Respond To:
«Petitioner»
C/o
«P_Address»
«P_City», «P_State».

(«P_Zip»)

«Court»

«Petitioner», Plaintiff/Petitioner,      vs. «Respondent»,  Defendant/Respondent.	 Cause No. «Cause_No»  PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to «Court» by Affidavit 	

State of Washington  County of «P_County»	}	 SS.,	

Comes now the Plaintiff/Petitioner, «Petitioner» retaining and asserting all inherent rights, affirms ( without the venue of the UNITED STATES) that the following is true, correct, and complete, and not misleading. The Petitioner shall at all times be a proper party to this action.

Know all Parties by these presents, the Petitioner brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to «Court» and states that:

I. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS PETITION

.The following definitions apply to the PETITION contained herein.

.The word "PETITION" means Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in «R_Court» by the Petitioner.

.The word '`tribunal" means "«R_Court»" and any of the proceedings held therein as it applies to the Petition styled as «Petitioner» Petitioner VS. «Respondent» Respondent, and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

.The words "action" or "proceedings" means the action or proceedings brought in the tribunal by the Petitioners "Petition".

.The word "Petitioner" means «Petitioner».

.The word "Respondent" means «Respondent», Respondent's counsel, agents, assigns, successors, employees, principals, members, associates and predecessors in the action.

.The term "Nature and Cause" means the right to know the parties of interest, venue, jurisdiction, right of action, and cause of action upon which the action is based. 

.The term "Liberty" means Freedom, exemption from extraneous control, the power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without retrain, coercion, or control from other parties.  The term "Liberty" includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment.  The term "Liberty" includes but is not limited to, freedom/right from duress, freedom/right from governmental interference in exercise of intellect, in information of opinions, in the expression of them, and in action or inaction dictated by judgment, the freedom/right from servitude, freedom/right from imprisonment or restraint without lawful Constitutional due process of law, the freedom/right in the use of all of one's powers, faculties and property, freedom of contract, the freedom/right of travel, the freedom/right of religion, the freedom/right of speech, the freedom/right of self defense against unlawful violence, the freedom/right to acquire and enjoy property, the freedom/right to acquire knowledge, the freedom/right to carry on business, the freedom/right to earn a livelihood in any lawful calling, the freedom/right to enjoy to the fullest extent the privileges and immunities given or assured by law to the people living within the union of the United States of America, the freedom/right to demand the nature and cause of any allegation made against a citizen, etc...
.The term of "Republic of «P_STATE»" means those people dwelling in the organic «P_STATE» Republic (without the legislative jurisdiction of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE») who possess unalienable rights from nature's law and Nature's God, which rights are not subject to involuntary liens or diminished by any legal impediment (such as the bankruptcy of the United States declared March, 1933.)

.The term "prejudice" means Petitioners loss of legal rights privileges and immunities.

.The term "infamous crime" means . a crime punishable by death in a state or UNITED STATES penitentiary or imprisonment in a state or UNITED STATES correctional facility.

.The Term "Respondent's action" shall mean Respondent's action «R_Typ_of_Action» filed in «R_Court» under cause no. «R_Cause_No».

.The term  "RCW"  = REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON

.The term "USC" = UNITED STATES CODE

.The term "USCA" = UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

.The term  "WSL" = WASHINGTON SESSION LAW

17.The term "Pub. L" = Public Law of the United States of America

.The term "CODE" = A code implies compilation of existing laws, systematic arrangement chapters, sub heads, table of contents, and index, and revision to harmonize conflicts, supply omissions, and generally clarify and make complete body of laws designed to regulate completely subjects to which they relate.

.The term "CODIFICATION" = process of collecting and arranging the laws of a country or state into a code, i.e. , into a complete system of positive law, scientifically ordered, and promulgated by legislative authority.

.The term "STATUTE" = An act of the legislature declaring, commanding, or prohibiting something; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government; the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state.  This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law.

.The term "STATUTES AT LARGE" = Statutes printed in full added in the order of their enactment, in a collected form, as distinguished from any digest, revision, abridgment, or compilation of them.  Thus the volumes of "United States Statutes at Large,"  or the " «P_STATE»  Statutes  at Large" contain all the act of the Congress of the United States of America or the Congress of the State of «P_STATE» in their order.

.The term "SHALL" = command, imperative, mandatory, denoting an obligation to act or not to act.

.The term "INCLUDE" = To confine within, hold as in an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, enclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.

.The term "FRAUD" = An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

.The term "CITIZEN" = One of the natural born sovereign people, possessing and entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights, privileges and immunities enumerated or un-enumerated in the United States Constitution, which can be enjoyed by any one of the sovereign people, protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America. 

.The term "PERSON" = includes, an individual and an entity.

.The term "ENTITY" = includes, a corporation and foreign corporation, profit and not-for -profit unincorporated associations, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and two or more persons having a joint or common interest, and the state, United States, and a foreign government.

.The term "Whoever" = includes all persons, natural and artificial; partners, agents, and employees: and all officials, public or private.

.The term "STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE»" means the corporate state within the legislative jurisdiction of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE» subject to the legal impediment of the bankruptcy of the United States declared in March. 1933.

.The term "STATE CITIZEN" = includes, a corporation or any other artificial entity created under the laws of one state and a non resident of every other state.

.The term "STATE RESIDENT" = includes, any state citizen.

.The term "Individual" = As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

.The term "NATURAL PERSON" = A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him.  The person is the legal subject or substance of which legal rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.  All public officials who are under oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution and Law of the United States of America are natural persons.

.The term "AGENCY" = The relation created by express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business with more or less discretionary power to another, who undertakes to manage the affairs and render an account to the party that delegated the authority.

.The term "State Agency" = all units of state government established under the constitutional or legislative authority of the state, including any branch, department, or unit of the state government, organization, corporation, partnership or association, however designated or constituted.

.The term "PUBLIC OFFICER" = An officer of a public corporation; that is, one holding office under government of a municipality, state, or nation. One occupying an office created by law. One who exercise some portion of the sovereign power of the state, either in making, administering or executing the laws. One who acts under a sworn oath or affirmation and or bond.

.The term "STATE BAR" = is an agency of the STATE OF WASHINGTON.

.The term "SIGNATURE" = includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticating the validity of a writing.

.Bonafied signature =  In contracts, any symbol executed or adopted by a party attesting that party voluntarily entered into the agreement in good faith, that all terms conditions and obligations were fully disclosed, and that the party fully understood the consciences of the instrument.

.The term "CONFLICT OF LAW" = When citizens of different states, republics or jurisdictions are parties to suit or other legal proceeding.  A contrary or opposition in laws of states, countries or jurisdictions in cases where the rights of the parties, from their relations to each other or to the subject-matter in dispute, are liable to be affected by the laws of both jurisdictions. The effect of the laws of every state or republic effect and bind directly all property, real or personal, situated within its jurisdictional territory, all persons resident within its own limits of jurisdiction, and are supreme within its own limits by virtue of its sovereignty.  Ambassadors and other public ministers while within the jurisdiction of a foreign power are not subject to the jurisdiction of said laws.

II. STATUS OF PETITIONER
.The Petitioner is not a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, nor a RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
.The Petitioner is not a STATE CITIZEN of the STATE OF WASHINGTON, nor a RESIDENT of the STATE OF WASHINGTON.
.The Petitioner is not a subject of Great Britain.
The Petitioner lives in «P_State».
III. Status of the Respondent
.The Respondent «Respondent» is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, currently residing in the «R_County» a political subdivision of the Republic/State of «P_State». 
.The Respondent «Respondent» is an entity as defined in section 1 of this Petition.
.The Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent», «RA_Title», is an attorney-at-law a member of the Washington state bar association, an agency of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE», organized and existing under the legislative authority of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE» as an agency of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE» in 1933 under WSL 1933 c 94 § 2; codified in RCW 2-48-010 to wit:
"There is hereby created as an agency of the state, for the purpose and within the powers herein set forth, as association to be known as the Washington State Bar Association, hereinafter designated as the state bar...."

VI. TYPE OF ACTION
In that the United States nor the Republic/State of «P_State» is not being invaded by a foreign power nor has there been a formal declaration of insurrection, the Petitioner asserts the right, protected by the Article 1 § 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America and Article 1 § 13 of the Constitution of the Republic/State of «P_State», and petitions/applies to the «Court» for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued to inquire into the Nature and Cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petition's liberties.
This action is an original action as per article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
DEMAND FOR AN ARTICLE THREE JUDICIAL OFFICER
The Petitioner herein demands that only the «Court» or  an article three judicial officer. An article three judicial officer is defined as follows:
(a) Judges of the both the supreme court and inferior courts, holding office during good behavior
(b) Judges of the both the supreme court and inferior courts who receive compensation for their services which is not diminished during their continuance in office.
PURPOSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

.The purpose for a writ of habeas corpus is to provide a judicial remedy to the Petitioner to inquire into the nature and cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioners Liberty, once the Petitioner has exhausted all administrative procedures without effecting a remedy. Disclosure by the Respondent of the nature and cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioner's Liberty includes but is not limited to the disclosure by the Respondent of the Respondent's authority and jurisdiction to restrain the Liberty of the Petitioner.  The Petitioner requests that the «Court» take notice of WSL 1881 § 666; codified in RCW 7.36.010 to wit:
Every person restrained of his liberty under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered therefrom when fond illegal.

.The Petitioner asks the «Court», of the following description of the term LIBERTY to wit:
The term "Liberty" means Freedom, exemption from extraneous control, the power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without retrain, coercion, or control from other parties.  The term "Liberty" includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment.  The term "Liberty" includes but is not limited to, freedom/right from duress, freedom/right from governmental interference in exercise of intellect, in information of opinions, in the expression of them, and in action or inaction dictated by judgment, the freedom/right from servitude, freedom/right from imprisonment or restraint without lawful Constitutional due process of law, the freedom/right in the use of all of one's powers, faculties and property, freedom of contract, the freedom/right of travel, the freedom/right of religion, the freedom/right of speech, the freedom/right of self defense against unlawful violence, the freedom/right to acquire and enjoy property, the freedom/right to acquire knowledge, the freedom/right to carry on business, the freedom/right to earn a livelihood in any lawful calling, the freedom/right to enjoy to the fullest extent the privileges and immunities given or assured by law to the people living within the union of the United States of America, the freedom/right to demand the nature and cause of any allegation made against a citizen, etc...

.As the court can plainly see, the term liberty includes, but is not limited to physical incarceration. The issues of restraint of the Petitioners Liberty raised by this petition/application for a writ of habeas corpus may include physical incarceration, but is not limited to that single issue of liberty but shall include any and all inherent liberties of the Petitioner that is currently being restrained by the Respondent.
.The writ of habeas corpus also a remedy to the Petitioner for a collateral attack for a post conviction remedy.
.The Petitioner asks the court to take special notice of WSL 1989 c 395 § 1; codified in RCW 10.73.090(2) to wit:
For the purposes of this section, "collateral attack" means any form of post conviction relief other than a direct appeal. "Collateral Attack" includes, but is not limited to, a personal restraint petition, A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, a motion to vacate judgment, a motion to withdraw guilty plea, a motion for a new trail, and a motion to arrest judgment.

VII. TO WHOM THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS TO BE DIRECTED

.The Petitioner states that the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directed to «Respondent» Respondent, The Respondent's present whereabouts are «R_Address», the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent», The Respondent's agent's present whereabouts are «R_Address». 
.The Petitioner is petitioning the «Court», pursuant to WSL 1881 § 669 codified in RCW 7.36.050 commanding the Respondent to appear in court at particular time and place, the Petitioner as a proper party will also be there on the Petitioner's own accord, to then and there explain and produce proof of the authority, legality, and the nature and cause under which Respondent is restraining Petitioner.
. Should it then be found that the Respondent has no legal authority to restrain the liberty of the Petitioner, the court is to be immediately released and discharge petitioner from the restraint of the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

As is shown by the following facts, the Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available for the protection of the Petitioner's inherent rights regarding the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioner's Liberties:

.The Respondent, «Respondent», through one of the Respondents agents «Respondent_Agent» delivered, or caused to be delivered, a document entitled "«Docs_refused»" bearing the name «STATUTORY_APPILATION» as a Respondent Party(s), «Petitioner» not named thereon, dated «Date_Docs_Refused».
.The Petitioner refused said document and returned said document to the Respondent's agent on or about «Date_of_Dbop» with an attached true copy of the Petitioner's "Notice of Federal Evidence Rule 301 Rebuttal, Notice of Refusal for Fraud, Refusal for Fraud under F.R.C.P.  Rule  9(b) By Affidavit" citing several procedural and due process violations.  The Petitioner retained the original of same.
.The Petitioner served a Mandatory Judicial Notice to the «R_Court» that the Petitioner privately served a true copy of the Petitioner's "Notice of Federal Evidence Rule 301 Rebuttal, Notice of Refusal for Fraud, Refusal for Fraud under F.R.C.P.  Rule  9(b) By Affidavit" upon the Respondent's agent.  The Petitioner  attached a true copy of  the Petitioner's "Notice of Federal Evidence Rule 301 Rebuttal, Notice of Refusal for Fraud, Refusal for Fraud under F.R.C.P.  Rule  9(b) By Affidavit"  as an exhibit.
.The Petitioner on or about «Date_of_Dbop», did privately serve on the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» a "Private Timely Demand for Bill of Particulars to determine the Nature and Cause  of the Preceding with Affidavit in Verification". The Petitioner retained the original of same.
.The Petitioner on or about «Date_of_Dbop» did serve the clerk of courts for «R_Court» a copy of a Mandatory Judicial Notice. The Petitioner attached the true copy of the Petitioner's "Private Timely Demand for Bill of Particulars to determine the Nature and Cause  of the Preceding with Affidavit in Verification" as an exhibit.
.The Petitioner on or about «Dateof_Fault» did privately serve upon the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» a "Notice of Fault. Timely Private Notice of Condition of Fault for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings". The Petitioner retained the original of same.
7.The Petitioner served a Mandatory Judicial Notice and a notice to the clerk of courts of «R_Court» that the Petitioner privately served a true copy of the Petitioner's "Notice of Fault, Timely Private Notice of Condition of Default for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings". The Petitioner did attach a true copy of the Petitioner's  "Notice of Fault, Timely Private Notice of Condition of Default for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings" as an exhibit. 
.The Petitioner on or about «Date_of_Default» did privately serve upon the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» a "Notice of Default. Timely Private Notice of Condition of Default for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings". The Petitioner retained the original of same.
.The Petitioner served a Mandatory Judicial Notice and a notice to the clerk of courts of «R_Court» that the Petitioner privately served a true copy of the Petitioner's "Notice of Default, Timely Private Notice of Condition of Default for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings". The Petitioner did attach a true copy of the Petitioner's  "Notice of Default, Timely Private Notice of Condition of Default for failure to respond to Demand for Bill of Particulars to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Proceedings" as an exhibit. 
.The Petitioner on or about «Date_of_Cert_of_Administrative_Judgemt» did file and serve upon the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» a MANDATORY NON-JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT with Affidavit in Verification, the Petitioner retained the original of same.
11.The Petitioner served a Mandatory Judicial Notice and a notice to the clerk of courts of «R_Court» that the Petitioner privately served a true copy of the Petitioner's MANDATORY NON-JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT with Affidavit in Verification. The Petitioner did attach a true copy of the Petitioner's MANDATORY NON-JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT with Affidavit in Verification, as an exhibit. 
12.The Respondent through the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» stipulations by refusing to answer the Petitioner's Demand that for a Bill of Particulars include but are not limited to the following:
13.The Petitioner has the right to know the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" and that the Petitioner's right is protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America.

14.The Petitioner's procedures for the Petitioner's "Demand for a Bill of Particulars to Determine the nature and cause of the Proceeding" regarding "The Respondent's Action" is correct and complete.

15.That it is the duty and obligation of the Respondent and all public servants including attorneys-at-law, who have sworn an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, to prevent or correct any act or omission that would work to deny the Petitioner's right of due process and equal protection of the law.

16.The true and correct Christian appellation or proper name of the Petitioner is «Petitioner».

17.The true and correct spelling of the Defendant's appellation in "The Respondent's Action" is "«STATUTORY_APPILATION»"

18.The Respondent stipulates that the Petitioner and «STATUTORY_APPILATION» named in the "The Respondent's Action" as Respondent are not the same party.

19.The Respondent has no evidence that Petitioner «Petitioner» and «STATUTORY_APPILATION» are the same party.

20.The Respondent does not claim that the Petitioner is a juristic (legal) or statutory person who spells Petitioner's name in all capital letters.

21.The Respondent stipulates that the Petitioner is a natural born citizen of the United States of America and a lawful inhabitant of the premises of the jurisdictional venue of the Organic «P_STATE» state known as the «P_STATE» Republic.

22.The Respondent stipulates that there are no facts to support any assertion that the Petitioner is an artificial juristic, or statutory person.

23.The Respondent stipulates that "The Respondent's Action" is not brought in the appellation of the Petitioner.

24.The Respondent stipulates that the Respondent does not have any written agreement, promise or contract bearing the bona-fide signature of the Petitioner, upon which Petitioner has any legal or equitable duty with respect to the Respondent.

25.The Respondent stipulates that the Respondent's agents  knew that «STATUTORY_APPILATION» and the Petitioner are not the same party from the onset of "The Respondent's Action" and failed to disclose the information to the Petitioner or «R_Court».

