Forrest Frederick Bishop
PO Box 30121
Seattle, Washington, 98113
IN THE KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
East Division-Shoreline Courthouse
BISHOP, FORREST FREDERICK
CLERK’S ACTION REQUIRED: NONE
DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Demand for Bill of Particulars
From: Forrest Frederick Bishop December 1st, 2004
To: Norm Maleng or John Doe or Jane Doe
Cc: Rebecca Harrison (?)
Amanda S. Froh
In a proceeding on November 24th, 2004, in the Shoreline Courtroom 1, with myself and Ben Santos present, I believe the Honorable Douglas Smith told me to request from you a Bill of Particulars for the alleged charge in question.
I kindly request that the men and women, who made the document COMPLAINT No. C0534232 (attached as Exhibit C1, and referred to herein as document C1) available, or authorized it, or acted upon it, provide myself with a validated, itemized, and documented Bill of Particulars for C1, as there appear to be a number of deficiencies therein. As a scientist, I find a number of curious, manifest phenomena, some of which are noted below.
To assist with your mandatory requirement to inform myself as to the nature of the alleged accusation, as well as to the cause of the alleged accusation, please provide the following, itemized information (section numbers and titles are for convenience, and shall not be construed as part of this request):
A. What is the date of this document C1? No date appears on my original copy thereof; I can only ascertain that its Maker executed it sometime between April 1st, 2004 and October 21st, 2004.
B. What is the reason for the missing date? Please select from one or more of the following options:
a) To allow other charges to be brought against the defendant at some future date.
b) To allow the same charge to be brought against the defendant at some future date.
c) To enable back-dating the issuance of the court bond(s), and thereby shorten the 180-day SEC maturity period for negotiability and resecuritization.
d) Simple mistake. If so, please provide recent examples of similar complaints with dates on them.
e) Other. Please specify.
A. Under what Seal is C1?
B. Are there other documents or instruments, extant or contemplated, similar to C1, under different Seals?
C. Are there other documents or instruments, extant or contemplated, similar to C1, under different Case or Cause numbers?
D. Are there other documents or instruments extant or contemplated, similar to C1, under different WSBA numbers?
E. Are there other documents or instruments extant or contemplated, similar to C1, under different bonding numbers?
In document C1 there appears at the apparent top of the page: "King County District Court, East Division, Shoreline Courthouse". I have not been able to find the name, title or appellation of this alleged entity on any other documents provided by any courts, which is not to say those documents do not exist. I have instead found a number of other possible, alleged corporate entities, herein called COURT, including:
1) SHORELINE DIVISION
KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
2) King County District Court
State of Washington
3) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
EAST DIVISION, SHORELINE COURTHOUSE
4) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURTS
East Division-Shoreline Courthouse
5) DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING
East Division, Shoreline Courthouse
6) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
7) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
8) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
9) THE KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON
10) THE KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
East Division-Shoreline Courthouse
11) THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
-of which items 10) and 11) taken together are of particular interest. Each of these is a different, distinct, alleged legal entity.
A. If applicable, which of the above COURT(s) are you referring to?
B. If applicable, which of the above corporations are you referring to and doing business with?
C. If (3)A or (3)B are not applicable, what venue is this being brought into?
D. Provide certified copies of the acknowledgment(s), voucher(s), or other similar document(s) or instrument(s) received by you from COURT(s) for C1.
E. To determine that there is no conflict of interest, provide to myself bank account and interbank routing numbers, foreign or domestic, for each of the above entities.
Sometimes, on autographed court documents, it appears plaintiff is STATE OF WASHINGTON, other times it appears to be STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING, or other.
In document C1, plaintiff appears to be "the peace and dignity of the State of Washington", or perhaps "the State of Washington".
A. Who or what is or are the plaintiff(s)?
B. Provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers for each person or human in A.
C. Itemize the proportional damages claimed by each plaintiff. For an example, does "peace" claim 25% and "dignity" 25%, or?
In document C1 there is the assertion "...the defendant FORREST F. BISHOP...". I have not found this person in any other documents made available by the courts, to the best of my recollection.
A. Who or what is or are the defendant(s)?
A. Is there some expressed contract in effect, of which I am not aware of, between myself and the named men and women? Provide certified copies thereof.
B. Is there some implied contract in effect, of which I am not aware of, between myself and the named men and women? Provide certified copies thereof.
C. What is the form of the action or suit? Calling it "Statutory Law" is not useful information. A statute is not a law- it is merely evidence of a legislative act, set into a code by a Code Reviser. This would be more accurately described as "Act Law", which still does not define the form, any more than does calling Shakespeare "English Word".
