![]() The document Respondent characterized as a "Demand for Particulars" contains these words in all capitals: "THIS IS LEGAL PROCESS, YOU ARE COMPELLED TO RESPOND." The "demand for particulars" then stated: The documents are identified as originating from Respondent and are signed by him. The documents identified the State of Washington and either the City of Bremerton or the County of Kitsap as Plaintiff and Respondent Sullivan Kelly R as Defendant and used the numbers of the traffic infraction citations he received as the case numbers. Defendant(s) " and (2) "Kitsap County District Court Silverdale In and for the County of Kitsap, State of Washington/County *1016 of Kitsap Plaintiff, v. They contained "case" headings indicating (1) "Bremerton Muncipal Court in and for The County of Kitsap, State of Washington/City of Bremerton Plaintiff(s) v. ![]() ![]() They bore headings similar to captions on most documents submitted to a court. The documents Respondent "served" upon all four law enforcement officers are substantially similar. The second document is similar to those Respondent "served" upon the Bremerton Police officers about a month earlier. On October 10, 1997, Respondent "served" Deputy Sheriff Demerick with one five-page set of documents, followed a day later by an additional eight-page document designated as "Demand for a Bill of Particulars." Each set of documents varied slightly in form and content. On or about September 9, 1997, Respondent "served" upon Police Officers Johnson, Olsen and Sergeant Fuller documents which he characterized as "Demand for Particulars." The three sets of 12-page computer word-processed documents were actually photocopies of the same document, identical in form and content, containing 73 questions somewhat akin to interrogatories. She issued him a traffic infraction citation for expired vehicle license and no proof of liability insurance. Respondent inquired whether Deputy Sheriff Demerick knew she was violating his constitutional rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. In the vehicle with Respondent was a male person who identified himself as Tim (or Tom) Duffey. On October 2, 1997, Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff Karen Demerick stopped a pickup truck operated by Respondent because the vehicle license had expired in March 1997. A traffic infraction citation was issued to Respondent. Respondent claimed the officers were extorting him into entering a contract in violation of U.C.C. Sergeant Fuller of the Bremerton Police Department came to the scene. When the officers refused, he asked for a supervisor. Respondent asked both officers to complete "public servant question" which he handed to them. On September 9, 1997, Respondent Kelly Russell Sullivan, a/k/a Kelly Russell., Sullivan, was stopped by Bremerton Police Officers Johnson and Olsen for a traffic infraction. The question presented in this case is whether documents designated as "Demand for Particulars" purportedly served by Respondent Sullivan upon law enforcement officers who cited him for traffic infractions "purported to be or resembled judicial process" in violation of the barratry statute, RCW 9.12.010. Petitioner State of Washington seeks direct review of a decision of the Kitsap County Superior Court which affirmed a Kitsap County District Court order dismissing with prejudice a criminal charge of barratry against Respondent Kelly Russell Sullivan, a/k/a Kelly Russell., Sullivan, in violation of RCW 9.12.010. Ness & Assoc., Ramona Coral Brandes, Port Orchard, for Respondent. Washington Ass'n of Prosecuting Attys., Pamela Bethloginsky, Olympia, Russesll Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecutor, Randall Avery Sutton, Deputy, Port Orchard, for Petitioner. *1014 Schroeter, Goldmark, Bender, Amanda Elizabeth Lee, Seattle, amicus curiae on behalf of Washington Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ![]() Kelly Russell SULLIVAN, a/k/a Kelly Russell., Sullivan, Respondent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |