Time: Sun Sep 21 14:11:26 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA28829
	for [address in tool bar]; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:59:28 -0700 (MST)
          by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP
	  id NAA54154; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:33 -0700
          by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP
	  id KAA30978 for <psc@lists.u.washington.edu>; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:34:07 -0700
          by mx3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.04) with ESMTP
	  id KAA14868 for <psc@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:34:05 -0700
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA28912;
	Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:29:44 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:29:25 -0700
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: "Puget Sound Conservatives" <psc@u.washington.edu>
Subject: SLS: Washington State JB -3902 - Citizen Detention Act of 1997

I think it is time for a massive boycott,
in all of Washington state, against driver's
licenses, license plates, and registration
tags, if these are the ONLY nexus which the
State of Washington (a corporation) can ever 
hope to use as any justification for depriving
state Citizens of their Right to travel.  

See, in pari materia, 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241
(two of the most powerful federal statutes
on the books).  

Such "detentions" are blatant violations of 
the Fifth Amendment Right to due process of law.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the
Land, in all Union states;  this is a requirement
for a state's constitution to be adjudged 
Republican in Form by Congress.  

Ladies and Gentlemen of Washington state:  
the choice is now up to you, and nobody else;  
either you put your foot to the floor on this issue, or
get run over by a semi-truck, a/k/a corporate government 
moving under color of federal municipal law, and
over their own "speed" limits (read "state and
federal constitutions").  

The boycott will be a very valuable, and very educational, 
exercise, for all concerned.  

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 10:05 AM 9/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>     @@@@                 
>   @ O  O  @        
> @ (    >    ) @          STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!!!
>       \   0  /          SAFAN Internet Newsletter, No. 722, Sept 21, 1997
>        /      \
>           *                
>from Steve Washam (sew@valint.net)
>The Citizen Detention Act of 1997
>Washington Joint Bill 3902
>Extraordinary Legislative Session
>September 17, 1997
>United States Constitution Day
>     "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
>     safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.           -- Benjamin
>Does the State of Washington face an emergency requiring special legislation
>to deprive citizens of their liberty?
>The occasion of this hasty assembly is well known:
>On August 28, 1997, the Washington State Supreme Court held that a law
>enforcement officer does not have the legal authority under state statute 
>or local ordinance to detain a person stopped for a noncriminal traffic
>offense while the officer conducts a warrant check.
>Joint Bill 3902
>Thus it is proposed that language be added to RCW 46.61.021 and 1989 
>c 353 s 7 allowing law enforcement officers to detain citizens stopped 
>for traffic infractions for additional time and purpose beyond enforcing 
>the infraction statutes, to check for warrants.
>Notice that the supreme court did not find that law enforcement could not 
>conduct a warrant check.  It was detention of the citizen which was 
>We should all object to that.
>Joint Bill 3902 is not about warrant checks, as there is nothing stopping a 
>law enforcement officer from running any check he wants.  This proposal 
>is instead about depriving citizens, not suspected of any crime, of their 
>Crime is a problem.  Part of the reason it is a problem is that law 
>enforcement tends to be inconsistent and consequences minimal, 
>especially for juveniles.  Criminals, when caught, are processed through 
>what has been aptly described as a "revolving door" system.
>So what is the real solution?  Should we make more arrests and spin 
>the door faster?
>Criminals are not being deprived of their liberty in adequate measure to
>achieve the desired effect.   Should we therefore expect ALL members 
>of society to sacrifice some personal liberty in hopes that this will 
>somehow propitiate the gods of peace and justice?
>No, the answer is not to punish society at large.  Innocent citizens, not 
>suspected of any crime, should not be deprived of their liberty.  It doesn't 
>matter what good intentions this road is paved with.
>This bill is being hustled as some sort of crisis or emergency measure 
>needing quick action and no opportunity for the people to express their 
>displeasure with a referendum.
>Let's look at the well-worn boilerplate "emergency" clause to see how it 
>might apply in this case.
>This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, 
>health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing 
>public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
>Peace, health and safety are related so we will consider these rationales 
>as a group.  Law enforcement interests are claiming that detaining 
>citizens to check for warrants is necessary for safety.
>Whose safety?  The public will not be made any safer by spinning the 
>revolving door faster.  If more go in then more come out, with their 
>advanced degrees in larceny and mayhem.
>How about officer safety?  That claim seems plausible on the surface.
>But consider the mind of the criminal.  If being stopped for a minor 
>infraction is likely to result in arrest there will be a greater tendency to 
>fight or flee.  This could result in dangerous driving, shooting, etc. -- 
>who knows what officers or innocent bystanders could suffer due to the 
>confused actions of a desperate fugitive?
>So safety is not enhanced by this general deprivation of liberty. It 
>certainly doesn't justify it.
>The other emergency rationale is "support of the state government."  
>THIS is what JB 3902 is about.  It's yet another revenue enhancement 
>scheme under the guise of protecting public safety.
>This scheme has been operating without authority, but under color of 
>law, for many years.  It's an entrenched interest upon which many 
>depend for their livelihoods.
>What do you think the average warrant is about, anyway?  Something
>with a fine attached in most cases, to be divided up between the state 
>and local government.
>This bill is not about apprehending the next Charles Manson or Ted
>Bundy.  It's not criminals the state seeks, but working people who 
>perhaps haven't managed to pay a fine or assessment and therefore 
>have a warrant issued against them.
>Fines are taxes.  They're sin taxes and "user fees" for the court system.
>These taxes are big business.  Many people depend on them for their monthly
>salaries.  Whoever said "crime doesn't pay" wasn't looking at 
>the big picture.
>Crime HAS to pay, or there wouldn't be so much of it.  Nor would 
>legislatures see the need to constantly invent new "crimes" and
>"infractions", if these didn't pay.
>Enforcing revenue schemes with police powers is a dangerous
>proposition, which degrades and corrupts both legitimate functions of 
>government and brings the state into disrepute.
>The ugliest example in recent history is the outrage of Waco, where 
>dozens on innocent men, women and children lost their lives after a 
>storm trooper raid which had as its only valid jurisdictional foundation 
>the hypothetical failure to pay a two hundred dollar transfer tax.  There 
>are many other examples of the same type of abuse on a less dramatic 
>Why do people not trust government?  Because government has 
>become a plunderer, under the hypocritical guise of protecting people 
>and their property.  If there's anything worse than being raped and 
>robbed, it's having to bear lies and denial about it.
>There's no just reason to deprive innocent citizens of their liberty.  But 
>entrenched special interests demand their revenue streams be protected 
>at the expense of the general public.
>One doubts this train can be stopped.  It's so much easier to deprive the 
>little people of their rights than to oppose a well-heeled lobby.
>How many Washington legislators will stand on principle in the face of 
>such odds?
>Wishing you a contemplative Constitution Day,
>Steve Washam        Walla Walla, Washington        sew@valint.net
>     "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
>     has made us free."    Galations 5:1
>                                            \\\\|////
>      	                                ( o  o )
>      	                    --oO0o------U------oO0o---
>     "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  Thomas Jefferson
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>      SAFAN %Dot Bibee  (SafanNews@aol.com)  Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011
>                      Index of Newsletters are available upon Request
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail