State of Washington, et al v. Donald J. Trump, et al

Filing 185

Filed Intervenor - Pending James J. O'Hagan motion to reconsider allowing him to join lawsuit as a real party in interest. Deficiencies:party has a pending motion to intervene at DE 150. Served on 02/24/2017. [10346420] (CW) [Entered: 03/07/2017 12:18 PM]

a

James J. O'Hagan
2
2298 Cranberry Rd.
3
Grayland WA 98547
4
[phone]
5 [e-mail]
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURf ILED
7
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8

WASHINGTON STATE Et All

9
11

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP Et All

MAR 06 2Q17
---., .

District NO. 17-cv-00141-JLR
th

_

JAMES J. O'HAGAN, (Et AII)
Co- Defendant(s)

)

DEFENDANT JAMES J. O'HAGAN'S

)

MOTION TO RECONSIDER ALLOWING

)

Defendant (s)

13
15

)

IN

12
14

ERK
s. aUR OEPPEAAL

)

Plaintiff( s)

10

p CEIVED
E.y

)

HIM TO JOIN LAWSUIT AS A REAL PARTY
IN INTEREST

)

BY DECLARATION OF JAMES J. O'HAGAN

16
17
18
19

I, JAMES J. O'HAGAN, swear under the penalty of perjury the following is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
1 am a Republican candidate that supported Donald Trump and was subjected to

20

election crimes by democratic members of the judicial branch of Washington State. 1

21

campaigned to clean up the corruption involved in the judicial branch of Washington State.

22

After being slanderously and maliciously attacked by the judicial branch, I lost my political race

23

by less than 10%.

24

I will show the court where Washington State prosecutors have a pattern of using the

25

people's courts for their criminal actions and file cases where they lack the standing or

26

authority to file the case. I have undeniable evidence to show the court that Washington State

27

prosecutors are using the people's courts and public funds to promote their political beliefs or

28

prevent opponents of their political beliefs, from getting elected. Please see exhibit 1.

29

I have undeniable evidence that shows the last several Democratic Governors of

30

Washington State came through the Washington State Attorney General's office, and were

31

leaders of the judicial fraud industry that has stolen justice from every economically vulnerable

32

individual in Washington State.

33
34

I have undeniable evidence that shows Washington State Attorney General Robert
Ferguson is a leader of the Judicial Fraud Industry of Washington State and is using this case
1

1

and unlawfully using public funds to further his political career in an effort to protect his

2

organized crime family's judicial fraud industry. As Washington State Attorney General, Robert

3

Ferguson is directly involved in leading the corruption of the judicial branch of Washington

4

State. Please see exhibit 2.

5

I have evidence that shows Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson lacked

6

proper authorization to use public funds to file this case and therefore lacked standing to file

7

this case and as such U.S. District Judge James Robart lacked jurisdiction to proceed, but did so

8

to promote and protect the judicial fraud industry operating within the jurisdiction of the Ninth

9

Circuit Court of Appeals.

10

1 have evidence that shows a pattern where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Justices

11

are supporting the criminal activities of Washington and Oregon U.S District Court Judges and

12

Washington and Oregon State court Judges, and State Supreme Court Justices. I have evidence

13

that shows this is a judicial fraud industry of attorneys that is preying off of the lives, liberties

14

and properties of economically vulnerable individuals. I have evidence that shows this is a well

15

organized crime ring that needs to be broken up so all economically vulnerable individuals have

16

an opportunity to achieve justice.

17

I have evidence from a multitude of individuals (fraud victims of the judicial branches)

18

that shows the Judicial Fraud Industry operating within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit

19

Court of Appeals, is ran by members of the Judicial branch of governments violating the

20

separation of powers and infiltrating our legislative and executive branches of our governments

21

so they can profit by stealing every economically vulnerable individuals opportunity for justice

22

then steal their lives, liberties and properties.

