- RCW 9A.04.080(1)(i) No misdemeanor may be prosecuted more than one year after its commission.

Please refer to attached Criminal Complaints, dates charged. – "Between the 5th day of September 2003 and the 14th day of January 2005.", dated March 18th, 2005.

The application of this statute is absolute:

State v. Eppens, 30 Wn. App. 119, 633 P.2d 92 (1981).

[2] Limitation of Actions - Criminal Statutes of Limitation - Nature. A statute of limitation for a criminal offense creates an absolute bar to prosecution.

The operation of the statute of limitations also absolutely deprives the courts of this state

and the prosecutor of jurisdiction to prosecute me, impose any sanction whatever, or to penalize or imprison me by any related means:

- State v. Glover, 25 Wn. App. 58, 604 P.2d 1015 (1979).

[2] Limitation of Actions - Criminal Statutes of Limitation - Nature. A statute of limitation for a criminal offense is jurisdictional in that it limits the power of the State to act against the accused.

So the question before the court becomes why are we here, why have I been maliciously prosecuted for the past three to four years, why did the District Court fail and refuse to obey the black letter law upon repeated notice and proper application for dismissal with prejudice from the outset, and why is lawful relief so late in coming?

Now, the various versions of Criminal Complaints provided, with the record, show the state knew this from the outset, and amended the complaint unlawfully four separate times in writing, and amended it five times if you count the legal ambush used to obtain the conviction – the non-existent alleged amendment at trial, all of which amendments are patently unlawful, null and void. Our state supreme court and appellate stare decisis on this is again absolute and not subject to interpretation by the lower courts. The Relation Back Doctrine as applied has been cast in stone for many decades:

State v. Bryce, 41 Wn. App. 802, 707 P.2d 694 (1985)

[3] Indictment and Information - Timeliness - Amendment. An indictment or information which charges a crime after the expiration of the statute of limitation is void and not subject to amendment.

And again, in precisely on point application to my case in the issue before the court:

State v. Glover, 25 Wn. App. 58, 604 P.2d 1015 (1979).

[1] Indictment and Information - Timeliness – Amendment - Relation Back. An information that is not timely filed is not subject to amendment. Even if the amended version of the information would have been timely when the original faulty information was filed, there is nothing to which the amendment may "relate back."

It is not subject to amendment and must be dismissed. State v. Bates, 52 Wn.2d 207, 324 P.2d 810 (1958); State ex rel. Clark v. Hogan, 49 Wn.2d 457, 303 P.2d 290 (1956)

This, then, has been the standing clear and unambiguous application of the statute for well over 50 years, and renders every abuse of law and my protected rights which I have endured to date in this matter patently illegal. As such, not just the District Court, but this court, lacks jurisdiction for any other or further acts than immediate reversal in dismissal with prejudice, and appropriate post-judgment relief. The instructions of our high courts to the lower courts are again absolute, and not subject to interpretation:

in Deschenes v. King County, 83 Wn.2d 714, 521 P.2d 1181 (1974).

[1] Courts-Jurisdiction-In General.

In the absence of jurisdiction over a matter, a court is empowered only to order it dismissed.

The rule is well known and universally respected that a court lacking jurisdiction of any matter may do nothing other than enter an order of dismissal. 21 C.J.S.Courts SS 118 (1940).

Here again, these universal mandates of our highest courts have stood the tests of generations, so I respectfully request this Court take mandatory judicial notice under ER 201(d) that we are not dealing solely with manifest reversible error, but abuse of discretion by the District Court; As set forth instructively and plainly at:

State v. Gore 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984)

3.Courts - Stare Decisis - Supreme Court Decision - Effect.

The decision of the Supreme Court on an issue of state law is binding on all lower courts.

So on the statute of limitations issue alone, there exists no conceivable wiggle room or life support for this ongoing malicious prosecution or these manifold constitutional deprivations.


The subject conviction is also a legal nullity and logical absurdity on other criminal complaint related grounds, because absolutely no Criminal Complaint exists as a matter of law to validate or record the charges upon which I was supposedly convicted after the Complaint was allegedly orally amended after the state’s witnesses had testified at what passed for trial. My Exhibit number 75 is the record of proceedings of that alleged and unlawful substantive amendment, deleting a highly prejudicial element very directly violating the statute of limitations I had just been tried for in living color, but distinctly not adding any of the new elements the prosecution moved for, which I was tried upon absent notice and opportunity to defend, and which was then unlawfully submitted to the jury as a "to convict" instruction.

The record proves this phantom amendment over my timely objection and prior challenges was never written, signed, filed of record or served pursuant to the governing procedural law at CrRLJ 2.1(a) (1), (2), (3), and (4). The seminal stare decisis requires reversal and dismissal with prejudice for these essential elements violations of my constitutional rights.

