In the matter of: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, No. C-534232

v. FORREST BISHOP, Defendant.


MOTION HEARING November 24, 2004


approximately 2:30 PM:

MR. SANTOS: Next, Your Honor, is Forrest

Bishop, Cause No. C-534232. I believe this is a pro se matter. Mr. Bishop I believe is present.

MR. BISHOP: Sir --

THE COURT: What do you have there?

MR. BISHOP: Come again?

THE COURT: I was asking the MR. SANTOS: If he saw all your books there.

MR. SANTOS: I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: You still assume this is going to be fairly short or not more than likely?


MR. BISHOP: Sir, I'm -- Your Honor --

THE COURT: Be quiet.

MR. BISHOP: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. SANTOS: It's not clear to me. If the defendant is bringing forth a motion today, the State would ask that this be moved to the motion's calendar, since this is off the pre-trial calendar.

THE COURT: This is time for him to notice motions, which is fine. Is that what you want to do?

MR. BISHOP: No, sir. First of all --

THE COURT: Okay, then have a seat. I'm going to deal with your motion.

MR. BISHOP: I'm going to --

THE COURT: Have a seat, get back here. Have a seat.

MR. BISHOP: Well, there's motions --

THE COURT: Call in the officer. You want to follow my procedures or you don't.

MR. BISHOP: You want motions?

THE COURT: No, I don't want motions.

MR. BISHOP: I move to dismiss.

THE COURT: Okay. Motion denied. At this stage you can note the various motions when your pre-trial comes up. There's also a pre-trial order form that you should fill out and maybe that's the best way to handle this. We'll give you a special motion date when your motions can be heard. That's when you come back and note your motion to dismiss. Okay? You can state your grounds or not, or provide them later.

(Court conducted other business before resuming hearing.)

Approximately 3:300 PM, after clearing out the room:

THE COURT: Okay, Forrest Bishop, C-534232.

Mr. Bishop, have you filled out a waiver of right to counsel?

MR. BISHOP: I'm here under protest.

THE COURT: That's fine. Have you signed a --

MR. BISHOP: And I'm here under duress --


MR. BISHOP: I'm here under duress.

THE COURT: No, you're not.

MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir, I have. I've been threatened with violence.

THE COURT: By whom?

MR. BISHOP: By yourself, sir.


MR. BISHOP: And I will be filing a complaint to that effect.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's not the issue I asked you nor the question I asked you. Are you willing to sign a waiver of right to counsel today?

MR. BISHOP: I'd like to move to withdraw the plea. I have filed an affidavit.

THE COURT: You entered a plea of not guilty.

MR. BISHOP: No, sir, I did not. That plea is false.

THE COURT: Then what are you withdrawing?

MR. BISHOP: I'm withdrawing the plea because it is void because I was not informed as to the nature and cause of this accusation. There are 21 points in the affidavit -- misinformation of nature and cause. If you like, I will go with -- through them with you, point by point.

THE COURT: Did you plead guilty or not guilty?

MR. BISHOP: I didn't plead at all.

THE COURT: Okay. Then what are you

withdrawing? There's nothing to withdraw.

MR. BISHOP: The attorney entered the plea for me.

THE COURT: What attorney?

MR. BISHOP: The alleged attorney that I had hired.

THE COURT: Who was that?

MR. BISHOP: His name is Mr. Eric Sherman.


MR. BISHOP: And I fired him.

THE COURT: And did he withdraw from your case here?

MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I don't see him making a notice of appearance. As far as I'm concerned I guess you are pro se.

MR. BISHOP: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: No affidavit of termination --

MR. BISHOP: Sir, I'm not pro se. I have no counsel.

THE COURT: That's what pro se means.

MR. BISHOP: Pro se means you're representing yourself. I am without assistance of counsel.

THE COURT: Do you want to petition for a public defender?

MR. BISHOP: I would like to have effective assistance of counsel, someone who doesn't share in the financial interest of anyone else.

THE COURT: Well, that makes public defenders qualify.

MR. BISHOP: Someone who will ensure that I receive due process at every second of every proceeding all the way through.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm appointing Mr. Benjamin to represent you. Now you have counsel.

MR. BISHOP: I have a contract for Mr. -- I'm sorry, I didn't get your name.

THE COURT: Mr. Benjamin.

MR. BISHOP: Mr. Benjamin.

MR. BENJAMIN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Your Honor.

MR. BISHOP: If you intend to represent me, you will have to sign a contract.

THE COURT: No, he doesn't.

MR. BISHOP: In order to represent me and be of my counsel he shall sign a contract.

THE COURT: No, he won't.

MR. BISHOP: Then he won't represent me.

THE COURT: Okay. Then you're representing yourself.

MR. BISHOP: I don't have assistance of counsel, sir.

THE COURT: Well, you have chosen to represent yourself because there's no other option.

MR. BISHOP: No. I --

THE COURT: You fired the private attorney and you've said you didn't want the public defender without him signing one of your contracts. So as far as I'm concerned, that's refusal of right to counsel and you can represent yourself, which you're entitled to do. Are you prepared to proceed with the pretrial or not?

