Expedite

Hearing Set September 11, 2009, 9:00 A.M.

Judge Hirsch

IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE

OF WASHINGTON AT THURSTON COUNTY
_____________________________________________________________________________
)
ARTHUR WEST, ) No. 08-2-02140-3
plaintiff )
) PLAINTIFF'S REPLYTO
Vs. ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION
)
SAM REED, et al )
defendants )
_____________________________ )_______________________________________________

Comes now the plaintiff and respectfully replies to the defendant's motion to dismiss,
which should be stricken under CR 11 as improperly noted without compliance with CR 56,
frivolous and factually and legally deficient:

SERIOUS CREDIBILITY ISSUES EXIST IN THE R-71 BALLOT CERTIFICATION

BECAUSE THE SAME INDIVIDUALS WHO PREVENTED DISCLOSURE OF THE R-
71 SIGNATURES WERE ALSO THE LEAD OBSERVERS FOR THE SECRETARY OF
STATE'S CERTIFICATION PROCESS, AND THE ONES THAT COLLECTED THE
SIGNATURES FOR R-71 TO BEGIN WITH

Attached to this declaration are three true and correct declarations of John Does 3,4, and
5. These declarations demonstrate that those most prominently seeking to conceal their identity
(and who are responsible for the injunction entered by Judge Settle) have good reason for such
secrecy--to prevent legitimate inquiry into why those who collected the signatures might wish
1 PLAINTIFF’S ARTHUR WEST
REPLY TO Awestaa@Gmail.Com 120 State Ave. NE # 1497
MOTION Olympia, WA. 98501
their identities and the certification process they improperly :safeguarded”to be placed beyond
the public's purview.
For the same individuals who originally collected the R-71 signatures to be charged with
the oversight of the certification process, and also be allowed to obtain an injunction concealing
the disclosure of the signatures and their identities is bizarre and unconscionable--akin to a group
of foxes being allowed to obtain an injunction to prevent any farmer in the State from checking
their hen houses to see what animal is devouring their chickens every night.
The unholy trinity represented by the improper identity of the John Doe plaintiffs as
(paid?) signature gatherers, “lead observers” for the Secretary of State's Certification process,
and plaintiffs who obtained a Federal Court restraining order raises serious questions as to the
legitimacy of the process as a whole; questions that can only be answered by disclosure and
review of the actual petitions themselves. In light of the very real possibility that the petition and
signature process has been corrupted at every level, this Court should require an immediate filing
of the petitions so that any possible questions concerning the legitimacy of the certification
process and the role of the John Doe plaintiffs in obstructing it may be resolved.
It should be noted that John Doe #3 also declares that he collected signatures in a church,
and that he also operates a church in some form of commercial building controlled by a corporate
manager, raising issues of potential conflict between church and state in the signature gathering
process, as well as illegitimately concealed corporate sponsorship of the signature gathering
process. As a public watchdog and expert on the subject of public disclosure, plaintiff can testify
from his own experience that those who seek to conceal public records are almost invariably
doing so to conceal some type of misconduct or illegal activity.
The continuing concealment of the names of those who signed and circulated R-71 at the
behest of those selfsame guardians who oversaw the certification process and collected the
signatures to begin with prevents effective public oversight and review of the entire referendum
process and forestalls the ability of the public, law enforcement agents,-and this Court to detect
fraud and ensure the integrity of the people's referendum process.

2 PLAINTIFF’S ARTHUR WEST

REPLY TO Awestaa@Gmail.Com 120 State Ave. NE # 1497
MOTION Olympia, WA. 98501
THE COURT MUST FOLLOW STATE LAW WHERE DEFENDANTS DO NOT DENY
THAT PUBLIC RECORDS HAVE BEEN WITHHELD, AND ARE BOUND BY THEIR
FAIULURE TO DENY THAT THE R-71 RECORDS ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE UNDER CURRENTLY ENFORCEABLE STATE LAW, RCW 42.56

Defendants at no time deny that public records are being withheld in violation of RCW
42.56, or that any valid exemption prevents disclosure.. As such, they have admitted that the R-
71 petitions and signatures are being withheld from public disclosure in violation of State Law,
RCW 42.56., in addition to waiving any CR 12(b)(6) defenses that might have been asserted in
their response.
Under these circumstances, the Court cannot rule in any manner other than to require the
records be disclosed under State Law. While there may be a pending proceeding questioning the
validity of RCW 42.56, this Court is not a party to any such suit. While the Order of Judge Settle
restrains disclosure by the Secretary of State, it has no effect on the Thurston County Court.
This Court's Oath was to uphold the laws and the Constitution. While it is (possibly)
within his authority to restrain a County Court, Judge Settle cannot suspend the duty of this
Court-and the Judiciary-under the law. And State Constitution by issuing an order against the
Executive branch.

