COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION III
Case Number 304060
LAWRENCE CRONIN
VIRGINIA CRONIN
RICHARD HANSON
MICHAEL WALTERS
DOUGLAS TURNER,
Appellants
v.
SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE, WA
Respondents
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
_______________________________________________________________________
Petitioners: Cronin, Cronin, Hanson, Walters and Turner
Address: 6716 E. Big Meadows Rd., Chattaroy, WA 99003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Opening Statement
1
Supplement to the Assignment of Error, Issue Number 2
1
Supplemental Arguments related to the Constitution:
1-9
A. There are now two sets of laws which exist in this country,
affecting, unequally, all human beings and persons within
the United States. Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Police have more power than the courts in defining who the
laws of our country apply to. Article III.
Summary
9-12
Prayer for Relief
12
Signature Page
13
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Table of Cases
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
347 U. S. 483 (1954)
Carranza and Sanchez v.United States, Supreme Court of the
State of Utah, UT 80, (December 20, 2011)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Pages
3,4,9,11
2,9
3,4,9,10,11
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1857) Dred Scott
vs. Sandford, Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the
Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law,
Kurland and Casper, Volume 3, BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF,
1855, M. Blair, Attorney, University Publications of America,
(1978)
4,6,11
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1857)
11,12
Table of Cases
Pages
Hamilton v. Scott, # 1100192, Supreme Court of Alabama
(February 17, 2012)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Roe v.Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
United States v. The Amistad
40 U.S. 518 (1841)
2,9
3
1,3,6,8,11,12
6,9,11
Constitutional Provisions
Declaration of Independence
10
United States Constitution, Article III
1,7
United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
United States Constitution, Ninth and Tenth Amendments
1,3,10
5,9
Statutes
RCW’s 7.16.160 and 7.16.210
11
Other Authority
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, 4,5
Volume III, “The Justice Case”, October 1946-April 1949,
United States Government Printing Office, 1951. Available at:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_VolIII.pdf, last visited April 27, 2012.
Supplemental Brief
Opening Statement
We are filing this Supplemental Brief on the basis of two additional legal
points which we argue herein. As no oral arguments are being
scheduled, we thank the Court for hearing our arguments in this Brief.
Supplement to the Assignment of Error, Issue Number 2: The Court
erred in deciding that it does not have a basis under Washington Law to
issue the Writ requested. The Court does have a basis under Washington
State Laws and Federal Laws to issue the Writ.
Supplemental Statements and Arguments
C. There are now two sets of laws which exist in this country, affecting,
unequally, all human beings and persons within the United States.
D. The Police have more power than the courts in defining who the laws
of our country apply to.
“A” violates the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. “B” violates
Article III of the Constitution. Both violate State and Federal Supreme
Court rulings discussed here and in our Appeal and briefs. The Spokane
Police Department is in violation of the Constitution as these arguments
apply to them to their duties. U. S. Constitution, Article III, Fourteenth
Amendment
This case involves a decision by the United States Supreme Court,
Roe v.Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which affects the people of this
state. The Supreme Court made a decision not to decide who
human beings and persons are, although they clearly could have
done so. We know this because they discussed the point of not making
a decision in the case itself. They also acknowledged that if a decision
were to be made that human beings and persons existed from conception,
then the Fourteenth Amendment would clearly prohibit abortion.
Appeal 2. In this written opinion, they gave this Court or any other court
the right to decide this fact. Two other courts have in fact decided this—
the Utah and Alabama Supreme Courts. They have each ruled that legal
persons exist from conception until death. Carranza and Sanchez v.United
States, Supreme Court of the State of Utah, 2011 UT 80, (Dec. 2011) and,
Hamilton v. Scott, Supreme Court of Alabama, # 1100192 (Feb. 2012).
A. We have cited the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court in our
Reply to Brief of Police/City. We understand their ruling to mean that
there are in legal fact, two sets of laws for human beings: those that are
born and those that are not born. “Although some states never permit
recovery for the wrongful death of a pre-viable child, 6 other states
permit recovery if the pre-viable child is born alive and later dies. The
most significant shift away from the viability standard, however, has
been in the law of fetal homicide. At least 38 states have enacted fetalhomicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.
These developments in Alabama match a larger pattern: currently, at
least nine other states permit recovery for the wrongful death of pre-
viable unborn children, five by judicial construction (Missouri,
Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, and West Virginia), and four by statute
(Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Texas). Georgia and Mississippi
permit recovery of damages for the wrongful death of a "quick" previable unborn child.” Hamilton v. Scott, Supreme Court of Alabama,
#1100192, (pgs. 23-26)
As Roe v. Wade did not legally define a “person” either before or after
birth, these laws, covering many different states, show that we now have
two legal systems: one for those who are born and one for those who are
not. We can find no Constitutional language which allows for two sets
of laws for the “People”. And we argue that two sets of laws for two
classes of people 1) born and, 2) conceived--but unborn, constitutes a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth
Amendment. The Police are in violation of the Constitution by utilizing
two sets of laws in carrying out their legal duties.
These two sets of laws can also be described as a system of “separate but
equal”. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). As we have argued, the
Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and Cooper v. Aaron found
“separate but equal” to be illegal, as this violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) and
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
We have also cited the Dred Scott decision in our briefs. In the oral
argument before the Supreme Court, Montgomery Blair, Dred Scott’s
attorney argued, in a similar way, for the equal rights of slaves as
“citizens” before proposed “Tribunals”, which would decide disputes
between citizens. “Indeed no reason can be argued for or against its
[Tribunals] application to one class, which are not equally applicable to
the other.” Blair was arguing the same point that the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of, in Brown and Cooper, i.e., rejecting “separate but
equal”. This argument was defeated, as Dred Scott was denied legal
status as a “CITIZEN”. Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1857),
Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United
States: Constitutional Law, Kurland and Casper, Volume 3, BRIEF OF
PLAINTIFF, 1855, M. Blair, Attorney, Pg. 172, University Publications
of America, 1978.
The U.S. Government rejected this legal logic of two sets of laws for
equal people and “separate but equal”, in one of the most profound and
meaningful set of legal decisions ever undertaken, the Nuremberg Trials.
The following political philosophy governing the State (courts, police),
was rejected by the United States and other members of the Tribunal, “It
is not contradictory to justice if criminal jurisdiction for Poles is different
from the German criminal Jurisdiction. Even if one people within a state
can be subject to one [system of] law only, it is yet quite possible that for
another nationality within the same state another [system of] law is
applicable….There is nothing contrary to justice if the one criminal law
in its general aspect is milder, the other, viewed as a whole is severer.”
The German Criminal Code for Poles. This article was published in the
periodical "German Justice, Administration of Justice and Judicial
Policy," 104th year, Edition A, Number 2. Berlin, 9 January 1942, (p. 26
ff.). Freisler, State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice, member of
the Presidency of the Academy for German Law. From the” Nuernberg
Trials, 1946-1949.” documenting laws and legal rationale that justified
World War II “crimes against humanity”. Pg. 637. “The intent was to
provide that compliance with German law should be no defense.”pg.
972-973. U.S.Government Printing Office, 1951. Available at:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_VolIII.pdf, last visited April 27, 2012.
The situations that both the Alabama Supreme Court and Brown/Cooper
document: two systems of laws for individuals and “separate but equal”,
violate established International Law, which the United States
government has supported, defined and enforced, based in part upon our
own Constitution.
Nuernberg Trials,1946-1949, Ibid. See “Opinion and Judgment”, the
political and moral basis for the Nuremberg Trials, pgs. 954-1010.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_VolIII.pdf, last visited April 27, 2012.
B. We have argued that the Spokane Police, as a government entity, do not
have the authority or discretion to decide who a human being and person
is, yet they are in fact doing so. We argue that we, the People, do have
the authority to define that a human being and person exists from
conception, as no governmental entity has restricted the People’s rights
to define human beings and persons as such, i.e., who they, the “people”
themselves are, legally. U. S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment and Tenth
Amendments. Roger Baldwin and John Q. Adams argued the same legal
point in the case of the Amistad, as previously discussed in our briefs. In
Dred Scott, the same argument is made by Montgomery Blair, Dred
Scott’s attorney, “It is however wholly unnecessary for the plaintiff to
show affirmatively, by statute or decision, that the policy of Missouri
favored his cause. It is for the defendant to show some act of the State
which negates the presumption that the law under which he claims to be
free is repugnant to the policy and prejudicial to the interests of the State.
Nothing short of such evidence is admissible for that purpose, according
to the requirements of this court.” Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Landmark
Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Constitutional Law, Kurland and Casper, Volume 3, , BRIEF OF
PLAINTIFF, 1855, M. Blair, Attorney, Pg. 203, University Publications
of America, 1978.
There is no statute or “evidence” in Washington Law or Federal Law
which states that human beings and persons are defined as legally so
only from a specific point in time, even after birth. We argue that human
beings and persons are therefore, in legal fact, protected from conception
until death by the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court in Roe
itself acknowledged might be done. Appeal 2.
The laws of the State of Washington prohibit homicide. Within the
homicide laws they also prohibit manslaughter, which specifically
prohibits behavior which may endanger human lives by any of its
citizens. The Police are sworn to uphold these laws. They must also
abide by these laws themselves. CP 26-28.
Based on the above discussion, the following must be true:
If this court decides in favor of the Police, then the Police are being
given the power to support individual men and women in the taking of
human lives, which either are present from conception, or may be
present. In either case, these behaviors are in violation of the homicide
and manslaughter laws of this state, as argued in our Petition and briefs.
If the court decides in favor of the Police, then this court is legally
granting the Police more power and authority than the courts themselves
possess. With such a decision, the Police can continue to define who a
human being and person is, something the courts themselves have not
done. We argue that this is a violation of the Constitution for two
reasons. First, the Judiciary, as one of the three branches of government,
must retain more power than the Police in our society. The Police can
never have equal power and authority with the Judiciary, the President or
Congress. Second, the Judiciary alone, not the Police, has been given the
power and authority to interpret the Constitution, including the word
“person” as used in the Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Article III.
The Supreme Court, by not deciding who a person is, while allowing for
the possibility of human beings to exist since conception, placed the
Police, all courts, and this country in a terrible Catch-22. If people and
persons might exist, as the Supreme Court allows for in Roe v. Wade,
then the Police cannot countenance, support, or sit idly by, when
individuals might be killing other individuals. This is expressly
forbidden in the homicide and manslaughter laws of Washington State.
CP 4-8, 25-28. We also argue that the Court may be implicated in the
violation of these laws, by granting the Police the authority to violate the
laws of the land, in supporting the possible taking of human life. Both
government agencies then, the Police and the Courts, would be violating
the very laws that they have sworn to uphold under the State Constitution
and the Constitution of the United States. We say this with all due
respect to both the Police and the Court. The Supreme Court’s Catch-22
can be resolved. This Court has the power to send this issue to the
people for a jury trial on the question of fact, or to make its own decision
on the question. Roe and other Supreme Court cases grant this, as we
have previously argued.
We realize that it may not be possible to argue our case based upon our
deepest held beliefs, respect and understanding of the Declaration and
the U.S. Constitution, without also seeming to be provocative. We seek
in the end, not to provoke, but to win over the Court and the Police also,
with rational and legal arguments. We have the courage to argue these
points before this Court because we have been encouraged to do so by
the Founders who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution. We are encouraged by the Supreme Courts’ words and
rulings in Amistad, Brown v. Board of Education and Cooper which
upheld Brown and also the recent rulings of two other state Supreme
Courts, Utah and Alabama. Reply to Brief of Police/City, pgs. 6-8.
