Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

  

The Problem !!!

 

 

***Why WE are all at risk***

 

Our society depends upon laws and the 'fair and impartial' adjudication of grievances. In practice, however, "fair and impartial" are manipulated by the legal establishment -- including judges -- and perverts the "true" values of our society.


The WA State Legislature enacted RCW 4.40.010, which states,

 "The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state."


It is in the "manipulation" of the common law, by the legal establishment, by selecting what 'grievances' are to be adjudicated (what cases will be permitted versus DISMISSED) so as to "tailor" common law. In other words lawyers and judges 'dismiss citizen grievances' in order to prevent the evolution of the common law that may run against the 'power elite'.   


For example:  A complaint against an attorney for failure to abide by his statutory oath, RCW 2.48.210 and its mandate that an attorney shall NEVER REJECT THE CAUSE OF THE OPPRESSED" will always get dismissed on a "legal technicality."  This keeps the "common law" free of any "precedent" which holds attorney's to their statutory oath.


The above example is "FACT".  The above example represents reality -- it is documented by the unpublished decision of the WA State Court of Appeals in case 425912.  For this reason Citizens NEED to have their grievances heard and NOT DISMISSED. Not only do citizens have a constitutional right to be heard, but in deciding their grievance will benefit the body of the common law. Only in having EVERY grievance decided will the intent of the legislature be fulfilled.


ATTORNEYS MUST NOT SIT IN REVIEW OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT!


    Attorneys who make up the WA State Bar  [WSBA]  disciplinary establishment have the sole power to decide for themselves the meaning of their oath, which attorneys it applies to, and whether or not their conduct meets the standards set by that oath.  


" They [WSBA] won't prosecute attorneys from larger firms and target sole practitioners. They use illegal tactics to determine outcomes against those they choose to prosecute." Bob Grundstein J.D.


  Wouldn't you like the same privilege to have your close friends decide the meaning of the laws that apply to you?

    

  Consider this .... as government gets bigger its legal liability gets proportionately large as well.  Said  another way as government gets bigger so will the number of lawsuits filed against the government against which it must defend.  Common sense would lead anyone to ask, who is on the hook to pay for this increase in city, county, state - liability... these increasing lawsuits?  As a matter of fact the ultimate liability will be born by Insurance companies and/or taxpayers.  For an insurance company there is no upside to insuring larger government, because larger government means more lawsuits.  How does government protect itself from its self-created increasing liabilities.... ***it rigs the system*** -- likely with the help of Insurance Companies and LARGE LAW FIRMS that are employed by cities, counties and insurance companies and by Judges who can always hide behind their immunity defense.  So who really PAYS in a rigged system that protects taxpayers and insurance companies... the person standing in front of the Judge who believes she/he is getting a "fair" trial.... if she/he even gets a trial.  A citizens right to a trial is now wistful thinking.


  What the legislature did in allowing attorneys monitor their own conduct is wrong, perhaps even unconstitutional. If attorneys, i.e, the WSBA, decide for themselves how to behave -- which of their friends gets a free pass ... and worse, how to silence any attorney who is critical of the WSBA's function... it is certain to lead to a "moral inbreeding" which is as dangerous as biological inbreeding. So writes Richard Posner  in his book, "The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory", page 68.

Perfect Example:

 

Click here to read how attorney Ronald Schaps "interprets" the meaning of the attorneys' OATH -- RCW 2.48.210. He says the oath isn't "valid existing law" 

 

SURPRISED? ... it is "moral inbreeding" at work!


  The fact that the WSBA comes under the Supreme Court, via the legislation embodied in RCW 2.48.060  --- there is NO civilian oversight!  

  Furthermore, the WSBA operates in secret. They make sure their dirty laundry never sees the light of day.  The proof is in the statistics .... Every year the Bar receives thousands of complaints against attorneys... every year the Bar dismisses these complaints.  These citizens complaints remain hidden so no citizen can see the utter corruption - favoritism, the ethical cleansing, that occurs by its members that goes unpunished.   

  Requests to see these citizen complaints under our states public disclosure laws (RCW 42.56) is met with this statement by the Bar's Chief Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende....


"Because the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) acts under the authority of the Washington Supreme Court the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.56) does not apply to it."


The Bar's Chief Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende makes this blatant claim that the WSBA doesn't have to obey the laws DESPITE these LAWS to the contrary.


The WSBA is an agency created under RCW 2.48.010 and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act under the express language of RCW 42.56.010. Mr. Ende's claim that the agency's records are exempt under WSBA bylaws is irrelevant as RCW 42.56.030 explicitly states that the PRA governs in any conflicts with other acts, for example the WSBA act.


The sheer arrogance of this corrupt organization, the WSBA, has NO BOUNDS because the WA SUPREME COURT is its daddy!


...it is clearly obvious.... attorneys answer to no citizen! A  This SAD FACT MEANS the WSBA  ''IS"  the third branch of government -- More precisely, attorneys are a government unto themselves andwe citizens are their play-toys.


 

THE CASE FEATURED BELOW INVOLVES BOB GRUNDSTEIN, ESQ. 


Mr. Grundstein is suing the WSBA and the WA State Supreme Court. Mr. Grundstein's pleadings, the evidence he presents, and declarations from him and his expert witness,  put all of what is written in FixTheWSBA  in a "legal argument" ... Said another way... what I, a lay-citizen, write here on these web pages, Mr. Grundstein Esq., has translated into a compelling legal argument explaining how our WA State Courts are corrupt and the WSBA is, in my terms, an outlaw organization.


  1. Mr. Grundstein's Complaint
  2. Mr. Grundstein's Declaration -- Separation of Powers
  3. Mr. Grundstein's Declaration--
  4. Mr. Holcomb's Declaration (expert witness)



Gallop has published its 2012 poll that rates "honesty and ethical" character of different professions