Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robert James McDonald, Petitioner v. Washington

Il

-1-

NO

filed

IN THE

SEP 1 0 2025

clerk

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

; Robert-James: McDonald

Petitioner, Pro per

!

v.

:STATE OF WASHINGTON

!

Respondent

*

I

, On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

’

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Division I

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Robert-James: McDonald

c/o 2149 Cascade Avenue, Unit 441

Hood River, Oregon [97031]

Email: £QbertiamesmcdonaM@ProtoAmailtcam

I

Phone: 509-423-1842

-2-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

BRIEF INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS 1 AND 2

PRECEEDING QUESTIONS 1 AND 2

Introductory Statement 1

Petitioner asserts the claim that he holds the

pristine citizenship status of being a Pre-March 9, 1933,

Private Citizen of the United States secured by Section 1

1r I

■

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States, isaid status held by all American citizens

prior to March .9, 1933. Petitioner further claims he has

i') . ’

'

no contract with either the National or State military

governments, express or implied, that may have altered

said pristine, constitutional citizenship status to an

inferior grade of being made an “enemy” of the temporary

emergency

war' powers military governments of the

■

i’|

United States and the State of Washington established

on March 6,1 1933, via FDR’s Proclamation 2039,

continued on March 9, 1933, via FDR’s Proclamation

2040.

Question 1

Does Petitioner hold the citizenship status of being

a Pre-March 9, 1933, private citizen of the United States

secured by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States?

Answer: Yes

Evidence for the claim is a “Declaration of Status of

Robert James: McDonald” on file with the United States

District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane,

Washingtori, and in evidence with the King County Court,

State of Washington vs, McDonald, 23-1-04062-3 KNT.

!

Introductory Statement 2

Petitioner asserts the claim that he has the right

to a civilian due process of law in a State court secured

by Sectioh 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States and Hale v. Henkel,

201 U.S. 43, at 74 (1906). Petitioner further claims he

has no contract with either the National or State

governments, express or implied, that may have

resulted in a waiver of his constitutional right to a

civilian due process of law.

-4-

Question 2

Does Petitioner hold the right to a peacetime

civilian due process of law as opposed to an emergency

war powers military due process of law during this time

of national banking emergency / state of war, said

military jurisdiction derived from 50 USC 4316 in

effect on bonh a National and State level since the Erie

decision of April 25, 1938? (Erie Railroad Co. v.

Tompkins. 304 U.S. 64)

I

*

Answer: Yes

Evidence ! for the claim is a “Declaration of Status of

Robert-James: McDonald,” which includes its “Exhibit 3”

titled “Release With Consideration,” being a unilateral

contract tinker seal, on file with the United States

District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane,

Washington, and in evidence with the King County Court,

State of Washington vs, McDonald, 23-1-04062-3 KNT.

I

I

i

-5-

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

PETITIONER

Robert James: McDonald

c/o 2149 Cascade Avenue. Unite 441

Hood River, Oregon [97031]

RESPONDENTS

Lessa Manion, Prosecuting Attorney

Mailings Regional Justice Center

Suite 2 A, 401 4th Avenue North

Kent, Washington 98032

(206) 296-9000

Nick Brown, Attorney General

State of Washington

800 5th Avenue, 2000

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 464-7744

Representing the Washington State

Court of Appeals

-6i

I

i:' •- • i

State of Washington v. Robert James McDonald,

No. 87305:9- 2; Washington State Court of Appeals.

Motion Denied. April 8, 2025 (Order attached)

11

State of Washington v. Robert James McDonald,

No. 104267-1; Washington State Supreme Court,

p :

■

Motion Denied July 29, 2025 (Order attached)

■

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE(S)

I

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

2-4

i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

■

5-6

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

■

i

REFERENCE TO OPINIONS BELOW

■

8-9

10

I

JURISDICTION

11-12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

12

i

TREATIES i

|

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

12

13

i

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

14-16

i

APPENDIX |

17-27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

i

Cases

: '

i

,

• Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins,

’ ; 30^ U.S. 64 (1938), p. 4.

• Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906), p. 3.

!' I >

• State of Washington vs. McDonald,

I

i

. 123t 1-04062-3 KNT, pp. 4,10.

Constitutil Jal Provisions

• U.S? Constitution: Section 1, 14th Amendment,

pp. 2-3.

• U.S) Constitution: Article VI, Clause 2, p. 15.

.

;

i

i

' I

j ■ !

Presidential Proclamations

• Proclamation 2039, March 6, 1933, p. 2.

!

■

• Proclamation 2040, March 9, 1933, p. 2.

h:

Statutes and1 International Law

I' I 1

• Army Regulation 840-10, p. 13.

i ! '

• “Emergency Banking Relief Act” of March 9, 1933,

I I '■

I

1

I

d

i

’9’

Public Law No. 73-1 codified at 12 USC 95(a)

omitted from Title 12 in 2015 and moved to a

footnote at 50 USC 4305(b), p. 14.