State v. Carr, 97 Wn.2d 436, 645 P.2d 1098 (1982) upholds the applicable rule as follows:

"Under Const. art. 1, SS 22 (amend. 10), a defendant must receive a written copy of the

complaint showing the changes when the complaint is amended."

This is our state supreme court mandate, and is again binding upon all lower courts. Judge Rosellini stated why on the record there, and I quote:

"The practice of orally charging a person with a crime, unknown in the law of all civilized nations and departs from all known due process, contrary to Const. art. 1, SS 3.

Article 1, section 22, provides that, in a criminal prosecution, an accused has the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and "*to have a copy thereof*".

The criminal complaint just doesn’t exist, and neither does the alleged conviction, as a matter of law.

Quoting now from Washington Criminal Practice, Section 4.02:

"A challenge brought prior to trial or after the case in chief, but before the verdict, is decided under the more strict standard, and no showing of prejudice is required,

State v. Chaten, 925 P 2d 631(1996).

In State v. Leach, 113 Wn 2d, 679, 687, (1989), our State Supreme Court held that the essential elements rule applies to misdemeanors initiated by complaint.

If a charging document is challenged prior to verdict, the charging language must be strictly construed, State v. Johnson, 119 Wn. 2d 143, 1992." unquote.

Quoting now from State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 745 P.2d 854 (1987), "[1] Indictment and Information - Amendment

[1] Amending a criminal charge after the State has presented its case in chief violates the defendant's right under Const. art. 1, SS 22 (amend. 10) to be informed of the

charge against him unless the new charge is a lesser included offense or a lesser degree of the original charge.

[2] Criminal Law - Lesser Included Offense - What Constitutes - In General.

A lesser offense is included within a greater offense if each element of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the greater offense.

Well, it is plainly prohibited manifest reversible error, but they think they did amend.

As clearly, the phantom oral amendment at trial upon which I was supposedly convicted is not within the categorical definition of any "lesser offense", and is certainly not a "lesser degree of the original charge." More fatal error requiring reversal.

Now even if the specious argument were to be advanced that the written Third Amended Complaint fulfills any requirement whatever of law, that version specifically charges activities they openly admit, in their alleged oral amendment at trial, occurred in 2003, that was after, of course, they had thoroughly confused and prejudiced the jury by trying me for those time-barred activities, and we are back to the fact of law that Complaint was and is DOA by at least a half dozen fatal direct applications of legal mandate, and never can or could be amended, which of course applies even more so to this oral phantom final version we are now laying to rest; which, with any and all Complaint versions violate the Statute of Limitations with the Relation Back Doctrine as applied; requiring reversal and dismissal with prejudice, as the mandates of the State Supreme and United States Supreme Courts upholding the clear and unambiguous intent of the Legislature, require.


You also have proofs to evidentiary standards before you, your honor, that after this phantom final amendment of the complaint, the District Court proceeded to directly contradict its own prior rulings defining the elements of the crimes charged which I relied upon in good faith to prepare a defense, and again violated every applicable rule of law, by submitting a "to convict" instruction to the jury adding an element of the crime of "illegal wetlands activity" which I was never charged with, was denied all opportunity to defend against, and appears in no version whatever of the non-existent criminal complaints. That instruction, attached to the motion, further completely contradicts the district court’s own ruling on what are and are not elements of the alleged crime, with the ruling provided that each and all of those elements must be proved to obtain a conviction, and is deliberately designed by the prosecution to subvert that principle of law by confusing the jury. With the aim of obtaining a conviction by any and all means necessary, they accomplished exactly what our state supreme court very directly prohibited them from ever doing in:

State v. Delmarter, 68 Wn. App. 770, 845 P.2d 1340 (1993). Quote, in pertinent part:

[3] Criminal Law-Instructions - Validity - Due Process. With respect to the giving of an instruction.., due process prohibits (2) the shifting of the State's burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the judge from inviting the jury to find an element of the crime arbitrarily or irrationally.

Our state court was upholding established doctrine of our United States Supreme Court there in Sandstrom v. Montana and the other authorities I have provided, which mandate reversal for precisely such errors of constitutional magnitude. Once again, these are binding commands upon all lower courts, and not suggestions, showing clear abuse of discretion by the district court.

I have also cited and quoted State v. Mayes, 579 P. 2d 999, (1979), wherein our State Supreme Court instructed the lower courts that a conviction is invalid and must be reversed whenever it was obtained by the use of just such an unconstitutional jury instruction.


The Constitution for the State of Washington, at Article IV, Judiciary, Section 6, Superior Courts, cannot command more clearly that the Superior Court has original jurisdiction in all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real property, and the proofs are before the court that this case involves both, with that the district court failed to obey this constitutional mandate upon timely notice.