26.The Respondent stipulates that the Petitioner is not a real party of interest to "The Respondent's Action" and that the Petitioner has been mistakenly held "The Respondent's Action" and should be discharged from the proceedings.

27.The Respondent can not disclose the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" or who the injured party is.

28.The Respondent stipulates that all further issues raised by the Petitioner in the Demand are relevant and material but rendered moot in that Petitioner is not a party to the Respondent's action.

VIII.  HOW PETITIONER'S LIBERTY IS BEING RESTRAINED BY RESPONDENT

RIGHT OF ACTION

.In support of this petition, petitioner verily alleges that the Petitioner is being restrained by the Respondent by:
)Restraining the Petitioners right protected by amendment 13 to the Constitution of the United States from peonage and involuntary servitude by compelling the Petitioner to involuntarily participate in the Respondents action filed in «R_Court» under cause # «R_Cause_No», by and through the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent», «RA_Title», wherein the Petitioner is not named as a party in interest.
)The Respondent refusing to disclose to the Petitioner, the nature and cause of the Respondent's action as it applies to the Petitioner, restraining the Petitioner's right, protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America, to full disclosure of the nature and cause of the Respondent's action filed in «R_Court» under cause no. «R_Cause_No», depriving the Petitioner of the right to due process of law and equal protection of the law protected by amendments 5 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America.
)Denying the Petitioner the right to effective counsel. Restraining the Petitioner's right protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America, to choice of counsel to only members of the state bar, an agency of the STATE OF «Statutory_State», as public officers operation under the disability of a conflict of interest in that all attorneys-at-law are in fact agents of the Respondent.
)Depriving the Petitioner of the right to be secure in traveling upon the public roadways. Restraining the Petitioner's right to freely travel protected by amendment 9 to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
)Depriving the Petitioner of the right, protected by amendment 5 to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to be held to answer a capitol or otherwise infamous crime without indictment or presentment of the grand jury.
)The Respondent threatening to further restrain the liberty of the Petitioner by imprisonment and loss of property without lawful due process of law and equal protection of law protected by amendment 5, 6 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America.
IX. CAUSE OF ACTION
Petitioner alleges the restraint is unlawful because,

STATEMENT OF WHY THE RESPONDENT RESTRAINT OF THE PETITIONER IS ILLEGAL
COUNT 1
1.Respondent has failed to fully disclose the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" by answering the Petitioner's Demand for a Bill of Particulars.
2.Without disclosure as to the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" meaning disclosure of the parties in interest, the venue of the court, the jurisdiction of the court and controversy, the Respondent's right of action, the Respondent's cause of action meaning the injured party the Respondent stands in violation of the Petitioner's right to full disclosure of the nature and cause of the Respondent's action, protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America and F.R.C.P. 12 (b)(6)  failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3.The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law protected by amendments 5 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America and a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.
4.The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.
COUNT 2

1.As the Petitioner has yet to voluntarily file any response, answer, traverse, or any other pleading regarding the «Docs_refused». The «R_Court» has yet to acquire jurisdiction over the parties regarding the «Docs_refused», a violation of F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) lack of jurisdiction over the parties. The Respondent has failed to join the Petitioner to the «Docs_refused», a violation of F.R.C.P. 12(b)(7) and 19.
2.The Respondent by causing the «Docs_refused» to be moved forward without disclosing to the Petitioner the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" denied the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the law protected by amendment 5 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America.
3.The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.
4.The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.
Count 3
1.«R_Court» pursuant to the duty and obligation imposed by the written oath of office to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the State of Washington, is required to prevent or correct any act or omission that would violate any right of a party protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
2.«R_Court» has the authority sua sponte, on it's own Petition, under Federal Criminal Rule F.R.C.P. 12(e) and the Administrative Procedures act, to insure the Petitioner's right to disclosure of the nature and cause of the «Docs_refused» , by ordering the Respondent to answer the Petitioner's Demand for a Bill of Particulars/Demand for a More Definite Statement to Determine the Nature and Cause of the Respondent's action.
3.«R_Court» in moving forward with the «Docs_refused» knowing that the Petitioner had privately served a demand for a for a "More Definite Statement/Bill of Particulars" upon the Respondent and that the Petitioner's demand has not been answered by the Respondent, was a clear act of bad faith on the part of both the «R_Court» and the Respondent.
4.This act of bad faith results in compelling the Petitioner to participate in the «Docs_refused» without disclosure of the nature and cause of the Respondents action , without disclosure by what authority the Respondent acts to hold the Petitioner to answer an infamous crime without indictment or presentment of the grand jury, a violation of the Petitioner's inherent right of due process with regard to full disclosure of the nature and cause of any action against or purported to be against the Petitioner.
5.The Presiding Judicial Officer of the «R_Court» by entering a plea of not guilty, acts to deprives the Petitioner of the protected right of liberty and property in excess of $20.00 without due process of law and equal protection of the law.
6.The Petitioner was denied the ability to effect a remedy in the "Respondent's Action" upon the Respondent's pleadings filed in «R_Court».
7.The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.
8.The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.
COUNT 4
.Washington state bar association, an agency of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE», organized and existing under the legislative authority of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE» as an agency of the STATE OF «STATUTORY_STATE» in 1933 under WSL 1933 c 94 § 2; codified in RCW 2-48-010 to wit:

"There is hereby created as an agency of the state, for the purpose and within the powers herein set forth, as association to be known as the Washington State Bar Association, hereinafter designated as the state bar...."

.The code of professional conduct provides under 1.7 (b) to wit:
"A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyers own interests unless: (2) the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts (following authorization from the other client to make such a disclosure)."

.The code of professional conduct provides under 1.11(a) to wit:

"... a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer employee, unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation."

.As the state bar is in fact a state agency making all member attorneys public officers, the Petitioners right to effective counsel protected by amendment 6 to the constitution of the United States of America and Article 1 §22 is restrained by the Respondent.
.The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right to effective counsel, the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.
.The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.

ARGUMENT
.The court acquires jurisdiction over controversies. Until a controversy is properly brought before a court the court wants jurisdiction to grant any relief sought by a party until a cause of action is properly brought before the court by a moving party.
.The Petitioner has the inherent right to complete and total disclosure as to the nature and cause of any action wherein the Petitioner is called upon to make a response.  This right is protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America. Without such complete and total disclosure of the nature and cause of the action, it is impossible for the Petitioner to meaningfully respond to, traverse to, or defend against any accusation(s) made, or process issued or caused to be issued by the Respondent.
.The issues regarding the Nature and Cause of "The Respondent's Action" go to Parties in interest, venue, jurisdiction, stating the right of action and the cause of action. All issues arising under CR 12 (b).
.The courts have held time and again that a responding party has the right, protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America to disclosure by the moving party, of the jurisdiction claimed by the moving party, and that the burden to prove that the moving party has jurisdiction is upon the moving party.
.The Respondent, by and through the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent», asserted that "The Respondent's Action"  is brought under the venue jurisdiction of the Federal United Sates by making the Respondent's DECLARATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE under declaration of penalty of perjury.  Under Public Law 94-550, § 1(a), October 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534 codified under Title 28 U.S.C. §1746(2) documents executed within the Federal United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths be made under the "penalty of perjury".  This declaration of the Respondent by and through the Respondent's «Respondent_Agent» gives rise to the possibility that the "Respondent's Action" in the «R_Court» is in reality a Federal action.  The courts have held that the judicial department of the United States does not have municipal jurisdiction within the Republics of the Union.
.The issue of venue is further obscured by the fact that the WSL 1955 c 88 § 1 codified in RCW 1.20.015 requires to wit:
.The flag of the United States and the flag of the state shall be prominently installed, displayed and maintained in schools, court rooms and state buildings.

.The Appearance of the Flag of the United States of America is described in PL PL July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 642 codified in Title 4 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 and the official flag of the state of Washington is described in WSL 1967 ex. S c 65 § 2 codified in RCW 1.20.010.
.The private copyrighted United States Code Annotated Title 4 section 1 Notes of Decisions note 1 states to wit:
Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matter of detail not controlled by statue, but within the desecration of the President as commander-in-chief of the army and navy.  1925, 34 Op. Atty. Gen. 483.

