Courtof AppealsNo.

43689-2-II
SupremeCourtNo.900370
WASHINGTONSTATESUPREMECOURT
JOHNWORTHINGTON,
Appellant
V.
WESTNET,
Respondent
PETITIONER'SRESPONSETOATTORNEY
GENERAL'SAMICUSCURIAE
JOHNWORTHINGTON
4500SE2ND PL
RENTON,WA.98059
425-917-2235
TABLEOFCONTENTS
I. ARGllMENT............................................................ 1-19
A. Rightfootyellowleftfootblue...........................................1-3
B. WestNETandaffiliatesarejudiciallyestoppedfrom
changinglegalpositions................................................. 3 ~ 5
C. WestNETandAffiliateJurisdictionshave,andstill
areobstructingWorthington'srecordsrequests........................ 5-6
D. WestNETisaSecretPolice.................................................6 ~ 9
E. WestNETmakesfinaldecisions......................................... 9-11
F. TheAG,heretoforeinterestednon-party
hasaconflictof interest.................................................. 11-14
G. AbroadrulingupholdingthePRAisappropriate.................... 14-17
H. Inthealternative,RCW39.34wasrepealedby
implicationwiththepassageof eachsunshinelaw.................. 17-20
II. CONCLUSION................................................................20
TABLEOFAUTHORnnES
StateCases
Abelv.DikingDrainageImprovementDist.No.4,
19Wash.2d356,363,142P.2d
1017(1943).......................................................................... 18-19
AmalgamatedTransitUnionLegislativeCouncilofWash.
Statev. State, 145 Wash.2d544,552,40
P.3d656(2002).......................................................................... 18
CitizensAllianceforPropertyRightsLegalFundv.
SanJuanCountyetaI, No. 70606-3-1,(2014)........................................9
Cunninghamv. ReliableConcretePumping,Inc., 126
Wn.App.222,224-25, 108P.3d 147(2005)..........................................5
Diazv. State, 175 Wn.2d457,
470,285P.3d873(2012)............................................................... 19
Gilbertv. SacredHeartMed.Ctr., 127Wn.2d370,375,
900P.2d552(1995).................................................................... 19
JohnWorthingtonv. Stateof Washingtonetal
PierceCountySuperiorCourt
No. 11-2-13236-1 (2011)............................................................3,5
JohnWorthingtonv.WashingtonState
AGetalNo 12-2-02486-KNT(2012)................................................ .5
JohnWorthingtonv. WashingtonStatePatrol
08-2-01410-7(2008)COANo.38697-6-II,(2011).........................................6
Johnsonv. Si-Cor,Inc., 107Wash.App.902,
906,28P.3d832(2001)................................................................5
II
FederalCases
JohnWorthingtonv. WashingtonState
AGetalNo.CI0-0118JLR(2010)................................................... 5
U.S.v. Chon210F.3d990,994(9thCir.2000).......................................8
UnitedStatesv. DreyerCaseNo. 13-30077
(Published9-12-2014)................................................................... 8
LawReviews
MICHAELSINCLAIR,AGUIDETOSTATUTORY
INTERPRETATION138(2000)..................................................... 19
StateStatutes
RCW39.34..................................................................... 14, 17, 18,20
RCW42.30....................... , .......................................................... 18
RCW42.56................................................................................. 18
RCW42.56.010(1)...................................................................14, 15
RCW42.56.030......................................................................... 15,19
InterIocal Agreements
WestNETInter!ocalAgreement............................................. 7, 1 0, 15, 16
III
Comes now the Petitioner John Worthington to respond to the
former WestNET affiliate Jurisdiction Washington State and the
Attorney General's office, heretofore interested non parties' Amicus
Curiae, and in response to that Amicus brief ofthe Washington State
Attorney General's office, (hereinafter heretofore interested non-
party), does state as follows:
I. Argument
A. Right foot yellow left foot blue.
As hereinbefore mentioned, the heretofore interested non-party
comes forthwith as a friend of the court to hereinafter add more
confusion to this case and illustrate the fancy footwork an
intergovernmental association can put on the public and the courts.
Stated ina footnote in the Appellate briefs is a WestNET
argument that the Petitioner Worthington could just go to the affiliate
Jurisdictions to facilitate his public records request, if in fact they
chose to recognize themselves as one these aforementioned affiliate
jurisdictions. The Washington State Court of Appeals then ran with
the aforementioned footnote and ruled all Worthington had to do was
1
come forthwith and make the public record request thereto to the
aforementioned affiliate jurisdictions, heretofore interested non-party.
But Worthington did make a public records request to the affiliate
jurisdiction State of Washington, in Pierce County Superior Court
case No. 11-2-13236-1 prior to this case, and the State of Washington
responded as a defendant. The now interested non-party watched a
legal
l
entity called WestNET, appear and intervene in the case, and
never disputed whether WestNET was a separate legal entity
when it came to filing its own legal briefs.
The Petitioner Worthington, heretofore remains unsure whether
the Supreme Court Commissioner just put the order granting the
interested non-parties' Motion to file an Amicus in the daily mega
hopper for the Chief Justice to sign, without noticing that interested
non-party now has its right foot on yellow (WestNET) and its left foot
1 WestNET is registered with Dun & Bradstreet
Dun & Bradstreet,. Inc. is an American public company headquartered in Short
Hills, a community in Millburn, New Jersey, USA that provides commercial data
to businesses on credit history, business-to-business sales and marketing,
counterparty risk exposure, supply chain management. lead scoring and social
identity matching.
2
onblue(Interestednon-party),orwhethertheCommissionerjust
wantedtoerr onthesideofcaution,notknowingtheStateof
WashingtonisaWestNETaffiliatejurisdictionwithmultiple
RepresentativesservingontheWestNETAdvisoryBoard.
(CP000023,CP000073)
TheAmicuswrittentothecourtillustratesthehybrid
mechanismsoftheWestNET,andthedeceptivepracticesthe
WestNETaffiliatejurisdiction'sengageinwhenitsuitstheir
purposes.TheAmicusalsogivesaperfectvisualaidetohowthe
publicrecordsshellgamecanbeplayedtogamethesystem.
B. WestNET and affiliates are judicially estopped from
changing legal positions.
Theinterestednon-party,whooncewasapartytothe
Worthington'saforementionedPublicRecordsAct(PRA)judicial
reviewof WestNET'sactions,comesforthtoargueWorthington's
publicrecordsrequestwasnotobstructed.However,theyseemto
haveforgottentheaforementionedPierceCountySuperiorCourtcase
involvingWorthingtonandtheWestNETaffiliatejurisdictions,werin
3
theinterestednon-partyfiledabriefonbehalfof thethereinafter
legalillusionWestNET. WhenWestNETjoinedthecase,the
interestednon-partynevermadeanyargumentsWestNETwasnota
legalentity.Infact, thejurisdictionsultilizetheirappearance.
WestNET,TheInterestednon-partyandotherWestNET
AffiliateJurisdictionsarejudiciallyestoppedfromchangingpositions.
"Judicialestoppelprecludesapartyfromassertingonepositionina
courtproceedingandthenlater,inadifferentcourt,seekingan
advantagebytakingaclearlyinconsistentposition".. Cunninghamv.
ReliableConcretePumping,Inc., 126Wn.App.222,224-25, 108P.3d
147(2005).
Worthingtonrespectfullyarguesaremandwithinstructionsto
makearequesttoAffiliateJurisdictionsisawasteoftime."The
purposesofthedoctrinearetopreserverespectforjudicial
proceedingswithoutthenecessityofresorttothepeIjurystatutesand
toavoidinconsistency,duplicity,andwasteof time."Cunninghamv.
ReliableConcretePumping,Inc., 126Wash.App.222,225, 108P.3d
4
147005)(onealterationinoriginal)(internalquotationmarks
omitted)(quotingJohnsonv. Si-Cor,Inc., 107Wash.App. 902,906,
283d832(2001).
c. WestNET and Affiliate Jurisdictions have, and still
are obstructing Worthington's records requests
PerhapsthelefthanddivisionoftheSolicitorGeneralofthe
interestednon-party,didnotknowwhattherighthandofthecriminal
divisionandWestNETdid,whentheinterestednon-partyhadan
opportunitytoaddressWorthington'spublicrecordsrequestinthe
aforementionedPierceCountySuperiorCourtcaseNo. 11-2-13236-1.
Or,perhapstheywereunawarethethirdhandofthecivil
divisionof theinterestednon-partyhadfiledlegalbriefsinU.S.
DistrictCourtcaseNo.C10-0118JLR2010andlaterKingCounty
CourtSuperiorcaseNo12-2-02486-KNT,claimingWorthington's
medicalmarijuanaplantshadbeenconfiscatedbyaloanedstate
employeetotheDEA,whowasamemberofanotherdrugtaskforce
5
TacomaNarcoticsEnforcementTeam(HeretoforeTNET)2,allthe
whileknowingheneverdidsuchathingandthatWestNETmembers
did. Theactualobstructionstartedin2008withWorthingtonv.
