SKYPE: <luisewing?

Email1: rcwcodebuster@gmail.com or

Email2: rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com or

Email3: rcwcodebuster@aol.com or

Email4: rcwcodebuster@live.com or

Email5: rcwcodebuster@mail.com

WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULE (GENERAL RULES) GR 16 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT ONLY THE PRESS OR NEWS MEDIA NEEDS THE JUDGES PERMISSION TO AUDIO TAPE AND VIDEO TAPE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CLEARLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PUBLIC OR THE PARENTS IN ANY DEPENDENCY OR TERMINATION PROCEEDING!

            It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that Washington State Court Rule GR 16 clearly provides that “only” the Press or the News Media needs the so called “permission” of “the communistically minded  judge” to Audio Tape and Video Tape “public court proceedings” and does NOT apply to the public or the parents in any Dependency or Termination Proceedings!

            GR 16 reads:

“RULE GR 16  COURTROOM PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECORDING BY THE NEWS MEDIA

(a) Video and audio recording and still photography by the news media are allowed in the courtroom during and between sessions, provided

(1) that permission shall have first been expressly granted by the judge; and

(2) that media personnel not, by their appearance or conduct, distract participants in the proceedings or otherwise adversely affect the dignity and fairness of the proceedings.

(b) The judge shall exercise reasonable discretion in prescribing conditions and limitations with which media personnel shall comply.

(c) If the judge finds that sufficient reasons exist to warrant limitations on courtroom photography or recording,  the judge shall make particularized findings on the records at the time of announcing the limitations.  This may be done either orally or in a written order.  In determining what,  if any, limitations should be imposed, the judge shall be guided by the following principles:

(1)  Open access is presumed; limitations on access must be supported by reasons found by the judge to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh that presumption;

(2)  Prior to imposing any limitations on courtroom photography or recording, the judge shall, upon request,  hear from any party and from any other person or entity deemed appropriate by the judge; and

(3)  Any reasons found sufficient to support limitations on courtroom photography or recording shall relate to the specific circumstances of the case before the court rather than reflecting merely generalized views.

[Adopted effective December 27, 1991; amended effective January 4, 2005.].”  And;

            It is undisputed that the United States Supreme Court in Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004),  the Ninth Circuit in Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972, at 976 (June 23, 2003) and the Washington State Supreme Court in Lewis v. Dep’t of Licensing, 157 Wn.2d 446, at 460, 139 P.3d 1078 (August 3, 2006),  all held that members of the public have the right to “secretly record” cops, CPS Social Workers, Guardian Ad Litems, Assistant Attorney Generals and Family Court Judges with the use of unobtrusive hand-held tape recording devices at all public meetings and in all public court proceedings being held in public court buildings paid for with tax payers money!

            Article 1, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution clearly reads:

“SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  And;

“To prevent star-chamber injustice, the public should generally have unrestricted access to all proceedings.”  State ex rel. Miami Herald v. McIntosh, 340 S.E.2d 904 (Fla. 1977).

“I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition in that case, that, if a public trial has not been accorded the accused, the burden is upon him to show that actual injury has been suffered by a deprivation of his constitutional right.  On the contrary, when he shows that his constitutional right has been violated, the law conclusively presumes that he has suffered an actual injury.  I go further, and say the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated in the person of the humblest or meanest citizen of the state.  The constitution does not stop to inquire of what the person has been accused , or what crime he has perpetrated; but it accords to all, without question, a fair, impartial,  and public trial.’”  State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923).  See former RCW 13.04.090.

“We agree with the Special Term’s conclusion that appellants have offered no justifiable basis for prohibiting the use of unobtrusive, hand-held tape recording devices at its public meetings (see, People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc. 2d 1105; Committee on Open Government, Advisory Opinion on Open Meetings Law, Oct. 27, 1983; 1980 Opns Atty Gen 145; see also, Feldman v. Town of Bethel, 106 AD2d 695). . . . Matter of Davidson v. Common Council, 40 Misc. 2d 1053, 1056).”  Mitchell v. Board of Educ. of Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 924, 493 N.Y.S.2d 826 (September 30, 1985);  Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 67 S.Ct. 1249 (1947).

“If a shorthand record of a such a meeting is more accurate than long hand notes, then the use of shorthand is to be approved and if the making of a tape record is a still better method of memorializing the acts of a public body it should be encouraged.”  Nevins v. City of Chino, 233 C.A.2d 775, 778-79; 44 Cal Rptr. 501 (April 22, 1965).