The flag fringed displayed in «R_Court» appeared to be the flag of the President of the United States of America as commander-in-chief of the army and navy.
This would appear to make the «R_Court» a military tribunal with limited jurisdiction under the authority of the Federal Government.
.Without disclosure of the Nature and Cause of "The Respondent's Action", the Petitioner is without specific, necessary and imperative information to formulate a response to "The Respondent's Action".
.Without an answer to the Petitioners demand for a Bill of Particulars to determine the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" from the Respondent or Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» thereto, the Petitioner can only presume to know controversy, if any, between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding "The Respondent's Action". Presumptions do not lead to due process of law.
.This Right and cause of action for this Petition is pursuant to Petitioner's unalienable rights endowed to the Petitioner by Nature's laws and Nature's God, as recognized by the Bill of Rights in the «P_STATE» Constitution (without the legislative jurisdiction) and by the Bill of Rights as Amended to the Constitution for the united States of America, 1791 (without the legislative jurisdiction) to be informed of the Nature and Cause of "The Respondent's Action".
.The Petitioner is aware that an order to file a bill of Particulars may be issued by Motion pursuant to Cr 12 (e), F.R.C.P. 12(e), CrR 2.1(c) and Federal Criminal Rule 7(f).
.«R_Court» pursuant to the duty and obligation imposed by the written oath of office to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the State of Washington, is required to prevent or correct any act or omission that would violate any right of a party protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
.«R_Court» has the authority sua sponte, on it's own motion, under Washington State CR 12(e) and F.R.C.P. 12(e) if civil and CrR 2(c); and Federal Criminal Rule. 7(f); if criminal and the Administrative Procedures act as applicable, to insure the Petitioner's right to disclosure of the nature and cause of the "The Respondent's Action" by ordering the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» to answer the Petitioner's demand for a Bill of Particulars to determine the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action".
.Washington State Constitution Article 4 § 11 provides that the Superior Courts of Washington are to be courts of record and Washington Session Laws 1890 p 323 §10 codified in RCW 2.04.020 provides that the general powers of the courts of record are to be applied according to rules and principals of COMMON LAW, and the Constitution and laws of this state.  Washington Session Law 1941 c 82 § codified in RCW 5.24.010 provides "Judicial Notice of Constitution and Laws; Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the Constitution, common law, civil law, and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States."
.The Presiding Judicial Officer of «R_Court», Judicial officer or as a Pro Tempore Judicial Officer is mandated by Article 4 §7 the Constitution of Washington and Washington Session Law 1987 c 73 §1; codified in RCW 2.08.180, prior to assuming judicial jurisdiction over a proceeding to first must secure written authorization from the parties, or their attorneys of record approved by the court and sworn to try the case.  Said pro Tempore Judicial Officer must sign and file the written oath of office prescribed in to the case Washington Session Law 1987 c 73 §1; codified in RCW 2.08.180, prior to issuing any orders regarding the issues before the presiding judicial officer. To date there is no record in evidence in the record of this case that the Presiding Pro Tempore Judicial Officer has complied with the mandates of the Constitution and Laws of Washington regarding the prerequisites of a Pro Tempore Judicial Officer.
.The Presiding Judicial Officer, by compelling the Petitioner to participate in "The Respondent's Action" by moving "The Respondent's Action" forward, without requiring The Respondent to disclose the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" to the Petitioner by answering the Petitioner's Demand, deprives the Petitioner of due process and equal protection of the law protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as the State of «STATUTORY_STATE».
.The duties of the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» to prosecute "The Respondent's Action" also require the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» to prosecute "The Respondent's Action" with honesty, integrity, fair play, due process of law and equal protection of the Law. 
.The Respondent is not entitled to deny the Petitioner of inherent rights protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America which include but not limited to the right to know the nature and cause of the proceedings.
.The Respondent nor the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» are not entitled to deny the Petitioner of the right to dilatory pleas and pleas in bar nor the Petitioner's right to affirmative defenses and counterclaims that can only be entered upon actual controversy created by the Respondent's answer to the Petitioner's Demand for a Bill of Particulars to determine the Nature and cause of the "The Respondent's Action".
.«R_Court» by compelling the Petitioner to participate in "The Respondent's Action" without disclosure of the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" created a prejudice against the Petitioner in "The Respondent's Action", denying the Petitioner the Petitioner's remedies and defenses therein.
.The presiding judicial officer in moving the "Respondent's Action" forward without requiring the Respondent to disclose to the Petitioner the nature and cause of the "Respondent's Action" by entering a plea of not guilty presumable for the named Respondent to the "Respondent's Action" denied the Petitioner the specific information to initiate any of the pre plea remedies available to the Petitioner under the law, thus further violating the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law.