WashingtonStatePatrol08-2-01410-7(2008),COANo.38697-6-II,
(2011)whentheinterestednon-partymadeclaimsalltherecordswere
heldbytheDEAandtheU.S.Departmentof Justice.
Whengiventheopportunityandhavingtheoptiontofacilitate
Worthington'srequestsaftertheywereputinthePierceCounty
Superiorcourt,theinterestednon-partyjoinedaplotwiththeother
aforementionedaffiliatejurisdictionstohaveWestNET,stepforward
andwritelegal briefstothePierceCountySuperiorcourtandclaim
thatWestNETwasnotsubjecttosuit.
Worthington'srecordsrequestswereandcontinuetobe
obstructedbyWestNET,whohastakenonwhateverformandshade
theyneedtokeephidingthetruth.
2 WestNEThasnotprovidedonepublicrecordofany communicationswith
TNET.Thatisobstructionthatremainsongoing.
6
D. WestNET is a Secret Police.
HiddensomewhereinasecretlocationintheStateof
WashingtonistheheadquartersofWest NET.Ifyoupickupaphone
bookandconsultthebluepagesrepresentingthegovernmentservices
section,theywillnotshowanygovernmententitycalledWestNET.
If yousearchWestNETaffiliatejurisdictionmemberagencywebsites,
youwillnotseeanyaddressforWestNET.Oneaffiliate
jurisdiction,KitsapCounty,hasareferencetoa 1-800numberpeople
cancall,butnoaddressforWestNETislisted.
TuckedawayintheWestNETinterlocalagreement,adocument
probably90percentof thepublichasneverlaideyeson,is
astatementinsection2,titledPurpose,isthefollowingstatement:
"In order to accomplish this purpose the task force and
advisory board does and must operate confidentially and
without public input" (CP 00127)
Asshownabove,thelanguageoftheinterlocalagreementitself
clearlystatesthepurposeofboththetaskforceandtheboardisto
operateconfidentiallyandwithoutpublicinput.
7
Perhapstheinterestednon- partydoesnotgrasptheEnglish
languageenoughtounderstandthatwhensomeonewantsto
operateconfidentiallytheyarealsotryingtooperateinsecret.
Givingtheinterestednon- partythebenefitofthedoubt,Worthington
agreesthatWestNETandtheatonetimeaffiliatejurisdiction
heretoforeinterestednon-party,didnotwantto createasecretpolice,
theyjustwantedtocreateaconfidentialpolice.
ConsideringtherecentU.S.NinthCircuitCourtofAppeals
Publisheddecisionin UnitedStatesv.Dreyer,CaseNo. 13-30077
published9-12-2014,citingU.S. v. Chon,210F.3d990,994(9thCir.
2000),regardingtheuseoftheNCIS
3
instatepoliceactions,itis
apparentthatWestNEThasnotonlybeenoperatingasaconfidential
police,ithasbeenoperatingasaconfidentialmilitarypoliceaswell.
IncasetheJusticesarekeepingscorethatis 14yearsof
violatingthePRA,andOPMA,and 14yearsof violatingthePosse
ComitatusAct.
3 CP00145.Worthingtonwillhavethesignedcopyin court.Furtherproofthatthe
NCISispartof WestNETissho\Win CP000023,CP000073.
8
Howcomethepublicwasnotinformed,becausethe
interestednon-party,whoapprovedastoformthelanguagein
theWestNETInterlocalagreement,keptitasecretfor 14years,while
theirclientsviolatedcivilrights,federallawsandWashingtonState
sunshinelaws,whichmayhaveuncoveredtheissueiftheywere
followedingoodfaith.
E. WestNET makes final decisions.
InarecentOpenPublicMeetingscase,CitizensAlliancefor
PropertyRightsLegalFundv. SanJuanCountyetaI,theCourtof
AppealsforDivisionI ruledthatagoverningbodythatdoesnotmake
finaldecisionsisnotsubjecttotheOpenPublicMeetingsAct.
AlthoughWorthingtonhasdocumentsthatproveWestNET
makesfinaldecisionsthatarenotsentbacktoaffiliateJurisdictions
forthemtomakethedetermination,thosedocumentsarenotonthe
recordforthecourttoreview.
