Appendix — Koker v. Sage
Supreme Court brief1980
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
eae at at ae ak ke ket et ae te eae oe se
INTHE |,
—
—
TERM 1979
_
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E.-
KOKBR, husband and wife,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner,
<
NOBL Be SAGE and WINETTIA
SAGE, husband and wife, and
)
5
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NORL B- SAGE, Jr. )
)
)
mee mK ee me me me me me me me me Oe Om mk Ok Oe
= ; ie) nr
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ~~
Defendants,
Respondents }
cc
*
- A-P-P-B-N-D-I-X
a
P=
: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
; a 7
#% Appeal From State Of Washington
%
# State Supreme Court #45846 and 46169
[ Court Of Appeals Division I # 4916-1
*% Appeal: e 7 e e e e Appendix A-15(a) (b)
- Bxtension Of Time: Appendix A-”5(c)(d)
*
* Beatrice E+ Koker
a 939 - North 105th
o St- Seattle, Wash.
% Pro Se (206) 783-6998
+t
sa
ato oH Sb at Gt OH OO et te ee tt
we
BEEK KKK KKK RR KK KR RR RR RO OK KK a
*&
IND &X IND &® X
APPENDIX: FIRST SECTION: Tjuly 29, 1076) APPENDIX: THIRD SECTION:
(February 1979)
“Verdice® « + ss # es 2 ee Appendix A-1 “Supreme Court Appeal" . . Appendix A-15(a)(b)
"Motion New Trial or Additur" . Appendix A-#-2 “Jurisdiction Time’. . . Appendix A-15(c)(d)
"State Court Appeal" ..... Appendix A-3 ""Memo-Federal Court Deputy"Appendix A-16
"Appellate Decision" ..... Appendix A-4 "New Issue: Original File" Appendix A-17(a)(b)
Release Of Files Not Appendix A#17(a)(b)
"Reconsideration Denied"... Appendix A-5 Docketed Until Discovery . Appendix A-17(a)(b)
"Petition For Review" ...., Appendix A-6 “Special Motion State Ct." Appendix A-18
"Rehearing Denied" . ..... Appendix A-7 "Picture Wrecked Car". .. Appendix A-19
"False Continuance". ... Appendix A-20
APPENDIX: SECOND SECTION: (February 1979) “Doctor's Memo't « e-« « e Appendix A-2]
(July 20, 1979)
"To Whom It May Concern" . Appendix A-22
"“Letter-Evidence Motion Denied" Appendix A- 8 WMGOTEMEN s 6 6 0 0 6 6 Appendix A-22
"Mandate Issued Prematurely" »« Appendix A= 9 "Motion Shelved* ... . « Appendix A-23
"Notification Not Docketed'. .« Appendix A-10 “Petitioner's Answer. . . Appendix A-24
“Motion To Recall Denied'* .. Appendix A-11
. . ji Citation fT] See: Page 92 Herein
“Appeal For Review Denial" . . Appendix A-12 Second Citation
“Rule 4.3 Jurisdictional" .. Appendix A-12(a) Reference: Chicago B & Q Re Co _ V Chicago
166 U.S. 226, 246:
Graham v Gill,
223 Us S- 643, 645:
“Permission Asked To Answer" . Appendix A-12(b)
"Discretional Review Allowed". Appendix A-13
"Commissioner Ruling". « « « . Appendix A-13
"My Answer To Commissioner". . Appendix A-13(a)
"FINAL RULING. MOTION DENIED". Appendix A-14 xi
x
INDEX
APPENDIX: FOURTH SECTION:
“yury Foreman Affidavit" - + Appendix B-1l
“Jury Foreman At Oral Argue" Appendix B-2
"affidavit-Lay Witness" -« « +» Appendix B-3
“affidavit Reve Sabrowsky" «+ Appendix B-4
“affidavit 1975 Mistrial" + Appendix B-5
"Dre Sola - Treating Doctor'' Appendix B-6
APPENDIX
"Dre Sola - Affidavit" + + « Appendix B-7
"Dre Henriksen Orthopedic" eAppendix B-8
Surgeon Petitioner's Dr."
Wedge In LEFT SHOE
“Photograph To Brror 9(C) Appendix B-9
Page 74 Statement Of Case
Herein PART II"
“Diploma-Journalism' « « « +» Appendix B-10
> > > F&F F&F FF PP
§
yu oO VW A&A WY NH
"Complaint" ee7weeee e Appendix B-11(a)
Ss 2 «& o,e- 6. £76 Appendix B-11(b)
Emd B-12
APPBNDIX
xii
i
we es eo. ———
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.,
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE )
KOKER, husband and wife, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 773629
)
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA )
SAGE, husband and wife; and ) VERDICT
) -*
)
)
Defendants.
DEPT. 22
We, the jury, find for the plaintif‘*s
in the sum of $ "alae oc
P
ee a
Caz he ZZ 6 coed,
HG Lhe £6 Er rapy
31
a)
ame
~yLLet
ee! SMERK
“ G »¥
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ANTE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
ERICK KOKER and BEATRICE E.
KOKER, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, NO. 773620
vs.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
FOR ADDITUR
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.,
Defendants.
eee eee eee ee ee
Come now the plaintiffs and move that they be granted a
new trial on the following grounds:
l. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury
and adverse party, order of the court and abuse of discretion by
which such parties were prevented from having a fair trial;
2. Misconduct of the prevailing parties and jury;
3. Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could
not have guarded against;
4. Newly discovered evidence material to the plaintiffs
which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered
and produced at the trial;
5. Damages so inadequate as unmistakably to indicate
that the verdict must have been the result of passion or
prejudice;
6. Error in the assessment of amount of recovery in
that it is inadequate;
7. That there is no evidence or reasonable inference
from the evidence to justify the verdict and that it is contrary
wes
RAW OFFICES
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR Pe a es ee
IN ALTERNATIVE FOR ADDITUR etnvecs topantnasvis
. : / /
AH a
Apaprencliy
10
11
29
31
to law.
8. Error in law occurring at the trial and excepted
to at the time by the parties making this application.
9. That substantial justice has not been done.
FURTHER, without waiving the foregoing motion but
expressly relying thereon, the plaintiffs move for additur.
DATED this 16th day of June, 1976.
SKEEL, McKELVY, HENKE, EVENSON & BETTS
PO a a
By AT Kier “
FREDERICK V. BETTS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR IN
ALTERNATIVE FOR ADDITUR.
2.
LAW OFFICES
Sece.. McKevy. Hence Evenson @ Berrs
40TH FLOOR
900 FOURTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96164
Cpe pecoliy % A-2 Ca)
co oNyeelClenrmlCUDlClUMDrmUmUCM UCONN
= ee re
a a a ae ae > wwe» ©
SUPERIGR COURT O WASHDNGTAI
FO KIM CANTY
DICH KOM and BUATRICS E.
KOXLR, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, 1% 773620
Ve . NOTICE EF APPEAL TO
COUNT OF APPIALS
husvand and wife, and ]
INELE. SACD, Ie, pug 29, 197
Defencarts.
a a a I
DXICH KALA and LSATRICE £. Koto, plaintiffs seek review by the
desirnated appellate court of the entry of the jucgenent and demtal of
plaintiffs Motion for New Trial or in the Altermative for Additur on June 35,
1976.
A lec brace mst be worn the rest of plointiff Beatrice E. Noker's life.
Permnent injuries are proven through testimony of doctors and through the
Electromyogran Tests by Dre Anders L. Sola. Dr. Rothstein, Dr. Mlemperer,
ir. Leavitt or Dr. Sata DID NIT perfom the Dicctromocren Tests that could
have located injuries, The verdict must be the result of pession or
Defendants ad-itted liability.
prejudice or not unijerstanding the evidence,
The plaintiffs hereby anpeal to the Ccurt of Appeals of the State of
Washington fron thet certain judpescmt and order made, rendered and entered in |
this court and cause on the 30th da: cf Jume, 1976, and from each and every
part of said order to said Swerior Court, and fre: all rulings and orders
adverse to the plaintiffs which occurred during the trial of this case prior
and subscquent to the entr; of such ordcr.
Dated this 29th day of July, 1976
Defendants Attornevs: Beatrice E. Koker, Plaintiff Fro Se
Kermeth L. Letiaster
| Zrich Koker, Plaintiff Pro Se
3 939 = Korth 105th St.
pass fof daine Seattle, Tashincten 98133
NS 45th and BLO XLYN AVE. NE
Sexttle, Washincton 98185 Telephone: 753-6998
LiGAL DEPAREIINT
appindiuy 4-3
©. TAYLOR, CLERK
7 owision +
bacirsc aa The @ourt of Appeals
‘4 of the
“— bea State of Mashington
Seattle
98104
June 5, 1978
v/Mr. Erich Koker Mr. Kenneth L. LeMaster
Mrs. Beatrice E. Koker - Mr. R. Scott Fallon
939 North 105th Street. =- —--- ..--- Attorneys at Law. - = ete
Seattle, WA 98133 : Plaza Building
4333 Brookiyn Avenue N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
Counsel:
Re: No. 4916-I, Koker, et ux. v. Sage, et ux., et al.
King County No. 773620
The opinion filed by the court in the above-referenced case
today, states in part as follows:
"Affirmed."
In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), claim for costs by the
prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed and served
within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for
costs will be deemed to have been waived.
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Taylor
Clerk
RDT/bes
Enclosvre
cc: Hon. Donald J. Horowitz
Attorney at Law
1600 Seattle Tower
Seattle, WA 98101 .
464.7739
ARTA COOE roe
.
—
IN THE COURT- OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E.
KOKER, husband and wife,
Appellants,
Vv.
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA
SAGE, husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.,
ee eee eee ee ee
Respondents.
The appellants Koker, having filed a motion for
No. 4916-I
reconsideration, and the court having determined that it should
be denied; Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be, and
the same hereby is, denied.
rf
Done this ¥' day of August, 1978.
ik
¢ Richt then
3 (ee a ee
= = 4
Chief Judge
CRDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Supreme Court
™ State of Washington
Olympia
February 2, 1979
t
Mr. Erich Koker
Ms. Beatrice Koker |
939 North 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
Mr. Kenneth LeMaster
Mr. R. Scott Fallon
Plaza Building
4333 Brooklyn Avenue N. E.
Seattle, Washington 98105
Counsel:
Re: Supreme Court No. 45846 - Koker v. Sage
Court of Appeals No. 4916-I
Following consideration of the above entitled Petition
for review on February 2, 1979, the following notation order
was entered on page 125 _ , Vol. 1, of the petition for review
docket:
"DENIED
/s/ Robert F. Utter
Chief Justice"
ow) yours,
Sr ES pny OTS ALE
ie ia ™
JOHN J. CHAMPAGNE
Clerk :
JJC:aje
ec: Division I, Court of Appeals
Che Supreme Court
«J CHAMPAGNE
sop: State of Washington
REGINALD WH S+RUVER .
OfPuTY Olympia
ee504
February 6, 1979
.
7
Mr. Erich Koker
Ms. Beatrice Kok >r
939 North 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
Dear Mr. Koker:
RE: Supreme Court Nd. 45846 - Koker v. Sage
Court of Appeals No. 4916-I
King County No. 77362
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 5, 1979,
wherein you indicate that it is your intention to file a motion
for reconsideration of the order entered by this Court on February
2, 1979, denying the above entitled petition for review.
In accordance with RAP 12.5(b)(3) (ROA I-50 was repealed in 1975)
the decision of the Court of Appeals became final on the date that
the petition for review was denied. No further procedures are
@vailable under the Rules, as a consequence, the Court will not
consider any additional pleadings in the cause.
Very truly yours,
JJIC:aje
cc: Mr. Kenneth LeMaster
Mr. R. Scott Fallon
Honorable Richard Taylor, Clerk
Division I, Court of Appeals
Honorable Kenneth Helm, Clerk
King County Superior Court
1S) Soee
AREA 208
o-
oareTo
‘ f APPEALS
AON 1
‘ sc BU'LOING
WASHINGTON 88104
RICHARD D TAYLOR. Clerk The Gourt of Appeals DIVISION |
WANDA BOUDREAU, Deputy PACIFIC BUILDING
of the (206) 464-7750
State of Mashington
Srattle
98104
March 6, 1979
~Mr. Erich Koker Mr. Kenneth L. LeMaster
Mrs. Beatrice E. Koker Mr. R. Scott Fallon
929 North 105th Street Attorneys at Law
Seattle, WA 98133 Plaza Building
4333 Brooklyn Avenue N.E.
Seattle, WA— 98105
APPBNDIX
Counsel:
Re; 4916-I, Koker v. Sage
re Following consideration by a panel of the judges of
= i) this court, the following notation order has been entered in
the above-referenced appeal on February 28, 1979:
- 10 "Motion to Change or Modify Decision
Rule 12.7 (a)
Denied
/s/Jerome Farris
Acting Chief Judge"
Very truly yours,
= 12 (a) '
ys 0. : oo
= 12 (b) i
a 13 RDT/wb
> rp > rr > Pe PP P
]
®
| D je AF
APPBNDIX
ae
' above entitled case on
‘ 4AE COURT OF APPEALS OF 'THE STATE OF WASHINGTON _
ae
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E. _,
“KOKER, husband and wife,
_ APPSTIARES,
vo
MANDATE i
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA
SAGE, husband and wife, and ' No_4916-1
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.,
King County No,.773620
“Respondents.
The State of Washington to: The Superior Court of the State of Washington
in and for. County
King
This is to certify that the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division _I
Sy
June 5 , 1978 _, became the decision terminating review of this court in the
filed 21
March 7
oe This cause is mandated to the superior court
from which the appeal was taken for further procecdings in accordance with the attached true copy of the ©
opinion.
Pursuant to RAP 14.6(c), costs are taxed as follows: Sixty-five and
No/100 Dollars ($65.00) in favor of respondents and against appellants. The
motion for reconsideration was denied by an order dated August 8, 1978; the
petition for review was denied by an order dated February 2, 1979.
ce: Vite. Erich Koker Mr. Kenneth L. LeMaster
Ms. Beatrice Koker Mr. R. Scott Fallon
Reporter of Decisions
. rN IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
cA. eS set my hand and affixed the seal of said
7,
2 ee Ye Court at Seattle this 7th __day of
She: March _, 19.79
:
_ £22.20. ~
RICHARD D. TAYLOR
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, State of Washington, .