MR. BISHOP: I'm prepared to withdraw my plea. I've not been informed of the nature and cause for the following reasons, among others: No. 1: I was never served process. I was never served with a copy thereof the alleged complaint or alleged charging document from the alleged agent of Norm Maleng, alleged

. This is verified by document number -- the transcript of the September 23rd hearing, which I have a copy here if you would like. In fact, actually I already filed it into the court. Okay? No. 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel. I was never represented. I fired him in initio. Breach for misrepresentation. Furthermore, in neither hearing did I have anything resembling effective assistance of counsel. No. 3: I did not receive a copy thereof from the alleged attorney before either of the two hearings. The alleged attorney did not ever make a copy thereof the alleged complaint for me, even though I asked him for one and told him that I had never received one. I found out about the alleged complaint through a serendipitous phone call. No. 4: The alleged charge was never read aloud. The court waived reading the alleged charge aloud at the September 23rd hearing.

THE COURT: Your attorney waved it on your behalf.

MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir, after (Inaudible) attorney, and so at that point in time I had still not heard the actual alleged charge.

THE COURT: Well, we'll just do that for you today.

MR. BISHOP: Five, I finally got a copy thereof.

THE COURT: Well, we'll just advise him thereof. All right, you do have a copy of the complaint?

MR. BISHOP: I received a copy after the hearing of October 21st. After that hearing I finally got a copy of it. I did not discover until reading closely what that charge is alleging until October 25th.

THE COURT: Now that you have --

MR. BISHOP: And now that I have, I'm fully prepared and I have been working very hard toward that to bringing counter claims, civil or criminal charges, or what have you. And I am not kidding, sir.

THE COURT: There is no such thing as a counter claim in a criminal action, that's a civil action.

MR. BISHOP: Whatever I need to bring wherever. I am preparing to do that.

THE COURT: I want you not to be so flip about this.

MR. BISHOP: Sir --

THE COURT: Now that you've had the opportunity to read the charge against you, do you understand it?

MR. BISHOP: Sir, I object. I am not being flip. I am telling you the truth.

THE COURT: Answer the question.

MR. BISHOP: I'm sorry. Say it again.

THE COURT: Now that you have had the opportunity to view the copy of the complaint, do you understand the nature of the charge against you?

MR. BISHOP: No. We haven't gotten to the rest of it. The complaint --

THE COURT: Well, read the complaint.

MR. BISHOP: It's a boiler complaint.

MR. SANTOS: Mr. Bishop, you've been charged with the crime of driving while under the influence. You've been served with a complaint. Do you understand the nature of the charge?

THE COURT: No, he wants it read -- the entire complaint read to him.


THE COURT: Which he has a right to and so go ahead and do that.

MR. SANTOS: Okay. "I, Norm Maleng, prosecuting attorney for King County in the name and by the authority of the State of Washington, do accuse Forrest F. Bishop of the crime of driving while under the influence, committed as follows: The defendant, Forrest F. Bishop, in King County, Washington, on or about the 1st of April, 2004, drove a vehicle within the 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. This is contrary to RCW 46.61.502 and 46.61.504 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington."

THE COURT: You understand what that allegation is? You don't have to agree it's true, just you know what you're being charged with.


THE COURT: What don't you understand?

MR. BISHOP: It says two different -- it says two different things.

THE COURT: There are two different ways they can prove the case. Either they -- you had a breath test of .08 and a valid breath test, or that your driving was appreciably affected by what you had to drink. In other words, your ability to drive was appreciably affected by what you had to drink.

MR. BISHOP: No, it sounds to me like I'm being accused of using drugs.

THE COURT: Well, alcohol and/or drugs and alcohol is a drug.

MR. BISHOP: And it says drugs. Water is a drug, aspirin is a drug, cocaine, PCP, marijuana; there are many drugs. I'm being accused of all of that.

THE COURT: No, you're not.

MR. BISHOP: How do you know? Will you swear to that, sir?

THE COURT: Yeah, I have a pretty good idea.

MR. BISHOP: Will you swear to that?


MR. BISHOP: Do you swear to that?

THE COURT: Yeah, I agree that you're not being charged with every possible drug that's in the Physician's Desk Reference, which maybe you're prepared to read out here but we're not going to do that.

MR. BISHOP: No, we're not.


MR. BISHOP: And you swear to that, sir?


MR. BISHOP: Under your -- under penalty of perjury?


MR. BISHOP: What do you swear to that I'm being charged with? Which drug?

THE COURT: You just heard it, he just said it.

MR. BISHOP: Which drugs? Be specific.

THE COURT: No, you'll have to -- if you want it more specific then you have the MR. SANTOS: --

MR. BISHOP: All right, sir. I want the exact names of every drug that you are charging me with.

THE COURT: Have you had the discovery yet, the police report?

MR. BISHOP: Come again? Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Did you read that?

MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you see any drugs in there?

MR. BISHOP: No, sir.

THE COURT: Then you're probably no drugs.