23

I am positive that U.S. District Judge James Robart does not want my evidence near the

24

people's courtroom where he holds office and is leading the organized crimes involved in the

25

judicial fraud industry of Washington State. I am also sure that James Robart would like to have

26

Suri law implemented in Washington State where his accomplices in the judicial fraud industry

27

would be protected of their organized judicial fraud crimes, and destroying our domestic

28 tranquility.
29

RELIEF I WILL OBTAIN FROM BEING A PARTY TO THIS ACTION

2

1

In evaluating my evidence, witnesses and testimony either the jury of this court or the

2

Appellate courts will determine Robert Ferguson filed this lawsuit to further his political career

3

and protect a small elite group of individual's stranglehold on Washington State Politics, and

4

the judicial fraud industry operating within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

5

Either the jury of this court or the appellate courts will determine Robert Ferguson was

6

using public funds inappropriately to further his political career, and as such he will be removed

7

from political office.

8
9

Either the jury of this court or the Appellate courts will determine members of the
Judicial branches within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have violated the

10

equal footing doctrine and are violating the separation of powers and have infiltrated the

11

legislative and executive branches of governments and have organized together to create a

12

judicial fraud industry that has stolen justice from every economically vulnerable property

13

owner within the Ninth Circuit.

14

The violations of the separation of powers that is occurring at the federal level and the

15

state level will be terminated, and members of the judicial branches will be prohibited from

16

holding office in our legislative and executive offices and justice will be restored to all

17

economically vulnerable individuals, including all economically vulnerable property owners.

18

if I am allowed to remain in this case a s a party of interest I will bring an end to the

19

judicial fraud industry that has stole justice from every economically vulnerable individual

20

within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, our pledge of allegiance will

21

actually mean something and together we will restore our domestic tranquility that has been

22

broken by attorneys who are profiting from keeping our domestic tranquility broken.

23

Make no mistake about it I completely understand it is the leaders of the Judicial Fraud

24

Industry that has stolen justice and our domestic tranquility from all economically vulnerable

25

individuals and it is they who will determine if I am to be considered a party of interest in this

26

action. The people of our nation need to know who is making money and power from

27

destroying our country's domestic tranquility, and how highly motivated these individuals are

28

to keep me and my arguments out of this case.

3

1

It is not "justice" Robert Ferguson and his accomplices including Judge James Robart

2

desires, it is their determination to throw us into more domestic turmoil and defraud us of

3

justice because their crime family is getting rich beyond most individuals wildest dreams, by

4

creating arguments between humans, and defrauding them of their lives, liberties and

5 properties.
6
7

If given the opportunity I will restore our Nation's Domestic Tranquility by restoring
justice to every economically vulnerable individual.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

In order to restore our Nation's Domestic Tranquility the violations of the separation of

10

powers and their Judicial Fraud Industry needs to be brought to an end. As a Nation we need to

11

take the all of the profit out of attacking our Domestic Tranquility (arguments between

12

humans). Together we can produce less predators and more beneficial parasites and

13

producers.

14

Dated thist. of February 2017. By
Day

A

Jame~A. O'H~fgan, Vo se All Rights & Protections Reserved

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

I

CERTIFICATE OF SERICE
I the undersigned placed true and correct copies of the foregoing in the U.S. mail

postage prepaid via certified mail and / or via first class mail and / or via email.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco CA 94119-3939

Robert W. Ferguson
U.S. District Court Clerk
700 Stewart St. Suite 2301 P.O. Box 40100
Olympia WA 98504-0100
Seattle WA 98101

Colleen M. Melody
800 5th Ave. Ste 2000

michelle.bennett «@USDOI.GOV
USDO1 Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW [e-mail]

Seattle WA 98104

Washington DC 20530
My Legislators
My Political Supporters
Wq hington State Supreme Court
My Next Frienj

28
29
30

President Donald Trump
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington D.C. 20500

31

Dated this 4'day of February 2017.