Division
Baga wwne
° A-9
rs |
—— Se
~—-- —_ —-
- ~~ —-.08 ®
A GS A ls
atrohesion peceivEy. ae
Keh- LW oe
RK OF COURT OF APPEALS ~~.
> OF WASHINGTON 1
File Noy —
Date Filings and Proceedings
8/8/78 | Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
B/11/78 |Motion for extension of time to file petition for review
to October 8, 1978 - "Granted" by CJ Farris on 9/7/78
9/26/78} Request for permission to file 11 additional Pages to petition for
review; affidavit of service “Granted” by notation order by cy on
10/9/78! Petition for reyiew - served 10/19/78 31 5-59' lia bac
10/18/7 Pouches (2) and briefs (10 A: 10 R: 10 Reply) delivered to the Sunveme_
Court - Receipt acknowledged 10/27/78 ;
245 ES ee
zest Kise of letise Pombeee Cole from apelin
2/2/12 a eo on 2/14/79 te eerie tea tate
2/15/79] Appeliantts Motion to Cnange or Modi fy Decision - Rule 12 7fa)-
Motion Pursuant to Rule 17.7, Objection to Ruling, Review of init ad
on Motion by Appellate Court Judges (Both +3)
2/16/79| Evidence (+7 - to be attached to motions filed 2/15/79)
2/28/79 | Motion to Change or modify decision - DENIED -hy ACJ. Farris;
4/9/79 a recall of mandate (+4) -¥
; . : ' ;
sere
r Cc a i if a "iy
Kohr
RICHARD 0. TAYLOA. Clerk
WANDA BOUDREAU. Deputy
Mr. Erich Koker
Ms. Beatrice Koker
939 N.
Seattle, WA
Counsel:
Re:
RDT/mlg
The Court of Appeals
State of Washington
Mr. Kenneth L. LeMaster
R. Scott Fallon
Attorneys at Law
Plaza Building
4333 Brooklyn Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA
No. 4916-1, Koker v. Sage
The following notation order was entered in the above-
referenced case today:
"Motion to recall mandate
fs/ Herbert A. Swanson
Acting Chief Judge
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Taylor
EGEIVE!))
ERICH KOKER and BEATHY@R £6 1979 ) IN THC SUPREE COURT OF THE
KOKER, husband @PRU“GF SUPREME COUR a oS ee
Paint ££ /appeLant let a ESNpION Supreme Court: ..... . . 45646
Court of Appeals Divl.. . LN6-I
v
NOSL B. SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.
NOTICE GO APPLAL
Respondents.
ee eee
@:EKING REVIEW: Erich Koker and Beatrice E. Koker, Petitioners pro se
APPEAL FR:
APPEAL FR:
APPEAL FOR:
APPEAL FOR:
APPEAL FOR:
DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE WHICH WAS PREMATURELY ISSUED
THE SAME DAY PETITIONERS RECEIVED DENIAL OF MOTION.
ye
DEVIAL OF MOTION 14.7(a) and 1727 REGARDING LETTER-EVIDENCE
PROVING BY ELDANATING DOUBT OF APPELLATE COURT DECISION
FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN EKRCR 3A. DECEIT.
RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR REVIEW EN BANC AS FIRST REVIEW.
REHEARING DENIED BECAUSE OF REPEAL OF RULE ROA-I 50
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED 12.7 and 17.7 DIPERATIVE TO FINAL JUSTICE.
I ASK THE SUPREXE COURT OF THE STATE TO UNDO A DENIAL OF A
RIGHT TO APPEAL YHEN A MANDATE IS PREMATURELY ISSUED BLOCKING
THE APPEAL OF VITAL EVIDENCE WHICH COULD WARRANT A REVERSAL.
USING RULE 1.2 WAIVER AND RCW 2.228.150 POWERS EXTRAORDINARY
TO WHATEVER MUANS NECESSARY FOR JUSTICE TO BE.
¢ E.§Xpher
COPY SENT CERTIFIED NAIL TO: Gesy KOK
er, Pro Se
The Court of Appeals Division 1 Seattle, Washington Erich Koker, Pro Se
Kenneth L. LelMaster and R. Scott Fallon 939 = North 105th st.
4,333 - Brooklyn Avenue NE
Seattle, Washington 98185
Telephone; 633-1310 Telephone: 783-6998
btlid: Agar 16,1974
(ZEK
Superior Court: . ... ++ 773620
Seattle, Washington 96133
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E.
KOKER, husband and wife,
Plaintiff/appellant/Petitioner,
F
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.
Respondents.
PP et
OR ALTERNATIVELY RULE 4.3 TRANSFER
TO PRQIOTE THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF REFUSAL OF CLERK
r MOTI
REGARDING MOTION 12.7, 1767, 12.9.
HE DID NOT EVEN READ THE MOTION JUST
SAID THE MANDATE IS DOWN SINCE MARCH.
