|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Raymond Eric Zahler This space reserved for filing stamp.
P.O. Box 85102 Seattle, Washington 98145
(206) 388-3138 cell(206) 465-0236
805 815 3599
This document is http://litigious.4t.com/6964.html
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
25 S. 3rd St., 2nd Floor Yakima, WA
Note: Photo ID is required for entering the building. Hours: 8-5 Mon-Fri
PO Box 2706 Yakima, WA 98907 (509) 575-5838 http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/
Raymond Eric Zahler,
Charles w. Moore,
and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v
Board of Trustees of the Yakima County Library,
Each Member of the Board,
L. Daniel Fessler,
Michael Wade Leavitt, signer of the resolution,
Jessie Palacios, former board member,
Carter Fjeld, board member,
James Gavin, board member,
Ron Gamache, current board member,
Jerry Aiken, board member,
Defendants
Case Number: CV-05-3035-EFS
______________________
Document #6964 version 1.06
Complaint for money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 USC 1983, et. seq. for denial of equal access to Litigator-funded Public Law Library.
Class Action.
Jury Demanded.
“Access to the Law Library is Authorized for Members of the Bar Only.”
- Sign on the Door of the Law Library.
Table of Contents:
This complaint was written by a Civil Rights Lawyer with 21 years experience. It is not frivolous.
“Access to the Law Library is Authorized for Members of the Bar Only. “
not be open (sic) general public access
Section 1983: Denial of Equal Protection of the Laws
Invidious and Egregious Discrimination based on Membership in a Private Club
Diversion and Misappropriation of Taxpayer and Litigant Funds
The Legislature mandates that each county provide a public law library.
Denial of Equal Access to the Courts
Definition of class #1 - Non-Bar Members who would otherwise use the Law Library
Definition of Class #2 - Pro Se Litigants
Section 1983: All defendant denied my rights
Section 1985. All defendant conspired to violate my civil rights and those of the class.
Defendants have conspired and injured me; I am entitled to redress under section 1985
Ongoing tort: Injury is continuous since January 26, 2001
Pro Se Litigants pay for the library; lawyers do not.
The resolution fails “rational basis” testing.
The standard is “compelling state interest” because my 1st amendment rights are violated
State Criminal Culpability in addition to Federal Criminal Culpability
Victims who are not listed as plaintiffs due to Federal Rules against Pro Se Litigants
Details pertaining to Defendants
Appendix #1 - Pertinent Text of 42 USC 1983
Appendix #2 - Pertinent Text of Title 42, Section 1985 - Conspiracy.
Appendix #4: Statutes pertaining to Library Funding and Criminal Breach of Duty
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:
a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988; and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4);
b. Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bivens.html 29 L Ed 2nd d 403 US 388, 91 S Ct 1999; and
c. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Venue is proper here because all the parties live here and the Yakima county law library that is the location of the civil rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is here.
This complaint was written by a Civil Rights Lawyer with 21 years experience. It is not frivolous.
3. This complaint was written by a lawyer with 21 years experience in Civil Rights Litigation.
4. This complaint is not frivolous.
Parties
5. All parties are residents of this judicial district.
“Access to the Law Library is Authorized for Members of the Bar Only. “
6. The sign on the law library door says: “Access to the Law Library is Authorized for Members of the Bar Only. “
7. On 22 February 2000, the board passed resolution #2000-3.
8. This resolution says in part:
“It is hereby resolved:
1. The Yakima count Law Library will be open to judges of the state, to state and county officials, and to members of the bar.
2. The Yakima County Law Library will not be open (sic) general public access pending further resolution of the Board of Trustees.
3. The Law Librarian may allow special access to the Law Library for schools and other public institutions if such access does not otherwise interfere with the duties of the Librarian and/or have a budgetary impact.”
Section 1983: Denial of Equal Protection of the Laws
9. I am a Pro Se litigant.
10. I litigate without an attorney.
11. By denying me access to the litigator-funded library, my source for publications of the law, the defendants have denied me equal protection of the law - because my opposing counsel has access to the law library and I don’t.
12. Around December 2001 I tested the police.
13. I knocked on the law library door. When the door opened I entered.
14. The volunteer law librarian, Betty Tabyoyon or something like that, asked me to leave.
15. I did not immediately leave.
16. She asked an attorney who was sitting nearby if she should call security. He said yes and then he told me I would be arrested if I didn't leave right now.