1

/J

By

32
4

`C

-

•- x '43

STATE OF WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
3811 Werner Road + firemertun, Washin8tun 98312-3331 a [phone]

October 24, 2013

Mr. James I O'Hagan

2298 Cranberry Road
Grayiand WA 98547

—

The Washington State Patrol (WSP) Criminal Investigation Division has completed the
investigation of your case. The case number associated with this Investigation is
08-13-006659. The case officer Is Scott Marlow of the Attorney General's Office. The
attorney may be reached at [phone] during normal business hours. If the attorney is
not available when you call, please leave a message and the attorney will call you back as
soon as possible.
You are receiving this letter because you are either a victim in this case or becauseyou
have been identified to us as a point of contact for the affected person(s).
The investigation has been completed and referred to the Attorney General'sOffice for a
charging decision. The Attorney General makes the decision regarding whether or not to
charge a suspect with a crime and what those charge(s) should be. Although the active
investigation is complete,the case is not closed until it is adjudicated. The attorney assigned
to this case will continue to work closely with the Attorney General's Office until the case is
adjudicated by thecourt.
Now that the case has been referred to the Attorney General's Office, further inquiries
regarding this case should be directed to the attorney's office for updates and case status
inquiries.
Sincerely,
i~

Captain Charles Leblanc
Criminal Investigation Division
CL:rg
cc: Captain Christopher D Old, Bremerton

;~.

2.
1

James J. O'Hagan

2

2298 Cranberry Rd.

3

Grayland WA 98547

4

[phone]

6

20 'F€B 21 API 10 49
VtRGtNI; LE ;Cif C;En•lr

t' • CfFtC COUNTY,

5 [e-mail]

13r

6

OE

7

t

8
9

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR PACIFIC COUNTY qtr

11

STATE OF WASHINGTON

12
14

Vs.
JAMES JOHN O'HAGAN

15

Accused

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

i

i.
„

r46o

)

U.S. Dist. Cause no 3: 16-MC-5038

)

Cause no. 16-1-00207-1

)

Plaintiff

13

e,iiekt-y

MOTION TO QUASH BENCH WARRANT

)
)
)

BY DECLARATION OF JAMES O'HAGAN

I James J. O'Hagan swear under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of
Washington that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
I have appealed the decision involved in this action to both the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Washington State Supreme Court.
Currently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a briefing order. Please see
exhibit 1.

23

In addition to the appeals that are in place this court lacks jurisdiction because the Lewis

24

County prosecutor lacked the lawful authority to prosecute me in Pacific County Superior Court,

25

and therefore lacked the Standing and jurisdiction to bring this lawsuit in Pacific County

26

Superior Court.

27
28
29
30
31
32
33

34
35
36

STANDING

Express authority. Authority delegated to agent by words which expressly authorize him
to do a delegable act. Authority which is directly granted to or conferred upon agent in express
terms. That authority which principal intentionally confers upon his agent by manifestations
to him.
Epstein v. Corporaclon Peruana de Vapares, D. C.N. Y., 325 F.Supp. 535.537.
That which confers power to do a particular identical thing set forth and declared