.The duty and obligation imposed by the oath of office required of all public officials including the Presiding Judicial Officer of «R_Court» regarding "The Respondent's Action", establishes a constructive trust with the Presiding Judicial Officer, the Respondent and the Respondent's, principals, agents, successors and assigns as the trustees and Petitioner's liberties and rights as the beneficiary of that constructive trust.
.Under title as a trustee to the constructive trust the Presiding Judicial Officer, the Respondent's and appointed counsel for the named Respondent have a fiduciary duty to protect the rights of the Beneficiary-Petitioner with regard to "The Respondent's Action". 
.«R_Court» in moving "The Respondent's Action" forward without first requiring the Respondent to disclose the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" by answering the to Petitioner's Demand for a Bill of Particulars to determine the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action", is a breach of that fiduciary duty.
.Petitioner was deprived of the ability to obtain a remedy in "The Respondent's Action" upon the Respondent's pleadings.
.The Petitioner, without the Respondent providing the answers to questions set forth on the nature and cause of any and all proceedings in "The Respondent's Action" was deprived of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the law.
.As the Petitioner has yet to file any response, motion, traverse, or any other pleading regarding "The Respondent's Action", the «R_Court» did not acquire jurisdiction over the parties a violation of F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) lack of jurisdiction over the parties.
.The Respondent did not lawfully join the Petitioner to "The Respondent's Action", a violation of F.R.C.P. 12(b)(7) and 19.
.The «R_Court» in moving forward with "The Respondent's Action" knowing that the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" had yet to be disclosed to the Petitioner was a clear act of bad faith on the part of both the «R_Court» and the Respondent.
.This act of bad faith results in compelling the Petitioner to participate in "The Respondent's Action" without disclosure of the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" a violation of the Petitioner's inherent right of Due Process with regard to full disclosure of the nature and cause of any action against or purported to be against the Petitioner.
33.The Respondent through the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» is acting under malice and wanton disregard for rights of the Petitioner in a known and willful violations of the Respondents fiduciary duty. The Respondent is acting in concert with other parties to deny the Petitioner of the Petitioner's unalienable rights in violation of 1971, ch 22, § 2, 17 Stat. 13; codified in Title 42 United States Code (hereinafter USC) 1985.
34.The Respondent and the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» has knowledge of said violations under 1971, ch. 22, §6, 17 Stat. 115; codified in Title 42 USC 1986 and the Respondent and the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» has failed to correct the Respondent's acts and actions as they relate to Petitioner herein.
35.The Right of Action is breach of fiduciary duty by the Respondent and the Respondent's agents «Respondent_Agent», and the cause of action is the Respondent and the Respondent's Agent «Respondent_Agent» failure to provide due process of law and equal protection of the law by compelling "The Respondent's Action" upon the Petitioner without the Petitioner's consent and by the Respondent's failure to respond to the Petitioner's Demand for a Bill of Particulars to determine the nature and cause of "The Respondent's Action" or to discharge the Petitioner from "The Respondent's Action".
.Any ruling by any court where jurisdiction is clearly wanting is void and without force or affect. It is the duty of the court to prevent or correct any act or omission which would result in a violation of the Petitioner's inherent right of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law.
IX. CONCLUSION
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF habeas CORPUS
In view of Respondent's and the Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent» actual threatened enforcement of the "Respondent's action" under cause no. «R_Cause_No» filed in «R_Court», to restrain the Petitioner, and Petitioners contention that the Respondent has not disclosed to the Petitioner the nature and cause, the legality or by what authority the Respondent's places the Petitioner under the Restraint of the Respondent and that the enforcement of the Respondent's action and restraint of the Petitioner is null and void as the Petitioner is not a real party in interest in the Respondent's action, there is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this court. A Writ of Habeas Corpus will adjudicate the rights of the parties.

Relief Requested
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that:
A) The «Court» immediately issue a writ of habeas corpus directed to Respondent, through Respondent's agent «Respondent_Agent», commanding the Respondent to appear with the Petitioner, to produce documentary proof to establish the authority, jurisdiction and legality of Petitioner's restraint. That the Respondent disclose the Nature and Cause of the Respondent's action, meaning the parties in interest, venue of the «R_Court», jurisdiction of the «R_Court» and the Respondent's controversy, the Respondent's right of action and the Respondent's cause of action meaning the injured party, as it pertains to the Petitioner, filed in «R_Court» under cause no. «R_Cause_No» by answering all questions attached to the writ of habeas corpus.
B) In the alternative, that the «Court» issue and order to release and discharge Petitioner from the restraint of the Respondent, and,
that the «Court» issue and order to release and discharge Petitioner from the restraint of the Respondent action filed in «R_Court» under cause no. «Cause_No» and/or custody.

I, «Petitioner», affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the forgoing is true correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

_____________________________________________
«Petitioner», Petitioner

Then appeared before me «Petitioner», who did affirm and subscribe hereto on this the __________ day of the __________ month of 1997, that the forgoing document as a free act and deed.

_________________________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC                                   Commission Expires ____________