However,thereisenoughontherecordtoshowthatWestNET
makesfmaldecisionsforitsaffiliatejurisdictions.WestNETpolicy
9
boardmeetingdocumentsontherecordshowtheWestNETadvisory
boarddoesnotsendpoliciesbacktotheaffiliatejurisdictionsfor
approval.Thesedocumentsshowtheboardmakingfmaldecisionsas
shownbelow:
The Chief asked Members to consider using Grant monies
previously used by Bainbridge P.D. to pay for the second
Shelton detective (CP000023)
AsshownaboveWestNETusesJAGgrantmoneyatitsown
discretion,andareviewofCP000022,CP000023,CP000073- CP
000076willconfinnWestNETdoesnotseekguidanceorpennission
fromaffiliatejurisdictionsonitspolicies.
InadditiontheWestNETinterlocalagreementshowsthatthe
Advisoryboardisthe"representativebody"forWestNETasshown
below:
b. " Advisory Board" means the representative body for
tbe drug task Force and shall consist of tbe Chiefs of Police
of the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port
Orchard, Poulsbo and Shelton, tbe Sheriffs and Prosecutors
of the Counties of Kitsap, Pierce and Mason, and the Chief
oftheWashington State Patrol and Supervisor in charge of
the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
Justusingcommonsense,theJusticescanseethatitisnot
10
plausibleforthefederalgovernmenttomakedecisionsforthecities,
counties,andthestate,andviceversa.TheWestNETAdvisoryBoard
isthe"representativebody"anddefactogoverningbodyfortheJAG
grantdrugtaskforcethatmakesfinaldecisionsonpolicy,notthe
affiliatejurisdictions.WestNETisitsownseparatesovereigntyandis
setuptooperateindependentoftheaffiliatejurisdictions.
F. TheAG,heretoforeinterestednon-partyhasaconflictof
interest.
Theinterestednon-partyisthelastlineof defenseforthepublic,
Whoshouldexpectbetterfromthestateorganizationthatpurportsto
offeraservicetoassistthepublicviatheWashingtonStateAttorney
General'sopengovernmentombudsman,whohasstateditoffersa
servicetoholdgovernmentaccountableasshownbelow:
3.WhytheAttorneyGeneralOffersThisService
4
Ouropengovernmentlawsexisttopromotedemocracyand
openupgovernmentforallcitizens.Toholdgovernment
accountable,thepublicmustbeabletostayinformedof
'*http://cc.bingj.comlcache.aspx?q=washington+AG+PRA+OMBUDSMAN&d=4
982601495871760&mkt=eu
6
US&setlang=en
6
US&w=o8s7EHHUR7DZOxPeOvNQMESYC
6
LWM3Z7
11
their government's activities. Not only do citizens have a
right to know how their government is spending their tax
dollars and exercising the powers the people gave to them,
the public has a need to know.
As shown above the interested non-party purports to assist the
public in OPMA and PRA. The interested non-party has even created
a full time position to help the pUblic.
5
Although it may appear the
interested non-party supports the PRA, OPMA , in practice they
simultaneously represent State agencies, boards, commissions and
Etc, and routinely make legal arguments that weaken the Sunshine
Laws they purport to protect. This case is no exception.
When given the choice between assisting the public and
weakening the state sunshine laws, the interested non-party has no
choice but to remove its sunshine cap and put on its liability cap and
weaken the PRA and OPMA for the fmancial benefit of its clients.
That full time Ombudsman will have the same effect as the part
time Ombudsman, because while the public records or open public
5 http://www.columbian.comlnewsJ20 13/sep/17/state-ag-to-have-full-time-open-
govemment-ombudsml
12
meetingsenquirerwritestheequivalentof alettertoSantatothe
interestednon-partywearingasunshinecap,the interestednonparty
putsontheliabilitycap,andunderminesitsjobassistingthepublicto
savethestateabuck.
TheJusticesshouldhavenoillusionshere,theAG,heretofore
interestednon-party,hasnotsteppedoutfromWestNET
6
toassist
Worthingtonorthecourt,theyareherewearingtheirliabilitycapto
insertanotherdaggerintothePRAandOPMAandtwist,thenslipthe
sunshinecapbackontokeepupopengovernmentappearances.
TheJusticesandthepublicshouldbehighlyalarmedthatthe
sameknifetwistinginterestednon-party,isnowpursuanttolaw
requiredtotraintopublicofficials
7
onhowtocomplywiththePRA
andOPMA.Thefirstthingtheinterestednon-party,willmorethan
likelydoisputonitsliabilitycapandinstructitsopengovernment
traineestoformintergovernmentassociationsandinterlocal
6 TheStateofWashingtonbas employeesthatsitontheWestNETAdvisory
board.CP000022,CP000023,CP000073
7http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernmentTraining.aspx#.VB3b18JOyos
13
agreementsunderRCW39.34,toavoidhavingtobesubject
tothesunshinelawsinthefirstplace.
Inotherwords,theinterestednon-party,hereinaftertheliability
cap,isneitherthelastlineof defenseforthepublic,norafriendofthe
court,theyarethefirstlineof defenseforStateagencies,boards,
commissions,etc.,whowishtoconductGovernmentaffairs
"confidentially",andgetawaywithit.
G.AbroadrulingupholdingthePRAisappropriate.
ThehereinafterliabilitycapisconcernedabouttheJustices
makingabroadrulingusingthecurrentbriefingandhasusedthat
excusetoexpandtheargumentsbeforethecourt.However,the
briefinghasalltheinformationtheJusticeswillneed.AlltheJustices
willneedisthefollowingstatutorylanguageof thePRA,particularly
RCW42.56.010(1) shownbelow:
(1) "Agency" includesail stateagenciesandail local
agencies."Stateagency"includesevery stateoffice,
department,division,bureau,board, commission,orother
state agenfY. "Local ageney" includesevery county,city,
14
town,municipalcorporation,quasi-municipalcorporation,
orspecialpurposedistrict,orany office,department,
division,bureau,board, commission,or agency thereof, or
other local public agency.
AndRCW42.56.030asshownbelow:
Thepeopleofthisstatedonotyieldtheirsovereigntytothe
agenciesthatservethem.Thepeople,indelegating
authority,donotgivetheirpublicservantstherightto
decidewhatisgoodforthepeopletoknowandwhatis not
goodforthemtoknow.Thepeopleinsistonremaining
informedsothattheymaymaintaincontroloverthe
instrumentsthattheyhavecreated.Thischaptershallbe
liberallyconstruedanditsexemptionsnarrowlyconstrued
topromotethispublicpolicyandtoassurethatthepublic
interestwillbefully protected.In the event o(conflict
between the provisions ofthis chapter and any other act. the
provisions ofthis chapter shall govern.
Alongwiththefollowingsectionsof theWestNETinterlocal
agreementcreatingaboard andagency asshownbelow.
Section1 boftheWestNETInterlocalagreement:
b."AdvisoryBoard"meanstherepresentativebodyforthe
DrugTaskForceandshallconsistoftheChiefsofPoliceof
15
the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard,
Poulsbo and Shelton, the Sheriffs and Prosecutors of the
Counties of Kitsap, Pierce and Mason, and the Chief of the
Washington State Patrol and Supervisor in charge of the
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (CP 126)
Section Id of the WestNET Interlocal agreement:
"Drug Task Force" means a drug enforcement agency
created by this agreement. (CP 126)
WestNET considers itself an agency as shown below
The Advisory Board shall meet at least quarterly, provide
policy and procedural guidance to the Task Force
coordinator and supervisors, and supervise the use of the
WestNET Fund and Operations Find. Each member of the
Advisory Board shall have an equal voice, as long as the
agency has at least one full time investigator assigned to
WestNET, in all board matters. (CP 130)
As shown above WestNET created a board and agency and is subject
to the PRA even if it conflicts with any other act including the
Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Ifthe Justices do not rule that the PRA governs the Interlocal
Cooperation Act in the event of a conflict and allow it to control, their
ruling would be inconsistent with previous decisions regarding the
cannons of statutory construction.
16
Lawsarelawsandrulesarerules. Thiscourtupholdslawseven
if theyareunpopular.In1983,afterhittingatworunhomerun
againsttheNewYorkYankees,KansasCitythirdbasemanGeorge
Brettwascalledoutafterbeingcaughtusingtoomuchpinetar.An
upsetBrettsprintedoutof thedugoutinprotest.However,Brettwas
ruledoutbytheumpires,wholeftituptotheleaguetochangethe
rule.Here,WorthingtonrespectfullyarguestheJusticesneedtodothe
samething.Lookatthelaws,lookattheWestNETinterlocal
agreementandallowthePRAtocontroltheInterlocalCooperation
Act,evenif 3,000GeorgeBrett'swearing3,000liabilitycapscome
runningoutof thedugout.
H.Inthealternative,RCW39.34wasrepealedby
implicationwiththepassageofeachsunshinelaw.