17. I was embarrassed, humiliated, and angered.
18. In the ensuing years I have protested the policy.
19. I demanded that the county commissioners fix the problem.
20. Their lawyer, Muncheon, scheduled a meeting with me.
21. I and 2 witnesses attended.
22. Attorney Muncheon violated my civil rights by taking my tape recording.
23. He was antagonistic, loud, confrontational and verbally aggressive.
24. He told me that he would like nothing better than for me to sue them about the issue.
Invidious and Egregious Discrimination based on Membership in a Private Club
Diversion and Misappropriation of Taxpayer and Litigant Funds
25. The board and all defendants have diverted/ converted public funds to private benefit.
26. The bar is a private group enjoying the benefit of my filing fee funds.
27. The Legislature mandates that each county provide a public law library.
28. The Defendant Law Library Board does not have authority to prevent the public from using the county law library.
Denial of Equal Access to the Courts
29. Effective access to the courts includes access the law library.
30. There is no rational basis for permitting only bar members to use the law library.
31. All litigants pay the filing fees that fund this library.
32. Litigants pay the filing fees; lawyers do not; schools and institutions do not.
Definition of class #1 - Non-Bar Members who would otherwise use the Law Library
Definition of Class #2 - Pro Se Litigants
33. I am a citizen in the sense of the text of section 1983 and so are all class members.
Section 1983: All defendant denied my rights
34. All defendants acted under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, and usage, of the state of Washington.
35. All defendants subjected me and other persons similarly situated to deprivation of our rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws as more specifically set forth herein.
36. The defendants are liable to me for damages under section 1983.
37. All defendants herein caused me to suffer deprivation of our rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws as more specifically set forth herein.
38. As a direct and foreseeable result of their denial of access to the law library, my meaningful access to the courts was denied.
39. As a direct and foreseeable result of their denial of my access, I suffered a loss in one or more cases in Yakima court.
40. The injury to me was the actual and foreseeable result of their wilful actions.
41. I filed a claim document #1460 with the Yakima county commissioners at 128 North 2nd street, room 416, Yakima, Washington 98901.
42. They denied my claim.
43. Filing of a claim is not a prerequisite to relief under section 1983.
Section 1985. All defendant conspired to violate my civil rights and those of the class.
44. All of the defendants conspired and continue to conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and defeating the due course of justice with the intent to deny me and the class the equal protection of the laws and equal access to the courts,
45. and to injure me and my property in retaliation for my having lawfully enforced, or attempted to enforce, my rights and the rights of other persons, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.
46. Among other reasons, the defendants are retaliating for my having engaged in my First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances as a Pro Se litigant.
Defendants have conspired and injured me; I am entitled to redress under section 1985
47. To paraphrase section 1985: In this instant case defendants have conspired to deprive me of my rights and privileges.
48. Defendants here have done (or caused to be done by their employees) acts in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to wit: they have instructed the librarian to call the security guard to force me to leave the law library.
49. Defendants thereby injured me in my person and property and/or deprived me of having and exercising my 1st amendment rights or privileges of a citizen of the United States.
50. In this instant case section 1985 grants to me an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
51. I was so injured and now seek redress.
52. Members of the class were so injured and seek redress.
53. Defendants are liable to me pursuant to section 1985.
Ongoing tort: Injury is continuous since January 26, 2001.
54. Defendants all have intentionally denied me (and the class) equal protection of the laws by excluding me from the County Law Library while at the same time permitting access to bar members, judges, students, and institutions.
55. Although the resolution excludes the public, the exceptions swallow up the rule so that in effect the new policy allows everybody to have access - except me and my fellow pro se litigants.
56. The Board of Trustees of the Yakima County Law Library and the Board of Yakima County Commissioners have wilfully neglected to perform their duties.
57. They have intentionally committed unauthorized acts under the color of law.
58. They have intentionally refrained from performing duties imposed upon them to afford me equal protection and equal access to the courts/ laws/ library.
59. The resolution forbidding public use of the law library is a ruse, a fraud, and a disguise.
60. “Public” is a proxy for “pro se litigants”.
61. Public Law Libraries are built for the protection and use of Pro Se Litigants - and the public.
62. Defendants are aware that they are committing a crime.
63. They violate 18 USC 241 and/ or 242 - the penal equivalent to section 1983.
64. Their false classification system is proof of their guilty knowledge; they attempt to cover up their guilt by changing the classification system.
65. In accordance with the temporary character of the resolution, the board resolved that "the Law Librarian and Chair of the Board will continue to explore possible options for limited public access and from time to time report on the same to the Board."
66. However, the Chairperson of the Board and the Law Librarian stipulate that, "there are no written reports exploring options for renewed public access to the Law Library."
I wrote to every county in the state. Yakima is the only County Law Library that Excludes non-bar members.
67. There are 37 county law libraries in Washington.
68. On 20 June 2003, I sent a public disclosure request to each of the 37 counties. I made the request to the county commissioners. I asked for two documents. 1) A copy of the cover letter for the 2002 annual report the law library board made to the board of county commissioners pursuant rcw 27.24.040. 2) The document which describes the County's policy regarding public access to the county law library.