“Minutes which purport to abridge and to summarize what went before at best involve a process of subjective judgment calls; and may well, by inadvertence or by design, lead to a finished product which bears only a distant resemblance to the original.  A tape recording of the meeting could therefore act as an insurance policy against imperfections in the official record.”  Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F.Supp. 379, 383 (June 30, 1983);  Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539  (1976).

“As no one is harmed, the use of a silent tape recorder operated exclusively by the person interested in making such a record must be permitted.”  Sudol v. Borough of North Arlington, 348 A.2d 216, 219 (Nov. 5, 1975);  Federated Publications, Inc., v. Swedberg, 96 Wn.2d 13  (1981).

               If you want to sue your CPS Social Worker,  please contact Luis Ewing at 1 - (360) 335-1322 or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> mailto:rcwcodebuster@yahoo.comor http://www.luisewing.com http://www.ultimateusers.comor http://www.CPSExposed.com <http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>mailto:rcwcodebuster@gmail.com

PDF FILE: 

/resources/uploads/files/ONLY THE PRESS.pdf

********************************

#2   

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DEVENPECK ET AL. v. ALFORD, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004), CITING THE WASHINGTON STATE APPELLATE COURT STATE v. FLORA, 68 Wn.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992), WHICH SAYS THAT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECRETLY TAPE RECORD ALL INTERVIEWS AND QUESTIONING BY DSHS CPS SOCIAL WORKERS, ALL COURT HEARINGS AND ALL POLICE OFFICERS DURING ALL TRAFFIC STOPS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT,  WITHOUT EVEN INFORMING THEM AND YOU DON’T NEED THE JUDGE’S PERMISSION!

            The United States Supreme Court held in Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (December 13, 2004), that citizens of Washington State have the right to secretly tape record police officers during traffic stops without their consent and without informing them citing State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992).

“[T]ape recording officers conducting a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington.” . . . “No objectively reasonable officer could have concluded that arresting [respondent] for taping the traffic stop was permissible,” 333 F.3d, at 979.”  Devenpeck et al. v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, at 152 (December 13, 2004).  And;

“Tape recording officers conducting a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington.  See Wash. Rev.Code § 9.73.030 (1)(b) (prohibiting recording of private conversations); State v. Flora, 68 Wash.App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355 (1992) (finding that recording an arrest made by public officers performing functions on public thoroughfares did not violate Washington law because the arrest did not constitute a private conversation).”  Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972, at 976 (June 23, 2003).  And;

“We have also repeatedly held that conversations with police officers are not protected under the act.  See Lewis, 157 Wn.2d at 460.”  State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718, at 732 (February 6,  2014).  And;

“Because it was clearly established under Washington law at the time of the arrest that recording a police officer in the performance of his public duties was not a violation of the Privacy Act and it was unreasonable for Chief Nelson to believe otherwise, we hold that the Chief is not entitled to qualified immunity.”  Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676, at 679 (9^th Cir. 2004).  And;

“The State charged Flora with recording his arrest, a private conversation in violation of RCW 9.73.030. . . . Because we hold that the conversation at issue was indeed not private, we do not reach Flora’s other assignments of error.  Flora contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.  We agree.  RCW 9.73.030, the statute under which Flora was convicted, provides in pertinent part: Intercepting recording or divulging private communication – Consent required – Exceptions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: . . . (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.  . . . The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private.  Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private.  Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only.  We decline the State’s invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.  The trial court erred in denying Flora’s motion to dismiss.  Flora’s conviction is reversed and the case dismissed.”  State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 805-06, 808, 845 P.2d 1355 (December 14, 1992).  And;

“Finally, as the State notes, this court and the Court of Appeals have repeatedly held that conversations with police officers are not private.  See, e.g., Clark, 129 Wn.2d at 226 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with an undercover police officer when it “takes place at a meeting where one who attended could reveal what transpired to others”); State v. Bonilla, 23 Wn.App. 869, 873, 598 P.2d 783 (1979) (“It would strain reason for Bonilla to claim he expected his conversations with the police dispatcher to remain purely between the two of them.”); State v. Flora, 68 Wn.App. 802, 808, 845 P.2d 1355 (1992) (“Because the exchange [between a police officer and an arrestee during an arrest] was not private, its recording [by the arrestee] could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only.”); see also Alford v. Haner,  333 F.3d 972, 978 (9^th Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.  Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2004) (noting that State v. Flora established that a traffic stop was not a private encounter for purposes of the privacy act); Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9^th Cir. 2004) (holding that an individual who videotaped a police officer during an arrest did not violate RCW 9.73.030 because the officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his communications with other over his police radio).”  Lewis v. Dep’t of Licensing, 157 Wn.2d 446, at 460, 139 P.3d 1078 (August 3, 2006);  State v. Mankin, 158 Wn.App. 111, 119,  241 P.3d 421 (October 19, 2011).