D. Provide certified copies of delegated orders of authority to bring action or suit under C1 under the form of action disclosed as per section (6)C. herein. Provide a certified audit trail of these orders from yourself to their maker or issuer.
E. In the interests of full disclosure, are there any other cestuis que trusts, international compacts, treaties, or other alleged public or private trusts, to which you are acting on in this matter as an alleged Party? Provide proof of authority to act in these capacities.
F. In the interests of full disclosure, are there any other cestuis que trusts, international compacts, treaties, or other alleged public or private trusts, to which you are acting on in this matter, with myself or my person as an alleged Party to? Provide proof of authority to act in these capacities.
G. In the interests of full disclosure, are there any other communiqués, by whatever information channels, between yourself and other undisclosed parties to the action, of the nature of: general will, class consciousness, collective consciousness, society, those people, greater good, will of the people, nation, needs of the many, material forces of production, country, force of nature, we the people, or interests of society. Provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of any instructions received from said entity that pertain to this matter.
A. What is the $-value of this charge? For example, a gross misdemeanor may generate an Accounts Receivable entry (noting that a deferred payment still applies to AR) of $5000.00, plus the value of one year prison time, which may be on the order of an additional $30,00.00- $100,000.00.
B. What is the value of the factored bond or bonds for this charge?
For a hypothetical example, with 6 COURTS, four plaintiffs, four defendants, under four cause numbers, and leaving out the possibilities in i.(2), there are 6 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 384 theoretically possible, distinct bond issues. At a factored $-value of $50,000.00 per each, this would total out to $19,200,000.00.
C. Provide name, address, and telephone number for each Underwriter of each applicable bond. Were any of these Underwriters also lobbyists for the act(s) codified into RCW 46.61.502, RCW 46.61.504, or any other "motor vehicle driver" acts of the alleged Washington State Legislature?
D. Provide maturity period for each applicable bond. For example, three years or five years. Do these maturities match the associated alleged jurisdictional periods?
E. In the event one or more of these bonds has, or have, already been aged as per SEC requirements and Section i.(1) B c), and pooled, resecuritized, or in any other way hypothecated or derivatized, provide a certified audit trail to the holder in due course for each.
F. What is the percentage take for the assessed fines credited to the alleged COUNTY OF KING or associated corporate accounts?
G. What is the percentage take for the assessed fines credited to the alleged STATE OF WASHINGTON or associated corporate accounts?
H. Are there any other alleged entities, with associated bank accounts, which are credited with a portion of the take?
I. To determine that there is no conflict of interest, provide to myself bank account and interbank routing numbers, foreign or domestic, for each of the above, alleged entities. Include monthly statements from April 1, 2004 to present.
J. To determine that there is no conflict of interest, provide to myself bank account and interbank routing numbers, foreign or domestic, for each of the entities alleged to be associated with yourselves as alleged King County Prosecutors. Include monthly statements from April 1, 2004 to present.
For other listed items not specifically requested herein, please provide the following:
The document C1 alleges in part:
"That the defendant FORREST F. BISHOP in King County, Washington on or about 1 April 2004, drove a vehicle within this state while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug, and while under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug;
Contrary to RCW 46.61.502 and 46.61.504, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington..."
RCW 46.61.502 states:
Driving under the influence.
(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug… [end excerpt]
Which appears to be making three separate categories: a) alcohol, b) drugs (unspecified), and c) combined alcohol with unspecified drugs.
A. Which part of what part is applied to which part? The alleged allegation appears to be redundant.
B. List the alleged intoxicating liquors in question, the absolute amounts of each said intoxicating liquor, and the relative degree of influence exerted by each said intoxicating liquor.
C. List the alleged drugs in question, the absolute amounts of each said drug, and the relative influences exerted by each said drug.
Please provide certified copies for proof of each item called out herein, in this section iii, or in any other part of this document.
To determine conflicts of interest, provide certified copies of the pay stubs of each of the named people above, as well as any other who may be, or become, parties to the action.
Provide certified copies of the employment contracts of each of the named people above, as well as any other, who may be, or become, parties to the action.
For each applicable COURT entity listed in section i.2) and in document C1, provide certified copies of your delegated orders of authority, including a certified audit trail back to the original alleged authority, to bring action or suit, for the alleged charge alluded to in C1, within that venue.
No item, requested herein for inclusion in the Bill of Particulars, that is unavailable, or not provided, releases the requirement for providing any other item in the foregoing. For any requested item not provided, please be prepared to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to why the item is not available.
The requested documentation shall not be construed as an exhaustive or complete list for purposes of providing information as to the nature and cause of the alleged accusation.
Forrest Frederick Bishop,