exactly.
plainly, and directly with well-defined limits. An authority given in direct terms, definitely and
explicitly, and not left to inference or implication, as distinguished from authority which is
general, implied or not directly stated or given.
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Department of Ins, of Indiana v. Church Members Relief Ass'n.. 217 Ind. 58.26 N E 2d 51
(19401: "Public officers are merely the agents of the public whose rowers and authority are
defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not
bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of
the extent of their authority," 113 F.2d, at 286.
"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without
being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law;
and any man may be justified
cnmma
the general government; yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury,
and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and
innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of
usurpation." Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
The holding in Ryder vs. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L. Ed. 2d 136, 515 U.S. 177
(1995) Held:
The Court of Military Appeals erred in according de facto validity to the actions of the
civilian judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Pp. 3-11.
(a) The de facto officer doctrine - which confers validity upon acts performed under the
color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of the actor's
appointment or election to office is deficient - cannot be invoked to authorize the actions
of the judges in question. Those cases in which this Court relied upon the doctrine in
deciding criminal defendants' challenges to the authority of a judge who participated in
the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence, see, e.g., Ball v. United States,
140 U.S. 118, are distinguishable here because, inter alia, petitioner's claim is that there
has been a trespass upon the constitutional power of appointment, not merely a
misapplication of a statute providing for the assignment of already appointed judges.
One who makes a timely challenge to the constitutionality of the appointment of an
officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to a decision on the merits of the question
and whatever relief may be appropriate if a violation indeed occurred. Cf. Glidden
Co. V. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 536 . Any other rule would create a disincentive to raise
Appointments Clause challenges with respect to questionable judicial appointments.
Buckley v. Valeo and Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549, which Buckley cited as
authority, were civil cases that did not explicitly rely on the de facto officer doctrine in
validating the past acts of public officials against constitutional challenges, and this Court
is not inclined to extend those cases beyond their facts. Pp. 2-6. (b) The Court rejects the
Government's several alternative defenses of the Court of Military Appeals' decision to
give its Carpenter holding prospective application only. First, the argument that the latter
court exercised remedial discretion pursuant to Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, is
unavailing because there is not the sort of grave disruption or inequity involved in
awarding retrospective relief to this petitioner that would bring the Chevron Oil doctrine
into play. Nor is it persuasively argued that qualified immunity, which specially

Va

1

protects public officials from damages liability for judgment calls made in a legally

2

uncertain environment, should be extended to protect such officials from Appointments

3

Clause attacks, which do not involve personal damages, but can only invalidate actions
taken pursuant to defective title. Similarly, the practice of denying criminal defendants an
exclusionary remedy from Fourth Amendment violations when those errors occur despite
the government actors' good faith, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, does not require
the affirmance of petitioner's conviction, since no collateral consequence arises from
rectifying an Appointments Clause violation, see id., at 907, and such rectification
provides a suitable incentive to make challenges under the Clause, see id., at 918-921.
Finally, the Government's harmless-error argument need not be considered,
nw an
ere is no in ication that the Court of Military Appeals determined
that no harm occurred in this case. The related argument that any defect in the Court of
Military Review proceedings was in effect cured by review in the Court of Military
Appeals must be rejected because of the difference in function and authority between the
two courts. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel
of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Pp. 6-10.39 M. J. 454, reversed and
remanded.

4
5
6
7

8
9
10
12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19
20

Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement
with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports

21

to act

22

authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly

23

exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent

24

himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. Federal Crop insurance

25

Corp. v. Merrill, 322 U.S. 380, at 384; 68 S. Ct. 1; 92 L.Ed.10, (1947).

26

See also Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284, 286 (5th Cir. 1940) ("Public
officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority is defined and limited
by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal and all

27
28

for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this

persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their
29
30 authority").
Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and
31
regulations and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and
32
provide misinformation. Lavin v. Marsh, 9th Cir., 1981, 644 F. 2d 1378, 1383.
33
All persons in the United States are chargeable with the knowledge of the Statutes at Large and
34
it is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the
35
36
37
38

agent acting in the governments behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority. Bollow v.

Pacific County Prosecutor Mark McClain did not have the power to appoint Lewis

39

County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer to bring the charges nor prosecute this case in Pacific

40

County Superior court. In addition to Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer's lack of

41

standing in Pacific County Superior court Judge Nancy McAllister, Judge Mike Turner and judge

1

William Faubion all are charged with knowing the law and as such they are charged with

2

knowing Lewis County prosecutor Jonathan Meyer lacked the authority to file this lawsuit in

3

Pacific County superior court and lacked the authority to prosecute this lawsuit in Pacific

4

County superior court as such they knowingly lacked jurisdiction because when standing goes