STATE REMEDIES IMPEDED:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Superior court a a ae ae 773620
Court of Appeals Div1l. . L916-I
Supreme Court of Washington 5616
april 9, /979
NOTICE OF APPEAL IN DELAY OF RULING ON
MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM PREMATURE ISSUANCE
OF MANDATE BLOCKING APPEAL OF MOTICN TO
SUPREME COURT. MOTION ISSUED BEFORE
MANDATE, AND ACCEPTED BY APPELLATE COURT.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
RULING ON MOTION 12.7 ACCEPTED AND
RULED UPON BEFORE ISSUANCE OF MANDATE.
“UPON FAVORABLE RULING THIS LETTER-
EVIDENCE, TO RULE 1.2 REOPEN THE REVIEW
EN BANC TO CONSIDER THIS MOTION 12.7(a)
THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSARY AT THIS POINT STEMS FROM MOTION 12.7 (a) WHICH
WAS ACCEPTED IN FILING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER RULE 17.7 AND RULED UPON,
WHICH SHOULD BE BY RIGHT UNDER THE LAW SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
TO ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE PREMATURELY IS TO DENY ME THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
I ASK THAT YOU USE RULE 1.2 WAIVER TOADJUDICATE JUSTICE. THE MANDATE IS
PREMATURE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE THIS INJUSTICE, RECALL
THE MANDATE, RULE ON APPEAL IN MOTION 12.7 (a), AND UPON A FAVORABLE RULING
REOPEN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW TO INCLUDE THE EVIDENCE-LETTER OF MOTION 12.7(a).
¥] CITATION 1} PACIFIC DIGEST 2d 233 APPEAL AND ERROR Washington 1972
Wests Key 1188 Making and Issuance
"Where cause was remitted by the Court of Appeals on the same day
it entered order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution,
cause was remitted PREMATURELY and motion to recall remittur
filed within 30 days after decision was entered was timely."
sy 4-2 FM /2 (ad
A | reek A. toe na
|0)
inn)
P)
fal
co
4
inn)
Gaano?
~ wee
.
CLERK Ur SurcEME COURT
IN THE SUPRIE OCBURTN ODNTHE
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E.
KOKER, husband and wife, STATE OF WASHINGTON
Plaintiff/ ellant/Petitioner
; i : RE: 46169 MOTION FOR
y DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court: #45846
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA SAGE, Supreme Co si
husband and wife, and Court of Appeals:#4916-
NOEL B. SAGE, Jr ; Superior Court: #773620
- > e
PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY ASKED
ated: Mray '',/979
I, BEATRICE KOKER, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/ PETITIONER PRO SE,
RESPECTFULLY ASK LEAVE TO ANSWER RESPONDENTS' ANSWER TO
Defendents/Respondents.
MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BECAUSE: 7 2
(1) THERE IS A PRECEDENT CASE TO COUNTERACT HIS ANSWER.
ls
=.
(2) THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS IGNORED THE ISSUES OF THE Mor
-
= -
‘2¢
(3) THE LEGAL PRO SE REPRESENTATION IS PRECARIOUS. I THEREFORE
ASK THIS ANSWER BE ACCEPTED AS MY ATTEMPT FOR SELF-PROTECTION.¢:
(4) THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY DISREGARDS THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING .
MY USE OF THE COURT RULES, AND DISTORTS THE PURPOSE OF THE
RAP RULES AS USED BY THE PETITIONER BEATRICE KOKER.
Respectfully submitted,
— Scott Fallon %.2,£.XKohksr)
Ts aes ash. a ee Soke Se
ea ec of. 1A 49
‘Erich Koker, Pro Se
ASHINGTUR? 7 - North 105th St.
\ Y
7 c 5 yr
ns ba IN AND POR THE et ¥ Seattle, Washin-ton 98133
/ (Pim of endeavor) Telephone: 783-6998
4333 Brooklyn 4
98185 Telepha
Ie A- (2 (kh)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E.
KOKER, husband and wife,
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
)
)
)
)
Vv
Supreme Court: #45846
Court of Appeals: #4916-I
: Superior Court: #773620
REPLY TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO
PETITIONERS MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW 12.9 = 12.7(a) - 17.7
Dated: mou 11,1979
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, Jr.
Defendents/Respondents,.
I
REPLY TO RESPONDENT
¥55% QUOTING ***** RESPONDENT ATTORNEY HIS PAGE 2 LAST PARAGRAPH
"The mandate was properly issued by the Court of Appeals
thirty-three days following denial by the Supreme Court
of the appellants’ petition for review, at which time there
were no further remedies or avenue of appeals available to
appellants. There is no basis for appellants’ request that
the mandate be recalled within the scope of the Court Rules."
Beatrice Koker Answers:
The defense attorney in his answer indicates there is no redress
obtained for any reason after petition denial, including justice.
He does not consider RAP 1.2 nor the Extraordinary Powers of the
Supreme Court. There is a precedent case from the Supreme Court of
the State of Washington proving the defense attorney mistaken.
