CA – Noonan v Bowen – Barnett

Noonan et al. v. Bowen et al.

Judgement was affirmed last month and Barnett is asking for a rehearing which undoubtably will be denied.

Case Number C071764

08/27/2014 Opinion filed.     (Signed Unpublished) The judgment is affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
09/12/2014 Rehearing petition filed.     by appellant Pamela Barnett. (Deemed timely filed pursuant to rule 8.25.)

WA – County of Clark v Darby – Demand Affidavit

I, David A. Darby, Sovereign Citizen of the State of Washington have attached a Certified Copy of Statutes at Large for the United States Senate for the so” Congress, Second Session, Miscellaneous Document No. 55 Dated January 28th 1889. This document is Certified evidence that the 1878 Constitution of the State of Washington was placed into the Statutes at large proving to congress and the United States Government that Washington had a Constitution that proved that Washington had a Republican form of government. No state can gain statehood without the constitution being written into the statutes at large for the United States of America.

Imagine my surprise when, instead of the Statutes at Large, I find notes from the 50th Congress 2nd session. miscellaneous document 55.

Continue reading

SCOTUS- State of Washington v State of Oregon

Even the Supreme Court has accepted that the State of Washington was admitted to the Union on February 1889. David Darby will have a hard time making his claims.

On February 22, 1889, an act was passed providing for the admission of Washington. 25 Stat. 676, c. 180. On November 11, 1889, the President, as authorized by § 8 of the statute last referred to, issued his proclamation, declaring Washington duly admitted into the Union. 26 Stat. 1552.

SourceWashington v. Oregon 211 U.S. 127 (1908)

I have found the actual statutes. I guess David Darby may want to pay his taxes asap.

WA – Clark County v David Darby – Motion for summary judgment

Clark County Superior Court case No. 12-2-03432-3

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AUTHORIZING
FORECLOSURE SALE OF TAX PARCEL
264614000 PURSUANT TO RCW 84.64.050

In attempting to avoid real property taxes and foreclosure, it is anticipated that Mr. Darby will attempt to raise a multitude of frivolous constitutional claims challenging the validity of the Washington State Constitution and Washington State law governing real property taxes.’ Based upon the unsupported nature of these anticipated claims, the posture of this case requires theroutine application of the foreclosure statute CRCW 84.64.050) to the undisputed fact that Mr.Darby has not paid any real property taxes on his property for more than three years. The application of the foreclosure statute to this undisputed material fact should be decided as a matter of law through summary judgment and is not appropriate for determination by a jury, as there are no material facts in dispute.

[1] Mr. Darby has sent frequent correspondence to Clark County regarding this matter wherein he claims that he is a “sovereign citizen” and consequently is not subject to taxation under Washington State law. This position appears to be based in part upon his mistaken and unshakable belief that the operative Washington State Constitution is invalid and/or that Washington statutes governing taxation are unconstitutional. It is important to note that Mr. Darby has not identified any relevant legal authority or coherent legal argument to support his position.

WA – Sovcit – David Darby Rawstory

A lost cause but I guess, it will keep him busy.

David Darby, who owns 4.7 acres in Clark County, claims the state constitution from 1889 is invalid, and the proper constitution is one drawn up in 1878 – when statehood was first suggested.

As far as he knows, no one has ever gone to court to test the validity of the earlier constitution – which Darby says explicitly prohibits property taxes and other liens on property.
“I want to take it into court,” Darby said. “I want them to prove the original constitution has been terminated.”

source

WA – Sovcit – David Darby

David Darby is waiting to get his case heard in Federal Court. Of course, he could already have done so, but he somehow believes that he is only injured once his property is taken. He seems to have a lot of spare time on his hands and promotes several concepts such as State of Emergency, US citizenship, Admiralty Court, and the two State of Washington Constitutions. He prefers the earlier one, but ignores that Congress apparently never approved this one.

“It’s all constitutional,” he insists. “Everything I’ve done is constitutional. If it’s not constitutional, then all they have to do is prove it. And I will stop this. I will pay the taxes. But because they have not done this, I would not pay the taxes. And I cannot get this into federal court until I am hurt. So once they actually sell my property, I’ve been hurt. Then I will file in federal court.”

Source

That’s what they are doing right now: Showing how it is Constitutional and how Darby’s claims will fail in court.

He also filed a Federal Complaint in Utah, and the court found it lacked jurisdiction

2010-12-02 22 0 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 12/2/10. (jmr) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

Other cases

Washington

2 Darby, David A (pla) wawdce 3:2012-mc-05001 01/04/2012 02/10/2012
3 Darby, David A (pla) wawdce 3:2012-mc-05000 01/04/2012 02/10/2012

Both cases were criminal complaints and quickly dismissed by the court. Darby requested referral to Grand Jury. No action.

Hirsch v McGuire – Update Docket

The State Attorneys have responded, arguing that:

1. The Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for relief against the Prosecutors in their official capacities. Further, the Prosecutors in their official capacities are not “persons” under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
2. This case should be dismissed under the doctrine of abstention because it involves plaintiff’s on-going state criminal proceedings.
3. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim against District Attorney General Bottoms in his leadership position. General Bottoms cannot be liable based upon respondent superior. Gross negligence does not give rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. The doctrine of prosecutorial immunity bars all claims against District Attorney General Bottoms, Assistant District Attorney Generals Thompson, Bayless, Cooper and White because all allegations involve prosecutorial functions.
5. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against District Attorney General Bottoms, Assistant District Attorney Generals Thompson, White, Bayless and Cooper. There are no claims based upon violations of the Tennessee Constitution.
6. The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars all state law claims against these Prosecutors in their official capacities. Exclusive jurisdiction for claims against the State based upon the negligence of a state employee lies in the Tennessee Claims Commission. These Prosecutors would be absolutely immune from liability for actions taken within the scope of employment.

09/09/2014 20 NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Cairns Ross on behalf of Caleb Bayles, Mike C. Bottoms, Brent Cooper, Christi L. Thompson, Jim White (Ross, Heather) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
09/09/2014 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Caleb Bayles, Mike C. Bottoms, Brent Cooper, Christi L. Thompson, Jim White. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Criminal Trial)(Ross, Heather) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
09/09/2014 22 MEMORANDUM in Support of 21 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Caleb Bayles, Mike C. Bottoms, Brent Cooper, Christi L. Thompson, Jim White . (Ross, Heather) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
09/09/2014 Bar status for attorney Heather C. Ross of TN verified as active on this date. (eh) (Entered: 09/09/2014)