No denial of the claim that the petition and signatures are public records has been made.
If the state Law is constitutional, this Court's duty clearly- requires the R-71 records be
disclosed. Absent a formal ruling declaring it unconstitutional, RCW 42.56 must be applied by
this Court, on the undisputed facts and law of the case that the R-71 records are Public Records
Subject to disclosure. For this Court to refuse to apply the law to undisputed facts would
represent a manifest and outrageous abuse of discretion.
As the Supreme Court of this State has held...
The constitution is a solemn mandate by the people themselves, directed to the
various branches of the government, and we would be derelict in our duty if we
permitted such a mandate to be circumvented, regardless of our personal desires,
no matter how expedient such circumvention might appear at the time. THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Smith Troy et al., Plaintiff, v.
CLIFF YELLE, as State Auditor, 27 Wn.2d 99,(1947)

3 PLAINTIFF’S ARTHUR WEST

REPLY TO Awestaa@Gmail.Com 120 State Ave. NE # 1497
MOTION Olympia, WA. 98501
DECISION IN A SUBSEQUENT CASE INVOLVING DIFFERENT CLAIMS AND
FAILING TO SEEK A JUDICIAL CITATION OR DISCLOSURE OF PETITIONS HAS
NO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT AND RESEMBLES SUMMARY KLAN JUSTICE
ADMINISTERED BEHIND A VEIL OF SECRECY

The second fatal flaw in defendant's argument is that the ruling of the Honorable Judge
McPhee has absolutely no effect on the issues in this suit, since the Court refused to allow
plaintiff to abate, consolidate, or intervene in the action.
Also, to bind plaintiff to a judgment entered without a certification when his argument is
that public release and review are required by law is ludicrous and the worst type of judicial
Shell Game, where justice is allowed to be confounded by subterfuge.
The differences between the black robes of the judiciary and the white robes of the Klu
Klux Klan are many, but perhaps the greatest is that those in the white robes believe that justice
can be executed in unorthodox proceedings under a veil of secrecy. We are fortunate to live in a
society that believes that the open and public forum of the statesman (or woman) are viewed as
superior to the secretive and discriminatory tribunals of the Klansmen (or women).
If plaintiff may be stripped of his rights under the 1st Amendment by unknown John Does,
suffer the lash of discriminatory Court procedures, and finally have his civil rights drawn and
quartered on he Cross of a “previous” (but subsequently commenced) adjudication (that was not
an adjudication at all) then Thurston County might properly consider effecting an economic boon
on the populace by closing its courtrooms and handing out sheets and hempen ropes to the
populace.
Plaintiff's claims for production and review of the actual R-71 petition and signatures
have not been ruled on and should not be the subject of a politically animated, executive and
judicial branch procedural lynch mob mentality, intent upon denying basic civil rights to fair
courts and fair elections, which, it may be remembered, formed a large part of the Civil Rights
Movement so violently opposed by the ideological forerunners of the supporters of R-71.
Government by the People-as opposed to the tyranny of the Kleagle-is distinguished by
open and public procedures and disclosure of the identities of the participants to the process.

4 PLAINTIFF’S ARTHUR WEST

REPLY TO Awestaa@Gmail.Com 120 State Ave. NE # 1497
MOTION Olympia, WA. 98501
CONCLUSION- THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE OR COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF THE
R-71 PETITION IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT-AND A
VIOLATION OF RCW 4256, THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

Attached to this reply are pleadings filed in the Federal Court which demonstrate that the
continuing suppression of the only relevant and admissible evidence in this case is an
unconstitutional prior restraint on the 1st Amendment rights to petition and expression, and that
Court records have been impermissibly sealed in violation of the Seattle Times v. Ishikawa
standards. This Court should grant plaintiff's request for disclosure and review of the actual R-71
petition, (which contrary to defendant's spurious claims, plaintiff has contested the sufficiency
of) as the only actual evidence properly and directly admissible in such a review is the petition
itself.
.The white sheets of this Court's process should have no points of continuity with the
white sheets that have concealed the identities of those who would discriminate against
minorities since the reconstruction era.
I, Arthur West, certify the foregoing to be correct and true. Sept 10, 2009.

_______________
Arthur West

5 PLAINTIFF’S ARTHUR WEST

REPLY TO Awestaa@Gmail.Com 120 State Ave. NE # 1497
MOTION Olympia, WA. 98501