5

so goes jurisdiction. Herein the law is specific and certain. In accordance with RCW 36.27.030

6

Disability of Prosecuting Attorneys, and RCW 36.27.040 Appointment of deputies- special and

7

temporary deputies2.
1 RCW

36.27.030 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. 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: PROVIDED, That in counties wherein there is no person qualified for the position of
prosecuting attorney, or wherein no qualified person will consent to perform the duties of that office, the judge of
the superior court shall appoint some suitable person, a duly admitted and practicing attorney-at-law and resident
of the state to perform the duties of prosecuting attorney for such county, and he or she shall receive such
reasonable compensation for his or her services as shall be fixed and ordered by the court, to be paid by the
county for which the services are performed.
2 RCW

36.27.040 Appointment of deputies—Special and temporary deputies.
The prosecuting attorney may appoint one or more deputies who shall have the same power in all respects as
their principal. Each appointment shall be in writing, signed by the prosecuting attorney, and filed in the county
auditor's office. Each deputy thus appointed shall have the same qualifications required of the prosecuting
attorney, except that such deputy need not be a resident of the county in which he or she serves. The prosecuting
attorney may appoint one or more special deputy prosecuting attorneys upon a contract or fee basis whose
authority shall be limited to the purposes stated in the writing signed by the prosecuting attorney and filed in the
county auditor's office. Such special deputy prosecuting attorney shall be admitted to practice as an attorney
before the courts of this state but need not be a resident of the county in which he or she serves and shall not be
under the legal disabilities attendant upon prosecuting attorneys or their deputies except to avoid any conflict of
interest with the purpose for which he or she has been engaged by the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting
attorney shall be responsible for the acts of his or her deputies and may revoke appointments at will.
Two or more prosecuting attorneys may agree that one or more deputies for any one of them may serve
temporarily as deputy for any other of them on terms respecting compensation which are acceptable to said
prosecuting attorneys. Any such deputy thus serving shall have the same power in all respects as if he or she were
serving permanently.
The provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW shall not aoply to such agreements The provisions of *RCW
41.56.030(2) shall not be interpreted to permit a prosecuting attorney to alter the at-will relationship established
between the prosecuting attorney and his or her appointed deputies by this section for a period of time exceeding
his or her term of office. Neither shall the provisions of *RCW 41.56.030(2) require a prosecuting attorney to alter
the at-will relationship established by this section. Chapter 39.34 RCW INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
4

1

In addition to Mark McClain, Jonathan Meyer, Nancy McAlister Mike turner and William

2

Faubion being charged with knowing the law, so are the Pacific County Commissioners charged

3

with knowing the law, as is Pacific County Sherriff Scott Johnson charged with knowing the law.

4

As such the Pacific County Commissioners and Sherriff Scot Johnson are aware Lewis County

5

Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer had no authority to file these criminal charges in Pacific County

6

Superior Court and use the people's court of Pacific County for his and Prosecutor Mark

7

McClain's organized crimes. Please see RCW 42.20.020 Powers may not be delegated f r — _

8

profit3.
Unlike the members of the judicial branch currently Sherriff Scott Johnson is honoring

9

10

the law, and even though he may be providing special privileges as described in RCW 42.52.070

11

Special Privileges4, to members of the judicial branch I have to commend him for doing the best

12

he can under the circumstances.

13

In addition to Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer lacking the authority to file this

14

lawsuit in Pacific County Superior Court, the argument involves an ongoing civil action that

15

prevents the criminal charges from being alleged or filed in court as described in RCW

16

60.70.050 Immunity from liability for failure to accept filing or disclose common law lien. A

17

person is not liable for damages arising from a refusal to record or file or a failure to disclose

18

any claim of a common law lien of record., and RCW 60.70.020 Real property common law

19

liens unenforceable--Personal property common law liens limited5.