Attached to the motion are the proofs the plaintiff has unlawfully slandered, clouded and encumbered my covenants, deed rights of record, and title by recorded deed instrument, invented absent any underlying authorization of law; designed for the express purpose of coercing and extorting my contractual consent to taking absent all required compensation; and continuing the ongoing constructive seizure of my private property. Also provided is the fraudulent and fabricated Report of Planning and Mr. Rose, provided at the behest of the district court, stating the intent of vandalizing and destroying historic appurtenances, covenants and deed rights of record, rights of quiet use and enjoyment, economic liberties, and all related constitutional protections, then sending me the bill, in stark violation of the absolute statutory legislative limitations and prescribed punishments or penalties for my alleged, non-existent crime.

If that is not title and possession of real property at issue, then up is down.

No matter they had notice that Pierce County Code 18A.05.030(1) completely exempts my deed covenants of record from their activities, because it must to avert direct subversion of our Constitution. Inconsequential that they were provided proofs all such covenants are, in long-standing historic and present legal definition, contractually binding deed rights upon all agencies of government, unless lawfully sold or extinguished.

Quoting from In re Hendrickson, 12 Wn.2d 600, 606, 123 P.2d 322 , standing since (1942): The essential elements of the constitutional guaranty of due process, in its procedural aspect, are notice and an opportunity to be heard or defend before a competent tribunal in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case.

It is well settled in our law that a competent tribunal is one having jurisdiction, and our Constitution stating plainly the district courts do not, here is proof again I have been denied constitutional due process of law, which is error requiring reversal of the conviction on yet another count. My property has been constructively seized by these people repeatedly since September 2003, absent timely invoked due process of law, absent timely invoked proper hearing before a competent tribunal, and absent any authorization of law for that seizure.

I have cited Everett v. Slade, 515 P. 2d 1295, (1973, because I have been deprived of significant property rights without due process. I have cited Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67, (1983, because our United States Supreme Court does not condone what has befallen me in denial of due process.

Quoting State v. Seattle Taxicab, 90 Wash 416, standing since 1916:

"Broadly speaking, purpose of due process of law is to protect individual against arbitrary action on part of state, that is, to secure citizen against any arbitrary deprivation of his rights relating to his life, liberty, or property"

I submit the proofs are before this court that I have been arbitrarily deprived of my rights, my property, my liberty, and a goodly portion of my life absent due process of law; all completely absent jurisdiction for the proofs with authorities I have advanced here, and that reversal and dismissal with prejudice is the only lawful course.


Trusting you have fully reviewed the conclusive evidence provided with my motion in my Memorandum , your honor, I will spare you the litany of abuses of law, process, and my rights I have suffered at the hands of the district court for having come to answer this thing with the reasonable expectation that judges must obey and uphold the law as written. I believe the fact the superior court of this county has already ruled that judge abused his discretionary powers and has already reversed the majority of his accusations and judgments against me speaks volumes. I believe the facts of his denial of all right of appeal, denial of the right to counsel, and denial of mandatory hearing prior to arrest, with the attempt to fix the record of those abuses long after the fact speak for themselves. I hold a $100,000 bail imposed ex parte, modified from $100, for a victimless misdemeanor is literally unheard of, let alone a second $100,000 bail imposed in a covert direct attempt to thwart and countermand the order of the Superior Court requiring my release, on the very date that release was ordered. The record provided speaks loudly and definitively to the proofs of prejudice and bias, the seminal test set forth for reversal on these grounds in State v. Ladenburg,67 Wn. App. 749, 754-55, 840 P.2d 228 (1992) is met; I have cited STATE EX REL. McFERRAN v. STARR. 32 Wn.2d 550, 1949, as seminal authority showing trial before a biased and prejudiced judge is indeed a denial of constitutional due process under both our state and federal constitutions, requiring reversal.



There you have the substance of my Motion For Relief From Judgment, your honor.

They have violated the statute of limitations and there is no lawful way these charges or the conviction can stand. None. There is no valid complaint against me, there is no public offense I have committed, and there is no jurisdiction to charge me with any offense. None. There is jurisdiction and empowerment of the courts only to order it dismissed with prejudice, if law is honor. I have proved the abuses I have suffered for standing on my fundamental rights are required by law to end here today, without further ordeal and expense. I submit that four years of my life living under dire threats, the loss of my livelihood, my life savings, my very liberty, and the consequent hardship upon my wife and family, is quite enough to pay for having mistakenly assumed that the law applies equally to our government servants, and that their oaths are binding; or that I could lawfully grow some more food for my family on my own land without their permission.

Thank you your honor.