Page 1
Reply to Respondents’ Response
ON X- A-/2 Ce
ST Bin sae det x
Post v Spokane 28 Wn 701 (1902)
This is a case in which the Supreme Court has the power to grant
a change of judgments which it has affirmed, upon a showing being
made to the satisfaction of the court that the ends of justice require
it. A proof of fact in that case came to light and the Supreme Court
ruled favorably upon it in 1902 in a precedent case to preserve
justice even though there was no deceit involved there. Quoting
that case: 28 Wn 703 and 704:
"Certainly no permission can be granted to disturbe the
judgments affirmed or entered by this court unless it is
made reasonably to appear that the ends of justice requires
it. But the PRECEDENT of entertaining and considering such
applications has already been established. Since our
published reports contain nothing upon this subject, as far
as we are now informed, we have thought it proper to make
these observations in this connection, in order that the
PRECEDENT established may be more generally understood."
How much more imperative it is to dissolve a wrongful verdict
and unfair trial in the case at bar, when the verdict was obtained
through deceit and fraud of the court as in one instance Error 3 A.
The defense attorney has stated in his response there is no
basis for petitioner's request for a recall of themmdate within
the scope of court rules. There is basis to recall the mandate
in RAP 12.9; there is basis to review the denial by Appellate Court
of RAP 12.7(a) pursuant to 17.7; there is basis to take another
look for justice in this case and reverse the decision. The rules
of the court do not permit adverse influence in trial, to obstruct
Page 2
Reply to Respondents’ Response
- +2 Ch)
Cppend i 47
or impede due adminstration of justice is never allower per the:
TLCITATION $f 20 ALR Federal Cases p 755 § 9
"It has been recognized that 18 USCS § 1503 protects not only
court proceedings, but such proceedings as preliminary
hearings and grand jury investigations as well, since the
latter-mentioned proceedings serve as extensions of the
court. Thus, the "due administration of justice" can begin
at the earliest, with the filing of the complaint, and it
does not end, at the latest, until the final disposition of
the last appeal. Obstructive action taken at any point in
between, even while there is no udicial proceedings,
actually in progress is punishable, since the matter would
still be pending."
This citation applies to delay from a fraudulant continuance
granted on the ground presented by the defense attorney as & “conflict
of trial dates" when in fact he was proven to be in a motion. See
Proof: Appellants' Petition for Review Appendix A-12 (a)(b)(c)(d).
See Proof: Untruth #4 Motion 12.7(a) page 16.
Delay is an insidious barrier to justice. There is a mistrial
February 1975 caused by actions of defense attorney and 18 months
delay from mistrial to trial. Proof: Motion 12.7(a) page 11 and 12
and Appellants' Reply Brief page l.
ALL OF THE MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW NOW PENDING IS
RELATED TO ANY EXAMPLES GIVEN HEREIN.
What can a court judge do to fulfill his duty if the facts
are withheld by untruths by some attorneys, the very persons most
obligated to inform the judge honestly and truthfully? A court has
Page 3
Reply to Respondents’ Response
42 Ce)
af ‘ 12 A-
the responsibility to discourage delay and insist upon prompt
disposition of litigation according to 10A Federal Practice Digest
847 Wests Key 327.
There is every basis and reason for this petitioner to ask for
the recall of the mandate, review of Motion pursuant to 12.7(a) and
17.7, and reversal of the entire trial, within the scope of court
rules and the law of the land and the proven deceit in trial, and
proving impeding and obstruction of justice with prejudice at every
turn to me. AFOREMENTIONED. REITERATED. PROVEN FROM THE RECORD.
It
REPLY TO RESPONDENT
*S%%% QUOTING ****% RESPONDENT ATTORNEY ITEM (5) HIS PAGE (2)
"The mandate was issued by the Court of Appeals. This procedure
is quite proper pursuant to RAP 12.5 (b) (3), wherein it
states such mandate may be issued by the Court of Appeals
upon denial of the Supreme Court of Petition for Review."
Beatrice Koker Answers:
Mr. LeMaster has again evaded all the issues. According to
Rule 12.5 (a) (which he does not even mention) a "mandate" is a
WRITTEN NOTIFICATION by the Clerk of the trial court and the
parties of an Appellate Court Decision terminating review.
Page 4
Reply to Respondents’ Response’
HppedkG A-/2 Ch)
THERE WAS NO WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF A MANDATE. NO MANDATE
WAS ISSUED. Motion 12.7(a) and Motion 17.7 were both submitted
to the Court of Appeals before issuance of mndate, thus making
this a proper and timely motion accepted by the Court of Appeals.
There is a ruling of DENIED, but my right for review was estopped.