50 USC Section 4316, pp. 4,13.

Hague Convention, Article 23 (1907), p. 15.

18 U$C Section 2441(c)(2), p. 15.

i

;

28 USC Section 1257(a), p. 11.

-10-

' I

REFERENCE TO OPINIONS BELOW

PROVIDED IN THE APPENDIX

• Exhibit A-—Washington State Court of Appeals

Order .Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Modify

STATE OF WASHINGTON v.

ROBERT JAMES MCDONALD

No. 87305-9-1

(April ;8, 2025)

• Exhibit B—Washington State Supreme Court

Ruling Denying Petitioner’s Motion for

Discretionary Review

STATE OF WASHINGTON v.

' I

ROBERT JAMES MCDONALD

No. 104267-1

(July 29, 2025)

■

i

-11-

JURISDICTION

i

This Court Jas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section

1257(a):

a. Final judgments or decrees rendered by the

highest court of the state in which a decision could

be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by

writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or

statute of the United States is drawn in question or

where' the validity of a statute of any State is drawn

in question oh the ground of its being repugnant to

the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United

States, or where any title, right, privilege, or

immunity is specially set up or claimed under the

Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any

commission held or authority exercised under, the

United States.

This Court retains jurisdiction to review whether state

i. !.

action has ddnied Petitioner fundamental constitutional

rights.

|

I

The judgment of the Order to be reviewed is Exhibit B of

the APPENDIX:

• Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Denying

Petitioner’s Motion for Discretionary Review

; i

STATE OF WASHINGTON v.

ROBERT JAMES MCDONALD

No. 104267-1

(July 29, 2025)

i

iI

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

• Constitution of the United States; Article VI,

Section 2, p. 13.

• Constitution of the United States, Section 1,

I

Fourteenth Amendment—

Citizenship of the United States Clause, p. 2-3.

Due Process of Law Clause, p. 2-3, 13.

TREATIES

• Hague Convention (1907), Article 23

codified at 18 USC Section 2441(c)(2), p. 13.

I

-13-

i STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner sought review in the Washington State

courts on the grounds that he, being a non-enemy

belligerent; Pre-March 9, 1933, private citizen of the

United States as a matter of public judicial record, is

entitled to a peacetime, civilian due process of law absent

the display of military flags in said courts. (Said United

States military flag, bordered on three sides with gold

fringe, is defined in Army Regulation 840-10.) The

Washington ‘courts dismissed or rejected Petitioner’s

filings without addressing these two fundamental

questions concerning said constitutional citizenship

status and constitutional right to said non-military,

non-emergency war powers, civilian due process of law.

Petitioner now seeks this Court’s review of

whether the ^continuing application of emergency war

powers military jurisdiction imposed on State courts

! i

through 50 USC 4316, can lawfully override, or

overlay, the peacetime, constitutional due process

rights of a ndn-belligerent civilian being a Pre­

March 9, 1'9313, private national citizen of the

United States.

I

-14-

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. Fundamental Constitutional Rights at Stake,

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

guarantees the right to civilian due process of law to the

Pre-March 9„ 1933, private citizen of the United States

defined in that amendment. This Court, in Hale v.

Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906), reaffirmed the right of

the non-enemy, non-belligerent private citizen.

2. Unresolved Question of National Importance.

Congress has never repealed its March 9, 1933,

“Emergency Banking Relief Act,” also referred to as the

“Emergency War Powers Act.” FDR’s war powers

Proclamations 2039 of March 6, 1933, and 2040 of March

9, 1933, based upon a section of “the Act of October 6,

1917” (i.e. the “Trading With the Enemy Act”) codified at

50 USC 4305(b) Remain “approved and confirmed.”

Therefore, the nation remains in a continued state of

national banking emergency / state of war. This situation

creates ambiguity regarding the fundamental rights of

non-enemy, private American citizens today.

For it appears, the nation is suffering under a covert

Second Reconstruction (1933-Present) nearly identical to

I

the First Reconstruction (1865-1877) when Southern

i

civilians were subjected to military tribunals during a

time of peace.

3. Conflict with International Law and U.S. Statutes.

Under Article 23 of the Hague Convention (1907) secured

by Article VI, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, non­

belligerent civilian “nationals” cannot be treated as

enemies or “belligerents.” Applying “emergency war

powers,” including emergency war powers military due

process of law to non-combatant civilians, risks

constituting a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2441(c)(2),

a potential war crime, which may be punishable with

death.

4. State Courts Failed to Reach the Substance of

Petitioner’s two claims. Washington courts denied

Petitioner’s interlocutory motions for discretionary review

without addressing both constitutional claims protected

on a State level by the Fourteenth Amendment. This

-16-

Court’s intervention is necessary to protect fundamental,

Constitutional liberties secured by Section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

Date

Robert-James: McDonald, Pro per

c/o 2149 Cascade Avenue, Unit 441

Hood River, Oregon [07051]

Zfihertiamesmcdonald@.protonmaiUQ^

Phone: 509-423-1842