him a copy of this email message because I think it may shock him even [more] than the shocking truth, which he has brought to your readers' attention. In fact, the Association of Washington Business could act to improve things immeasurably, if it will alert its membership to the facts, which have caused me to write and send this email message.
Dated: January 8, 2005. (signed) Stanley J. , 1521 Simpson Avenue, Aberdeen, Washington, Ph: 360-533-3563
Cc: To others via email and surface mail.
Prosecuting Attorney for Chehalis [aka Grays Harbor] County
In the current governor's farce, I believe that the Vol 0 RCW Constitution at Art III Section 10 provides that "In case of ...disability of the governor, (or is removed, resigns or dies), the duties of the office shall devolve upon the lieutenant governer;...who shall act as governor until the disability be removed or a governor elected."
Since Brad Owen was elected by over a 400,000 vote margin, is it time to legally throw out the cry-babies with the bathwater by throwing out this election, and have Brad Owen step in at least until a new election (or revote) is finalized?