At this point, there is a strange twist of facts. The docket
of the Appellate Court shows Motions 12.7(a) and 17.7 DENIED
February 28, 1979, Letter of notification of denial of those
motions to petitioners is dated March 6, 1979. This notification
letter is markedly missing from the docket, and am therefore
enclosing the notificater letter for proof of date, and the
docket sheet. ‘Appendix A-l_and Appendix A-2
THE MANDATE IS THEN ISSUED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION
OF DENIAL OF MOTIONS 12.7(a) and 17.7 TO THE PETITIONERS. That
is an issue. Premature issuance of the mandate obstructed the
right to ask the Supreme Court for review of an Appellate Court
ruling on motions,
The mandate was issued prematurely in this improper manner.
The right to ask the Supreme Court for review of the denial was
estopped abruptly. To issue a mandate in this hasty premature
manner is even more improper because of the subject-matter of
the Evidence-Letter in both motions regarding Error 3A and deceit
in a trial court. Also, in addition, the Supreme Court had ruled
Page 5
Reply to Respondents’ Response
Z 2 A~-~/2 C)
a
en banc on Error 3A in the Petition for Review. That makes an
inherent right for the Supreme Court to examine the Evidence-Letter
in conjunction with the Untruths #1 #2 #3 #4 and proving the deceit
plugging the last link in the technicality of "newly discovered
evidence,"
Therefore, the mandate was improperly and prematurely issued
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES in the wake of events so proving. The
defense attorney makes no mention of the Evidence-Letter nor his
part in deceit of the trial,
The Petition for Review was a Discretionary Review and it
was DENIED, RAP 13,5(d) Effect of Denial:
"Denial of discretionary review of a decision does not
effect the right of a party to obtain later review of
the Court of Appeals decision or the issues pertaining
to the decision."
AY Rar 13,5 (b) (2)
"If the Court of Appeals has committed probable error
and the decision of the Court of Appeals substantially
alters the status quo or substantially limits the
freedom of a party to ect, . ."
(a) To prematurely issue a mandate is to substantially limit
my freedom to move in any direction for relief of improper
timing of the mandate dissallowing my right to ask for review
of a ruling on Motions by the Court of Appeals.
Page 6
Reply to Respondents’ Response
(b) The law of the land and the rules of the court protect
the UNSUSPECTING as well as the wary.
(c) Discretionary review is granted to me by the Supreme Court
and gratefully received by Pro Se Beatrice Koker.
IIt
REPLY TO RESPONDENT
**%%* QUOTING ***#* RESPONDENT ATTORNEY HIS PAGE (2) PARAGRAPHS (1) (2)
"Purther, pursuant to RAF 12.4(g), a motion to modify the
decision of the Court of Appeals mst be preceded by the
party's motion for reconsideration being granted."
"In this case, not only was the appellants' motion for
reconsideration DENIED by the Court of Appeals but their
subsequent and improper motion to change or modify (which
is in reality a second motion for reconsideration) is
clearly prevented by RAP 12.4(h), but in any event was
DENIED by the Court of Appeals."
Beatrice Koker Answers:
In reality what Rule RAP 12.4(g) actually says, is this:
"If a motion for reconsideration is granted, the Appellate
Court may (1) modify the decision without new argument,
(2) call for new argument, or (3) take such other action
as may be appropriate."
The defense attorney knows Rule RAP 12.7(a) is not a
reconsideration rule. The defense attorney has completely ignored
the subject matter of RULE 12.7(a) and 17.7 Motions. (Deceit and
Untruths) The Evidence-Letter and Error 3A and deceit in the trial
court CORRELATED TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST TIME has not been considered
before. How could he think an Evidence-Letter never seen be
reconsideration?
Page 7
Reply to Respondents' Response
Pptercclig 9 - 72 CH)
el
A
Why do the court rules have RAP 12.7(a) if what the defense
attorney claims that only decisions granting reconsideration can
be changedor modified? According to that theory as per his
response document, RAP 12.7(a) should be integrated into RAP 12.4
as 12.4(1) and abolish 12.7(a) RAP entirely:
Again the defense attorney has not recognized RAP 1.2 and
the justice power of the Appellate Structure. He makes no
mention of repugnant deceit in trial court. The technicalities
of pre-decisions can be oblitereated and the rules bent for
justice. The precedent case page 2 and page 3 herein says it
like it is: Possible. Probable. Accomplished.
IV
REPLY TO RESPONDENT
eee QUOTING <#ER RESPONDENT ATTORNEY ITEM (4)His PAGE (1)
"Appellants' improper motion to change or modify the Court
of Appeals decision was DENIED."
Beatrice Koker Answers:
WOULD AN APPELLATE COURT RULE UPON AN "IMPROPER" MOTION?
Is the defense attorney calling the Appellate Court improper
because the Honorable Judges accepted motions 12.7(a) and 17.7
and ruled upon same?
Page 8
Reply to Respondents’ Response
/ o fa -12 Che’
The mandate had not been issued. The motions were proper
because pursuance of justice is never improper. Deceit is
improper.