69. Many of the counties sent the documents requested. Some asked for a fee before they would send copies. Many counties have no written policy regarding public access to the law library, but those counties told me that their library is open during normal business hours.
70. No county indicated that the public is denied access to the law library.
71. Yakima County is the only county that failed to respond.
72. The legislature provided a scheme in which the Law Library would have revenue far exceeding its needs.
73. This is made apparent by the statutory provision that could allow the clerk to discontinue the collection of fees.
74. Revised Code of Washington (herein RCW) section 27.24.090 is the mechanism by which the Board of Law Library trustees would relieve the people from the burden of the over-funded Law Library.
75. No other county law library in Washington excludes the people. Even the most sparsely populated counties have a law library accessible to the people.
76. Pro Se Litigants pay for the library; lawyers do not.
77. The Resolution stands logic on its head.
78. The board claims "budget difficulty" due to "limited and fixed revenue" as the reasoning behind the move to exclude the public from the law library.
The resolution fails “rational basis” testing.
79. Their line of reasoning is a ruse, a lie, and a pretext.
80. When the library is open for bar member there is no additional cost for the general pubic to be there.
81. There is no "limited and fixed revenue".
82. There is a constant stream of revenue.
83. Even if the revenue is limited, the remedy is not to exclude a class of persons.
84. This resolution has no rational basis in law.
85. It is unconstitutional
86. It is void ab initio.
87. It is intended to impede my 1st amendment rights to petition, associate, counsel litigants, speak, write, and litigate.
The standard is “compelling state interest” because my 1st amendment rights are violated
88. The law library receives funding from the parties in every civil lawsuit filed.
89. Ironically all the person who pay NO filing fees get to use the law library while those of us who pay filing fees do not get to use the law library.
90. Judges pay no filing fees.
91. Lawyers, students, and institutions pay no filing fees.
92. RCW 27.24.070 provides the library funding each time a civil case is filed, including appeals.
93. The statute provides for the collection of twelve dollars per superior court civil filing and for six dollars per district court civil filing. There is also a provision to increase the contribution from twelve to fifteen dollars.
94. The Board's claim of "budget difficulty" is a ruse, a lie, and a fraud.
95. The board of Trustees operates in secrecy.
96. The Board of Trustees has a duty/ obligation designated in RCW 27.24.040, to make a report to the county legislative authority on or before the first Monday in September each year.
97. According to county commissioner, James Lewis, the board has never provided the county commissioners with an annual report.
98. Lewis says, "You're going to have to sue us."
99. The Yakima County Auditor reports that the law library spent $112,164.02 in 1999 and $124,377.40 in the year 2000.
100. The auditor has no way of knowing what the money actually paid for.
101. If anyone knows, it is the Board of Trustees for the Law Library.
102. The board has never presented an annual report.
State Criminal Culpability in addition to Federal Criminal Culpability
103. RCW 42.20.100 says that breach of duty by public officer a misdemeanor. The text of this statute is in the appendix.
Victims who are not listed as plaintiffs due to Federal Rules against Pro Se Litigants.
104. Federal rules make it cumbersome for multiple pro se litigants to litigate.
105. By comparison, if we all retained one lawyer we would enjoy the discriminatory benefit unconstitutionally bestowed upon lawyers by unconstitutional federal rules.
106. Defendants conspired to obstruct Chuck’s effective access to the courts. Blocking his access to the library is part of the conspiracy. Chuck Moore, P.O. Box 993 Yakima, Washington firmire@yahoo.com 509-457-8437.
107. Pamela M. Zahler was denied access to the Yakima County Law Library mannaraz@aol.com 509-457-0322.
108. Jeremy Worell was denied access to the Yakima County Law Library mrjeremy2004@yahoo.com 509-574-4052.
Details pertaining to Defendants
109. L. Daniel Fessler is Chair of the Board of the Yakima County Law Library 103 North 3rd Street, Suite A Director of the Office of Assigned Counsel Yakima, Washington 98901-2704 WSBA #4301daniel.fessler@co.yakima.wa.us 509-574-1160 fax 509-574-1161.
110. Michael Wade Leavitt, U. S. District Court, P.O. Box 128, Former member, County Law Library Board of Trustees, 25 South 3rd Street, Former Yakima County Presiding Judge, Yakima, Washington 98901-2715 WSBA #1092, michael_leavitt@wacd.uscourts.gov 509-575-5997 fax 509-575-5841.
111. Jessie Palacios, Yakima County Commissioners, District 3, Former, Yakima County Law Library Board Trustee, 128 North 2nd Street. Yakima, Washington 98901 jennifer.adams@co.yakima.wa.us 509-574-1500 800-572-7354
112. Carter Fjeld, Member, Yakima County Law Library Board Trustee, P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, Washington 98907-2550, WSBA #11290 cfjeld@vmslaw.com 509-248-6030 fax 509-453-6880.