In1971,followingthepositivevoteonthestatewideinitiative
addressingopenpublicmeetings,thelegislatureadoptedtheOpen
PublicMeetingsAct.TheAct,alongwiththePublicDisclosure
Act,addressedrequirementsforstateandlocalgovernmentalunitsto
17
conductopenpublicmeetingsandtoprovidepublicaccesstotheir
records. (RCW42.30andRCW42.56.)
TheInterlocalCooperationAct,RCW39.34,isthestatute
WestNETreliesontocreateitsexemptionfromthePRAandOPMA
thruitslanguageintheWestNETinterlocalagreement. claimingitis
immunefromsuit.RCW39.34waspassedbytheWashingtonState
legislaturein1967,andhashadnolegislativealterationssincethe
legislativeenactmentsofboththePRAandOPMA.
Sincethesunshinelawswereenacted,thelegislaturehasnot
seenfittoaddexemptionstothelanguageofthePRA."The
legislatureispresumedtobeawareof itsownenactments."
AmalgamatedTransitUnionLegislativeCouncilofWash. Statev.
State, 145 Wash.2d544,552,40P.3d656(2002)
Repealbyimplicationcanoccurintwoways.First,the
subjectmatterofthesubsequentlegislationmustcovertheentire
scopeoftheearlierone.Id. (quotingAbelv. DikingDrainage
ImprovementDist.No.4,19Wash.2d356,363,142P.2d1017
18
(1943. Or second, the legislative acts can be so inconsistent that
they cannot be reconciled to give effect to both. Id. (quoting Abel,
19 Wash.2d at 363, 142 P.2d 1017).
If the Justices do not interpret the language in RCW 39.34 to
be intended for covering immunity from civil rights and tort liability,
and not the penalties for violating PRA and OPMA, then the two acts
can both be given effect and the court can maintain the integrity of
both. "It is the duty ofthis court to construe two statutes dealing with
the same subject matter so that the integrity of both will be
maintained" Gilbert v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 127 Wn.2d 370,375,
900 P.2d 552 (1995). Ifnot, the latter more specific language ofthe
PRA, particularly RCW 42.56.030, controls the earlier and more
general Interlocal Cooperation Act. This analysis is consistent with
cannons of statutory construction adopted by this court. "In cases of
statutory inconsistencies, the later and more specific statute controls
over the earlier and more general one.' Diaz v. State, 175 Wn.2d 457,
470,285 P.3d 873(2012); MICHAEL SINCLAIR, A GUIDE TO
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 138 (2000)."
19
Thus,evenif oneconcludesthattheplainlanguageof thePRA
andRCW39.34cannotbesquared,thePRA,asthelatermore
specificstatuteregardingconflictswithotheracts,wouldcontroL
n. CONCLUSION
BasedontheaforementionedargumentsWorthington
respectfullyRequestsaremandbacktoKitsapCountySuperiorCourt
withorderstoapplypenaltiesunderthePRAforobstructing
Worthington'SPRArequests. Worthingtonrespectfullyarguesthat
WestNET,afterappearingonitsown inapreviousPRArecords
lawsuitisjudiciallyestoppedfromtakingthepositionitisnotsubject
tosuit.
RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED,this22
nd
dayof September,2014.
BY S/: JOHN WORTmNGTON
JohnWorthington
4500SE2ND PL.
RentonWA.98059
20
CertificateofService
Icertifythatonthedateandtimeindicatedbelow,Icausedtobe
servedByEmailtoWESTNET,W AP AandtotheWashingtonState
AttorneyGeneral'sOffice,acopyofthedocumentsandpleadings
listedbelowupontheattorneyof recordfortherespondentandparties
hereinlistedandindicatedbelow.
1. PETITIONER'SRESPONSETOWASHINGTONSTATE
ATTORNEYGENERAL'SAMICUSCURIAE
WESTNET,lONEGEORGE
KITSAPCOUNTY
614DivisionStreet
PORTORCHARD,WA 98366-4678
igeorge@co.kitsap.wa.us
PETERGONICK
1125 WashingtonSt
OLYMPIA,W A. 98504-01
peter.gonick@atg.wa.gov
PAMLOGINSKYWAPA
TH
10 AVENUESE
Olympia,WA.98501
pamloginsky@waprosecutors.org
Ideclareunderpenaltyof perjuryunderthelawsoftheUnitedStates
thattheforegoingisTrueandcorrect.
Executedonthis22
nd
dayof September,2014
BY Sf: JOHN WORTHINGTON
JohnWorthington
4500SE2ND PL.
RentonWA.98059
21