MR. BISHOP: Well, it says here I'm being charged with drugs.

THE COURT: No, that's just statutory language in case --

MR. BISHOP: I don't care. I'm looking at -- I don't understand what I'm being charged with.

THE COURT: You don't care, that's the problem.

MR. BISHOP: No, no, no. No, excuse me; I retract that. That isn't what I meant to say. What I'm being charged with -- regardless of what the hearsay police report or anything else, I'm looking at what Forrest F. Bishop is being charged with. Regardless of anything else in the whole wide world.

THE COURT: Okay, right now you're being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You want a more definite statement from the MR. SANTOS: --

MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- and you don't feel that you've been given that in the discovery, then you can make that request.

MR. BISHOP: I'm requiring a precise list of every single drug that you are charging me with being under the influence of.

MR. SANTOS: Your Honor, the defendant has been given a copy of the discovery and all the information that the State has at this point is contained in the discovery material which includes the police report.

THE COURT: Okay. So no drugs outside of what's contained in that report.

MR. BISHOP: So now you're telling me you're not charging me with driving under the influence of any drug?

THE COURT: Well, that's a long about way of telling you.

MR. BISHOP: Well, which is it? I don't understand.

THE COURT: It looks like it's an alcohol case.

MR. BISHOP: I haven't been informed. Are you charging me with a drug like it says right here? That's what Norm Maleng is claiming. Are you as well?

THE COURT: Under the theory -- particularly with somebody like you, alcohol is a drug so, yes, alcohol is --

MR. BISHOP: Excuse me, sir.

THE COURT: Alcohol is the drug.

MR. BISHOP: What do you mean "with somebody like me"?

THE COURT: Somebody who has a -- appears to be have some problem understanding the nature of the complaint.

MR. BISHOP: Of being charged with drug use?

THE COURT: No, not drug use.

MR. BISHOP: I can read very well. It says drug use. It's right there, sir.

THE COURT: It doesn't say that.

MR. BISHOP: While -- and while under the combined influence or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug, quote unquote, from Norm Maleng's agent.

THE COURT: Yeah. And if it is drugs involved (inaudible) discovery.

MR. BISHOP: Which drugs?

THE COURT: Alcohol.

MR. BISHOP: And any drug.

THE COURT: Okay. You've got the discovery, now do you want to file any motions at this time?

MR. BISHOP: No, you haven't told me which drugs you're talking about.

THE COURT: He doesn't have to do anything right now. If you want to make that request to make it more definite.

MR. BISHOP: Yes, I want to know every single one.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you file a motion to make the charging document more definite and we'll set a hearing for him to provide that.

MR. BISHOP: Is there such a thing?

THE COURT: Yeah. And also referred to as Bill of Particulars.

MR. BISHOP: A Bill of Particulars, excellent.

THE COURT: Do you have that with you?

MR. BISHOP: No, sir, I don't.

THE COURT: Well, your file will.

MR. BISHOP: A Bill of Particulars.


MR. BISHOP: A motion for a Bill of Particulars?


MR. BISHOP: Okay. Do you have one?

MR. SANTOS: That's something you would submit to us.


THE COURT: Now, do you plan to represent yourself at this hearing and in future hearings, which you do have a right to do.

MR. BISHOP: No, I would like to have effective assistance of counsel. Someone who will observe due process, observe constitutionally guaranteed rights at

all times.

THE COURT: Well, how about somebody to do that but isn't going to sign one of your contacts.

MR. BISHOP: Somebody who doesn't have any shared financial interests with any other person in this room.

THE COURT: Well, that's what the public defender's here for.

MR. BISHOP: That's a conflict of interest, sir.

THE COURT: Are you saying because they're paid by the King County?

MR. BISHOP: I don't know who pays them.


MR. BISHOP: Is it King County? I don't know.

THE COURT: Most likely. So, do you want to represent yourself or have a defender represent you?

MR. BISHOP: I'd like to continue to search for assistance of counsel and I will file a bill of -- a motion for a Bill of Particulars or simply submit a bill -- a request to Mr. Santos for a Bill of Particulars.

THE COURT: Okay. So how long will all that take you?

MR. BISHOP: Couple of days.

THE COURT: Okay. So we'll continue this hearing in one week? Yeah, a week from today. You're on the 1:00 or the 2:00? You're on the 1:00? Okay.

MR. BISHOP: I don't know.

THE COURT: 1:00 a week from today. And you can file that and any dissenting motions at that time. If you want to get an attorney between now and then, I strongly recommend it.

MR. BISHOP: Also, where would I find your oath of office? Where is it on file?

THE COURT: My oath of office?

MR. BISHOP: Yeah, where is that on file?

THE COURT: Well, I signed it here but I'm not sure if our administrator has it here or it's downtown. You might ask at the window. I signed it here but I think they ship it downtown but I'm not positive. Okay? If we have it we'll provide you a copy.

MR. BISHOP: Excellent.

MR. SANTOS: What was the new date on that, Your Honor?

THE CLERK: December 2nd, 1:00.

(Whereupon the proceedings concluded)