113. F. James Gavin, Superior Court Judge, Member, Yakima County Law Library Board Trustee, 128 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington 98901-2639, WSBA #1732, (509) 575-4222
114. Ronald F. Gamache, County Commissioner, Member, Yakima County Law Library Trustee, 128 North 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901, ronald.gamache@co.yakima.wa.us, 509-574-1500, Fax: 509- 574-1501.
115. Jerry Aiken, Member, Yakima County Law Library Board Trustee, P.O. Box 22680 WSBA #509-575-8500 Yakima, Washington 98907-2680 509-575-8500
116. I ask that this court declare the library resolution to be unconstitutional.
117 I ask that this court find that the Library Board has no authority to banish the public from the Law Library.
118. I ask that this court find that the Library Board has no authority to treat the public any different than bar members regarding access to the Law Library.
119. I ask this court to enjoin the defendants from discriminating against me, against the named would- otherwise- be- plaintiffs, and against the classes that I represent.
120. I ask for nominal damages for each class member. When nominal damages are awarded in a civil rights class action, every member of the class whose constitutional rights were violated is entitled to nominal damages. Cumming v Connell (03/29/05 9th circuit),
121. I ask for actual damages of $1/2 million.
122. I ask for exemplary damages of $3 million.
123. I ask for award of fees for private attorney general under Equal Access to Justice Act and any other pertinent act.
124. I ask for such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
125. I demand a jury trial.
I, Raymond Eric Zahler, certify under penalty that the information contained in this claim is true and correct except for those items not of my personal knowledge. As to those items I state them on information and belief.
Signed _____________________________ Raymond Eric Zahler. Thursday, March 31, 2005
Appendix #1 - Pertinent Text of 42 USC 1983
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Appendix #2 - Pertinent Text of Title 42, Section 1985 - Conspiracy.
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties - (Omitted. Not Pertinent.)
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror (impertinent section omitted)
. . . or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges (“Going in disguise onto highways” omitted)
. . .(section omitted pertaining to denial of vote)
. . . in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the
United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Appendix 3: Portion of Section 1985 pertaining to intimidating litigants and obstructing them from effectively litigating - which is what defendants did by retaliating against me, the class of pro se litigants, Chuck Moore, and other members of the class.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; . . .
Appendix #4: Statutes pertaining to Library Funding and Criminal Breach of Duty
Discontinuance of fees.
The collection of the fees directed in RCW 27.24.070 shall be discontinued whenever the board of trustees of a county library or the prosecuting attorney, as the case may be, files with the county clerk and clerks of the district courts a written resolution to the effect that the county library fund in its county is sufficient for all present needs, which resolution shall remain effective until it is later rescinded. Upon its rescission, the county clerk and clerks of the district courts shall resume the collection of such fees.
[1987 c 202 § 188; 1975 c 37 § 2; 1953 c 249 § 3; 1933 c 167 § 2, part; 1925 ex.s. c 94 § 3, part; RRS § 8254-3, part.]
RCW 27.24.070
Portion of filing fees for county or regional law library.
In each county pursuant to this chapter, the county treasurer shall deposit in the county or regional law library fund a sum equal to twelve dollars for every new probate or civil filing fee, including appeals, collected by the clerk of the superior court and six dollars for every fee collected for the commencement of a civil action in district court for the support of the law library in that county or the regional law library to which the county belongs: PROVIDED, That upon a showing of need the twelve dollar contribution may be increased up to fifteen dollars upon the request of the law library board of trustees and with the approval of the county legislative body or bodies.
[1992 c 54 § 6; 1985 c 389 § 2; 1984 c 258 § 310; 1979 c 126 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 141 § 3; 1969 c 25 § 2; 1961 c 304 § 9; 1957 c 31 § 1; 1953 c 249 § 1. Prior: (I) 1937 c 32 § 1, part; 1919 c 84 § 8, part; RRS § 8254, part. (ii) 1933 c 167 § 2, part; 1925 ex.s. c 94 § 3, part; RRS § 8254-3, part. (iii) 1943 c 195 § 2; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 8254-9.]
RCW 27.24.040
Annual report.
The board of law library trustees shall, on or before the first Monday in September of each year, make a report to the county legislative authority of their county giving the condition of their trust, with a full statement of all property received and how used, the number of books and other publications on hand, the number added by purchase, gift or otherwise during the preceding year, the number lost or missing, and such other information as may be of public interest, together with a financial report showing all receipts and disbursements of money.
[1992 c 62 § 3; 1919 c 84 § 4; RRS § 8250.]