Summary
The Police and the City of Spokane have not, in all of their briefs,
refuted our arguments on our major legal points, including whether or
not they want the Court to look into the facts and decide who a human
being or person is. It is this question of fact that has not been defined in
the law.
There are before this Court two definitions of who a human being and
who a person is. The Police define, legally, that human beings and
persons do not exist from conception until death. Their actions are based
on this, which is not supported in any law or case, State or Federal. If
they are not so defining persons, then they are in violation of the
homicide/manslaughter laws, as we have argued. The Petitioners argue
that human beings and persons do exist from conception until death, an
argument that is supported in the law. U. S. Constitution, Ninth and
Tenth Amendments. It is a question of fact that has not been decided by
any of the three branches of our government. This question of fact must
be looked into and decided by this Court in order for justice to prevail in
regards to the Court’s interpretation of both the homicide and the
abortion laws. This question can be decided in the Police’s favor, in our
favor, or the question can be sent to a jury, who may decide.
It is the duty of this Court to interpret the abortion and homicide laws of
this state, but at this place and at this point in time the question that we
face is far greater than that. This Court must also interpret the meaning
of the words of the Constitution of this State and the Constitution of the
United States, “to say what the law is.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1
(1958) quoting Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
137, 177; Reply to Brief of Police/City, pg. 4.
The fifty state legislatures, the fifty state governors, the President of the
United States and Congress, are not empowered to do this. Only the
Courts of this country are so empowered. The Constitution of our
country starts with these three words, “We the People”. Everything
follows from these three words. The Declaration of Independence and
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution declare that “…all men
are created equal.”
Our country, both practically and in a political-philosophical way,
requires a decision on this question of fact.
From a practical perspective, over 50 million real and alive children have
been killed--eliminated in this republic since 1973, the most admired and
powerful nation on earth. How can “We the People” exist if this is so?
Philosophically and politically, a nation which refuses to define
themselves, the “people”-- who human beings, “men” and “persons” are,
must necessarily abandon all hope of knowing who the laws and rights of
man apply to. The Founders used the word “men”, and “We the People”,
which is plural of another word that the Constitutional Law is founded
upon, “person”. It is up to the Courts to interpret the meaning of these
words, or to allow our country to forever remain in darkness as to who
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States apply to.
If this Court does not decide or does not send this question of fact to a
jury, as has been done in similar cases, such as Amistad, Dred Scott,
Brown, and Cooper, then we argue that the Court is not performing its
duties as defined in the U.S. Constitution, case law and RCW’s 7.16.160
and 7.16.210. Our rights as Petitioners under the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments will have been violated if this Court does not resolve this
question of fact. Our rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the
rights of all conceived human beings and persons will have been
violated. We have argued these points; we have quoted the legal wisdom
of other judges and attorneys who recognized the power that they had
been given. The precedents have already been set…..Will the Court find
the truth and provide justice by reviewing Roe v. Wade and not deciding
the fact--who is a human being, who is a person?
We have argued that the truth and provision of justice lies in the words
of Roe itself and other Supreme Court rulings that set the precedent of
“looking into the facts”. Will this court allow the Police to continue to
assume more power in our society than the courts themselves, by
defining who a human being and person is, without legal authority? Our
appeal is to this Court to discover the truth and provide justice.
Justice Curtis, one of only two dissenting Justices in Dred Scott said, “If
the Constitution prescribe one rule, and the law another and different
rule, it is the duty of courts to declare that the Constitution, and not the
law, governs the case before them for judgment.” Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S.393, 628 (1857)
Prayer for Relief
We, the Petitioners be granted standing as we argue in our Petition,
Appeal and other briefs. The Order Granting Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus be reversed and that the Writ be
issued on its merits, as there is legal basis under Washington and/or
Federal Law, including the Constitution of the United States. Legally
recognize our definition of who a human being or person is, decide this
fact, or send the question to a jury to so determine this question of fact.
Once this has been decided, that our Petition be heard on its merits to its
logical, legal and rational conclusion as per the Washington State
Mandamus Law.