The Brief is also available on line with the record as well as Petition for Review. These is also a page with links to the sections describing events as they occurred.

Page breaks have been moved slightly to avoid page splits in the middle of paragraphs. Hand written entries (signatures) are shown in italics and underlined.

Supreme Court
State of Washington

While three separate motions could be submitted, the requests have been combined for the convenience of the court. The court is requested to consider each request separately. The Appellant, Brian P. Carr, requests the following relief from the Washington State Supreme Court:

1. That oral argument be permitted for the Petition for Review dated June 2, 2006.

2. That the Petition for Review be processed expeditiously to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.

3. That the record in this matter be expanded to include Exhibits E, F, and G of this motion and the supporting affidavit.

Supreme Court
State of Washington

1. The Appellant has been repeatedly denied his right to speak on these issues. While the Appellant does not speak as well as he writes, what is not conveyed in the papers is the passion the Appellant has for a government of law and the importance of not placing expediency over legality. Indeed, had the Court of Appeals permitted the Appellant to speak on these matters there is the distinct possibility that they would not have simply ignored these fundamental constitutional issues and instead answered the questions presented to it, eliminating the need for this Petition altogether.

2. While a reasonable person could easily conclude the numeric limits placed on the appointment of Superior Court Commissioners in the Washington constitution (Article IV, Section 23) are arcane, ineffective and even counter productive, the fact is enough reasonable people did not reach that conclusion when the issue was presented to the voters in 1981. Ordell v. Gaddis, 99 Wn.2d 409, 409-10, 662 P.2d 49 (1983) However, as long these numeric limits are held to be valid (see Ordell), it is not reasonable to simply ignore the limits. The danger of placing of expediency over legality is that once it becomes the norm in our society (as it must once we start down that slippery slope), within a decade we would no longer have a government of law, but, in all likelihood, a military dictatorship.

3. There is no doubt that Clark County Superior Court exceeded the numeric limits of the state constitution as well as violating the Appellant's right to heard by a Judge rather than an appointee. Further, the lack of jurisdiction of said Commissioner requires that any orders they made are void ab initio Beyerle v. Bartsch, 111 Wash. 287, Barker v. Barker, 31 Wn. (2d) 506 or void from the beginning. The arrest in Portland, OR made under the invalid Order is itself invalid. The delays in correcting this blemish on the Appellant's record have had a significant impact on his livelihood and justifies expeditious processing of this Petition.

   
   

   Mtn for Relief, Aug 25, 2006

   2

   ---

4. The Washington Court of Appeals Division II had been asked to answer the question of the validity of orders made by Superior Court Commissioners in excess of the numeric limits of the state constitution before the hearing in Oregon. However, as the Washington Court of Appeals did not address the question presented to it, it is now a question before the Oregon Court of Appeals. It would be preferable for Washington Courts to address the validity of such orders rather than have them invalidated in other jurisdictions. Expeditious processing of this Petition would further that goal.

5. To avoid the restrictions of RCW 26.50.020 (5), the Superior Court had appointed all the District Court judges as Superior Court Commissioners to provide them jurisdiction to hear those RCW 26.50 (domestic violence) cases specifically prohibited by the legislature. In 2006, the Superior Court instead appointed the District Court Judges as Family Law Court Commissioners under RCW 26.12. However, the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only hear those matters listed in RCW 26.12.010 which does not include RCW 26.50 matters. Further, these recent appointments specifically do not include any authority under the Washington Constitution Article IV, Section 23 which is the source of Commissioners' authority to issue orders of duration longer than 14 days, State v. Karas, 108 Wn. App. 692, 700-02, 32 P.3d 1016 (2001). The individuals hearing RCW 26.50 matters in Clark County do not have jurisdiction to hear those matters and hence any Orders they issue are invalid. While it could be argued that as District Court Judges, these individuals have jurisdiction to hear some of these cases, this jurisdiction is precluded by the fact that appeals from those decisions of the District Court are refused as indicated in the record. (CP 129, 130, 132) The right to appeal is one of the requirements of due process (Karas) and this lack of the ability to appeal their decisions invalidates their jurisdiction to hear these matters as District Court judges.

   
   

   Mtn for Relief, Aug 25, 2006

   3

   ---

6. It is apparent that Clark County Superior Court has been ignoring the numeric limits on Commissioners since 1998 ('A Process Evaluation of the Clark County Domestic Violence Court' Kleinhesselink and Mosher, Department of Sociology, Washington State University Vancouver) and that there are literally thousands of Orders, arrests, and convictions which were not valid and are negatively impacting the lives of thousands of individuals. These individuals' rights to due process are being violated contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Expeditious processing of this Petition is warranted to preserve their rights.

