PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a verified petition, Jimmy Ellis, Clark will apply to the Superior Court of Stevens County, State of Washington, at 215 So. Oak St., Colville, Washington 99114, on September 29, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. for the issuance of a preemptory writ of prohibition restraining and prohibiting all of the below named persons from approving or paying any salary warrants, vouchers or other demands for public monies without first showing their lawful authority to approve, audit and pay said claims, and lawful authority of all persons making said claims to receive public monies.
Mr. Clark’s Writ of Prohibition/Writ of Mandamus was filed against the Stevens County Treasurer, Sue Harnasch, Stevens County Auditor, Tim Gray and the Stevens County Commissioners, Wes McCart, Steve Parker and Don Dashiell, Superior Court Case No. 2014-02-00355-1
All because of some ‘missing’ oaths. Of course, there is no reason to presume that there would be countless lawsuits against these officers who allegedly failed to file their oath of office as they remain de-facto officers. And until their title to the office is properly challenged in a Quo Warranto, they remain lawful and de facto officers.
Clark has been trying for many years now to get some redress for his grievances, however the courts so far have rejected his arguments and filings. In “Clark v. Stevens County”, US District Court Eastern Washington, February 3, 2010, the court observed that:
In Stephenson, the court of appeals found that under RCW 2.08.080, “the filing of the oath with the Secretary of State is not a condition precedent to assuming the duties of office.” Id. This is because the clause, “which oath shall be filed,” does not relate to the antecedent clause “before entering upon the duties of his office,” nor does it relate to the list of judicial requirements connected by “ands” (“take and subscribe an oath”). Id. The same is true with regard to RCW 2.04.080 which contains a similar sentence structure. See footnotes 3 and 4 supra. The clause in RCW 2.04.080- “the oath or affirmation so certified shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state” – does not relate to the antecedent clause “before entering upon the duties of their office,” nor does it relate to the list of judicial requirements connected by “ands” (“take and subscribe the following oath and affirmation”).
The Washington state supreme court justices took their oaths “before entering upon the duties of their office.” It is inconsequential if the filing of their oaths did not occur until after they had assumed those duties. Petitioner’s Petition, as a matter of law, fails to plead a violation of RCW 2.04.080. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice and will not be served upon the Respondents.