            For more definitions of what constitutes a “private conversation”,  see also State v. Clark, 129 Wn.2d 211, 225, 916 P.2d 384 (1996);  Kadorianian v. Bellingham Police Dep’t, 119 Wn.2d 178, 190, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992); State v. Slemmer, 48 Wn.App. 48, 52, 738 P.2d 281 (1987); State v. Forrester, 21 Wn.App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978), review denied, 92 Wn.2nd 1006 (1979);  State v. Bonilla, 23 Wn.App. 869, 872, 598 P.2d 783 (1979);  Jeffers v. Seattle, 23 Wn.App. 301, 315, 597 P.2d 899 (1979); W. Prosser, Torts 808 (4^th ed. 1971);  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576,  88 S.Ct. 507 (1967);  United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (April 5, 1971).

            For help beating your traffic tickets or suing the cops violating your rights to record them in secret without their consent and without informing them, please contact Luis Ewing at 1 - (360) 335-1322 or 1 - (253) 226-3741 or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or http://www.luisewing.com or http://www.ultimateusers.com or http://www.CPSExposed.com <http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>mailto:rcwcodebuster@gmail.com

#2  PDF LINK:  /resources/uploads/files/ECRETLY RECORD COPS FLYER.pdf

******************************

#3: 

NO JUDGE IN THIS STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND TELL YOU THAT YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT YOUR CPS KIDNAPING CASE TO YOUR CHILDREN!

            The only instance in which may be subject to a prior restraint,  is speech involving . . . “a threat to national security.”  Near v. Minnesota, 282 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625,  75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931),  however,  the United States Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint,  and, since the decision in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 489 L.Ed.2d 683, 96 S.Ct. 2791 (1976),  which held that “obscenity” and “fighting words” do not constitute speech subject to First Amendment protection,  there are no reported decisions from any appellate court in any jurisdiction in the United States upholding a prior restraint.

            Judicial restrictions on First Amendment Protected Speech constitutes unlawful prior restraint.  Suggs v. Hamilton, 152 Wn.2d 74, 93 P.3d 161 (July 8,  2004);  Fine Arts Guild v. Seattle, 74 Wn.2d 503, 445 P.2d 602 (1968);  Adams v. Hinkle, 51 Wn.2d 763, 322 P.2d 763, 322 P.2d 844 (1958);  Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993);  Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S. 308, 316 n. 13 (1980);  Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971);  Carroll v. City of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968);  Spokane Arcades, Inc. v. Brockett, 631 F.2d 135 (9^th Cir. 1980),  affirmed 454 U.S. 1165, 70 L.Ed.2d 468, 102 S.Ct. 557 (1982);  Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308, 51 L.Ed.2d 355, 92 S.Ct. 1045 (1977).

            The right of free expression includes both the right to communicate and the right to receive information.  Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) and Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 390, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1806, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969).  See also, Freedom to Hear: Political Justification of the First Amendment, 46 Wash. L.Rev. 311 (1971).

“Minors like adults, have a fundamental right to freedom of expression.  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511, 89 S.Ct. 733, 739, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).  Expression includes speech and expressive conduct.”  Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935,  at 950 (9^th Cir. 1977).  “The protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.  In Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965);  Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,  762-63 (1972), we acknowledged that this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to “receive information and ideas,” and that freedom of speech “necessarily protects the right to receive.” Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756-57 (1976).  And;

            The State has no authority to interfere with the “liberty” of the parents to “control the education of their children.”  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923);  Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925);  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (May 15, 1972);  Lehr v. Robertson et al., 463 U.S. 248 (June 27, 1983);  Hodson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (June 25,  1990);  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (January 31, 1944);  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).  If any judge cuts off your visitation or limits your visitation to SKYPE visits, you can sue him for First Amendment Retaliation under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, at 256 (April 26, 2006) and Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (April 23, 2002). 