3 RCW 42.20.020 Powers may not be delegated for profit.

Every public officer who, for any reward, consideration, or gratuity paid or agreed to be paid, shall, directly or
indirectly, grant to another the right or authority to discharge any function of his or her office, or permit another to
perform any of his or her duties, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
4 RCW

42.52.070 Special privileges.
Except as required to perform duties within the scope of employment, no state officer or state employee may
use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or herself, or his or her spouse, child,
parents, or other persons.

RCW 60.70.020 Real property common law liens unenforceable—Personal property common law liens limited.
Nonconsensual common law liens against real property shall not be recognized or enforceable. Nonconsensual
common law liens claimed against any personal property shall not be recognized or enforceable if, at any time the
lien is claimed, the claimant fails to retain actual lawfully acquired possession or exclusive control of the property.
5

As such the Pacific County Commissioners are charged with knowing the law and as such
if they have financed any of these criminal actions they have used public funds to finance
3

organized crimes including election violations which is a class B felony as described in RCW

4

42.20.070 Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer6. In addition to using

5

public funds to finance organized crimes, it may be determined the Pacific County

6

Commissioners used public funds to engage in election crimes as described in RCW 42.23.070

7

Prohibited Acts7.
It is expected the public defense involved in attempting to unlawfully and unsuccessfully

9

prosecute me in connection with these slanderous, malicious and vindictive criminal charges

10

will exceed $100,000.00 and incur immense amounts of additional civil liabilities to everyone

11

involved that does not have the express authority to do what they are attempting to do, or use

12

their public office for and public facilities for and public funds for.

13

CONCLUSION

6 RCW

42.20.070 Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer.
Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the
state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are
directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or
irrigation district, who:
(1) Appropriates to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law,
any money so received by him or her as such officer or otherwise; or
(2) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any
money so received by him or her; or
(3) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any such account; or
(4) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same,
or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or
authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a
duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same,
is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than
fifteen years.
7 RCW

42.23.070 Prohibited acts.
(1) No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself,
herself, or others.
(2) No municipal officer may, directly or indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive any compensation, gift,
reward, or gratuity from a source except the employing municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the
officer's services as such an officer unless otherwise provided for by law.
(3) No municipal officer may accept employment or engage in business or professional activity that the officer
might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose
confidential information acquired by reason of his or her official position.
(4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer's position, nor
may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.

1

In accordance with RCW 2.44.030 Production of Authority to Act 8, the Court should

2

cease all further proceedings until it can be verified that lawful procedures were followed to

3

provide proper authority to Jonathan Meyer to file this lawsuit.

4

In accordance with RCW 2.44.020 Appearance without Authority — Procedure9, the court

5

should call on the jury to determine the amount of damages all of the people who acted

6

without authority and jurisdiction cause to James O'Hagan and his family, friends and political

7 supporters.
8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

It is proper for the court to quashe the arrest warrant issued on James O'Hagan and if it

10

chooses to pursue the criminal charges appoints a public defender to assist Mr. O'Hagan in

11

making his court appearances, or set a date for the jury to determine the amount of damages

12

the accused has suffered.

13

Dated this jZday of February 2017.

14

By

15

James J. O' agan p o s

ghts & Protections Reserved

16

8 RCW

2.4.1.030 Production of authority to act.
The court, or ajudge, may, on motion of either party, and on showing reasonable grounds therefor, require the
attorney for the adverse party, or for any one of several adverse parties, to produce or prove the authority under
which he or she appears, and until he or she does so, may stay all proceedings by him or her on behalf of the party
for whom he or she assumes to appear.
9 RCW

2.44.020 Appearance without authority—Procedure.
If it be alleged by a party for whom an attorney appears, that he or she does so without authority, the court may,
at any stage of the proceedings, relieve the party for whom the attorney has assumed to appear from the
consequences of his or her act; it may also summarily, upon motion, compel the attorney to repair the injury to either
party consequent upon his or her assumption of authority.
7