7. While the correction of these constitutional violations is likely to be highly disruptive, an exceedingly bitter pill, the alternative of just ignoring the violations is tantamount to approving of them, placing expediency above legality, and taking us down the slippery slope which will be the death of our government of law. The Court is asked to expeditiously process the Petition for Review to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.

8. In case 04-2-08908-9, there is an unresolved request for an Order for Protection by the Appellant. If the record is not expanded to include the new appointment orders for Clark County Superior Court Commissioners, this matter could be returned to these same individuals requiring a new Appeal to contest the different manner of appointment adopted in 2006. Including these new appointment orders in the record allows the Supreme Court to address the jurisdiction of Family Court Commissioners to hear RCW 26.50 matters.

Supreme Court
State of Washington

I, Brian P Carr, am the Appellant in these matters, have knowledge of the facts of these matters and make the following statements under oath and penalty of perjury.

1. At no time have I been permitted to speak to the matter in case 04-2-08908-9. On November 12, 2004, my Petition for an Order of Protection was denied citing 'Action Stale', though there was no ex parte hearing as required in RCW 26.50.070 (3) and the decision was not signed. I filed a Notice of Appeal in this case as well as a Motion to Revise the Order for Protection in case 04-2-08824-4 to permit me to attend court hearings where I was scheduled to appear. However, in case 04-2-08908-9, the court independently (no motion was pending before the court) scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2005. As I was prohibited from attending that hearing due to the physical dimensions of the court rooms and the 300 feet restrictions in the Order for Protection in the other matter, I submitted a Motion to Reschedule the hearing to a time when I could attend. The hearing was held in any case and my petition in case 04-2-08908-9 was again denied, this time for 'FTA' (Failure to Appear). My motions requesting the ability to attend court hearings where I was scheduled to appear as well as to reschedule the hearing which I could not attend were denied on February 16, 2005 without any hearing, though a hearing date of February 18, 2005 was properly scheduled with the court.

2. On September 28, 2005, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division II, denied my request for oral argument (Exhibit A) as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the Appellant's brief. This is particularly ironic as the primary issue for oral argument was the constitutional numeric limit on the number of Superior Court Commissioners, an issue which the Court of Appeals completely misconstrued.

   
   

   Mtn for Relief, Aug 25, 2006

   5

   ---

3. On November 5, 2004, I was arrested in Portland, OR based on the Order for Protection in case 04-2-08824-4. This arrest has greatly reduced my ability to seek alternative employment as every job application for a permanent position which I have completed in the last decade has included the question 'Have you ever been arrested?'. The positions I would normally apply for are highly competitive with numerous qualified candidates. Time spent explaining a criminal record insures that no offer will be made as other candidates will be able to spend that time expounding on their qualifications for the position.

4. My request to have the record of this arrest expunged was denied and is under appeal in Oregon (case A132012) for, amongst other things, lack of probable cause (I was unaware of my wife's presence outside the restaurant) and lack of jurisdiction (the Order for Protection was void). The appeal has been 'perfected' in the sense that my brief has been accepted (Exhibit B) and no further action on my part is required to complete the appeal.

5. The Oregon Court of Appeals was presented with the question 'Can Oregon courts enforce Orders made by Washington Superior Court Commissioners if the Superior Court in that county made more than three contemporaneous Commissioner appointments which are not for Family Court Commissioners?' In the record there are four Orders appointing four contemporaneous Superior Court Commissioners in Clark County under Washington Constitution Article IV, Section 23 and not under RCW 26.12. Exhibit C is copies of these same orders as they were received from the office of the Clark County Superior Court Chief Administrator and as they were submitted to the Oregon Circuit Court and Washington Court of Appeals, Division II. They cover the year of 2004.

6. Exhibit D is copies of orders appointing these same individuals as Superior Court Commissioners in Clark County in 2005 and are as received from the office of the Clark County Superior Court Chief Administrator and as submitted to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II.

   
   

   Mtn for Relief, Aug 25, 2006

   6

   ---

7. Exhibit E is copies of orders appointing these same individuals as Superior Court Commissioners in Clark County in 2006 except that the Honorable Osler is substituted for the Honorable Anders and are as received from the office of the Clark County Superior Court Chief Administrator. Exhibit F is a copy of a letter dated August 19, 2006 I sent to the Superior Court inquiring about other appointments and continued hearings under RCW 26.50. Exhibit G is a copy of the response from the Court dated August 22, 2006.

Notice of Service:
On August 25, 2006, I mailed a copy of this Motion for Oral Argument And Expeditious Processing together with all associated papers to respondent in an envelope addressed to Karyn, XXXXXX, Vancouver, WA XXXXX with first class postage attached which I placed in a U.S.P.S. mail box located at SW 5^th Ave and Stark in Portland, OR.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.