#3  PDF LINK:

/resources/uploads/files/CASE TALKING FIRST AMENDMENT FLYER.pdf

*************

#4: 

THE RACIST BIGOT JEW JUDGES WHO ILLEGALLY ENFORCE RCW 13.34.115 AT THE REQUEST OF IT’S OWN SPIES, THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S ARE IMPLEMENTING ADOLF HITLER’S . . . “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN” . . . NUREMBURG EXCUSE . . . TO CONDUCT AN ILLEGAL SECRET KIDNAPING HEARING IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1,  SECTION 10 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION

TO COVER UP THEIR PERJURY & ROUTINE SCRIPTED LIES!

            It is undisputed that all Parents have a right to demand that all family court hearings “SHALL BE ADMINISTERED OPENLY” . . . pursuant to article 1, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution which clearly reads:

“SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  And;

            It is undisputed that only a Racist Bigot Jew Judge or his fellow Janissary Communist Minded Judge would ever enforce Adolf Hitler’s codification of . . . “the best interest of the child” . . . Nuremburg Excuse to convene . . . “A SECRET KIDNAPING COURT” . . . as is clearly provided by former RCW 13.04.090 now recodified at the current RCW 13.34.115 which reads:

“RCW 13.34.115  Hearings — Public excluded when in the best interests of the child — Notes and records — Video recordings.

(1) All hearings shall be public, and conducted at any time or place within the limits of the county,  except if the judge finds that excluding the public is in the best interests of the child.

(2) Either parent, or the child's attorney or guardian ad litem, may move to close a hearing at any time. If the judge finds that it is in the best interests of the child the court shall exclude the public.

(3) If the public is excluded from the hearing, the following people may attend the closed hearing unless the judge finds it is not in the best interests of the child:

(a) The child's relatives;

(b) The child's foster parents if the child resides in foster care; and

(c) Any person requested by the parent.

(4) Stenographic notes or any device which accurately records the proceedings may be required as provided in other civil cases pursuant to RCW 2.32.200.

(5) Any video recording of the proceedings may be released pursuant to RCW 13.50.100, however, the video recording may not be televised, broadcast, or further disseminated to the public.”  See also State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995) and Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa,  97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).  And;

            It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that the court’s appointment of it’s Spy,  the Guardian Ad Litem cannot be the basis for authorizing him or her to authorize a secret hearing,  for to do so would have the effect of giving the court the power to appoint an “agent” with authority to remove the constitutional safeguards against secret kidnaping hearings . . . “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN” . . . a phrase first coined by . . . ADOLF HITLER.

“What the Legislature is forbidden to do directly,  certainly this court cannot do indirectly,  a court not of record has only such powers as are given by statute.  The City of Seattle v. Filson, 98 Wash.2d 66 (Nov. 1982).  And;

“A flat prohibition against regulation of a matter in one direction does not give Congress power to regulate the matter in another direction.”  Powe vs United States, 109 F.2d 140 (1940).  And;

            The  secrecy of the kidnaping dependency proceedings and child stealing termination of parental rights hearings is intentionally done in bad faith and with unclean hands such as to deprive the parents and the children of their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws and mainly to cover up the Assistant Attorney General’s . . . “ROUTINE SCRIPTED LIES.” 

            In State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923), the court in reversing a conviction under the Juvenile Court Law because of a secret hearing having been had (without objection by the defendant) quoted from People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228, 71 N.W. 491, as follows:

“This constitutional provision was under consideration in the case of People v. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N.W. 995.  In an elaborate opinion, Mr. Justice Champlin, referring to the case of People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 223, 14 Pac. 849, the case relied upon by the prosecution here, made use of the following language:  “‘I cannot accede to the correctness of the proposition in that case, that, if a public trial has not been accorded the accused, the burden is upon him to show that actual injury has been suffered by a deprivation of his constitutional right.  On the contrary, when he shows that his constitutional right has been violated, the law conclusively presumes that he has suffered an actual injury.  I go further, and say the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated in the person of the humblest or meanest citizen of the state.  The constitution does not stop to inquire of what the person has been accused , or what crime he has perpetrated; but it accords to all, without question, a fair, impartial,  and public trial.’”  State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142 (1923).  See former RCW 13.04.090.  And;

            If you want to sue your CPS Social Worker, Guardian Ad litem, Assistant Attorney General and Judge, please contact Luis Ewing at: 1 - (253) 226-3741 or e-mail me at: <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or go to: http://www.luisewing.com<http://www.luisewing.com><http://www.ultimateusers.com>

#4  PDF LINK:

/resources/uploads/files/THE RACIST BIGOT JEW JUDGES.pdf

***************************