Ti CITATION |} Southerland v County of Oakland
77 Federal Rules Decisions 733 (2) (3)
",. . . £raudulent statements to the court are
particularily disturbing bevause he is an attorney
and as such, an officer of the court obliged to act
forthrightly at all times."
"While he should represent his client with singular
loyality, that loyalty obviously does not demand that
he act dishonestly or fraudulently; on the contrary,
his loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands
integrity and honest dealings with the court. And when
he departs from that standard of conduct of the case he
perpetrates a fraud upon the court."' 7 Moore's Federal
Practice 513 (1975) (Citations Omitted)
A fair trial is the most precious constitutional right of
all citizens. The legal profession goes to great lengths to
instill public confidence in the profession as it should, be-
cause only the legal profession has the capacity and ability
to represent the public correctly in court.
In re Murchison, et al, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 99 L Ed 942,
946 (1955) said that court emphasized our system of law has always
endeavored to prevent even the PROBALILITY OF UNFAIRNESS,"
(Emphasis Mine)
Page 9
Reply to Respondents’ Response
Cppanoles A~ tn Ces
There is a public image of the legal profession. Justice
Jackson, concurring in Hickman v Taylor 329 U.S. 495 (1947)
said it this way:
"But it too often is overlooked that lawyers and the
law office are indispensable parts of our administration
of justice . . The welfare and tone of the legal
profession is therefore of prime consequence to society."
UNFAIR TRIAL:
There are questions to be answered by the defense attorney
to allegations presented throughout appeal. He hes chosen not
to answer, here and now, nor in the briefs, nor oral argument.
The following example is pertinent to the motion pending
at this time because these very happenings instigated the appeal
in the first place. The enclosed affidavits will substantiate
the relating of this incident. The purpose is to reinforce
review of motions pertaining to Deceit in Error 3A and the
Letter-Evidence submitted, and recall the mandate to rule on
12.7(a) and 17.7 and the Petition for Review and the reversal
of the verdict.
June 7, 1976: My attorney then, Mr. Betts, sent me ALONE
te a defense doctor two days prior to trial. The defense doctor
subjected me to a veritable bevy of questions resembling a
deposition interrogation. He was extremely rude but I did not
become angry, but I was sarcastic and asked: "Is this supposed
to be a medical examination or a deposition?"
Page 10
Reply to Respondents’ Response
pDependic A-/2 ch)
Quietly, in a lady-like manner I told him his questions
were improper because I thought I was supposed to be at a
medical examination, not a deposition, and would call my
attorney and put a stop to it. My attorney was not in and I
spoke to a colleague of his who told me to just ignore it.
The trap is recognized now. In court, from the record,
this is what happened:
RP VOL III p 228/10-23: Direct Examination Of Doctor By Defense
Mr. LeMaster: "Doctor, was there anything unusual that
occurred during the taking of your medical
history from Mrs. Koker?"
Dr. Klemperer: "She felt that she had to consult her attorney
about the <= - call her attorney about - - my
role in this matter, and WHETHER OR NOT SHE
WAS IN A DEPOSITION."
What did the attorney of Beatrice Koker do in rebuttal?
RP VOL III p 252/1-10: Mr. Betts Cross Examination Dr. Klemperer
Mr. Betts: "Doctor, you told the jury that when you first
started examining her, she wanted to call me, her
attorney, about the procedure of what was going
on; isn't that true?"
Dr. Klemperee: "Right."
Mr. Betts: “And that was because she thought it was supposed to
be a deposition rather than an examination; isn't
that what she told you?"
Dr. Klemperer: "That's right."
Page 1l
Reply to Respondents’ Response
Cpzgondet, 4 -/2 Eb)
Mr. Betts: "And you contacted my office, and everything was
straightened out, and you told - I told her that
this was a medical examination?"
Mr. Betts wasn't even in his office, and did not speak with
Dr. Klemperer, amd he as my attorney was told the affrontry of
this medical man and his rudeness and his improper questions
for a medical examination. I had been to both depositions and
medical examinations and really did know the difference.
The entire thrust of the defense was to depict me as a
woman "far gone mentally" and my attorney aided and abetted
the defense in the aforementioned example. Why would an
attorney of such experience and stature and respect as bir.
Betts do this? The jury never got the explanation.
Please refer to Affidavit Section Appendix this document.
A citation has revealed to me a surprising fact, and there
are more answers to be obtained regarding my protection in
court and litigation.
MODERN TRIALS 1961 Supplement 311_and 312
Footnote 412: Sharff vw Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal 2d 508,
282 P 2d 896
"Whenever a doctor selected by the defendant conducts a
physical examination of the plaintiff, there is a
possibility that IMPROPER QUESTIONS, may be asked and
a lay person should not be expected to evaluate the
propriety of every question at his peril. The plaintiff
therefore, should be permitted to have the assistance
and protection of an attorney during the examination."
Page 12
Reply to Respondents’ Answer ,
Goapele A -/2
ENS
The litigation in the case at bar comes to you at an
age of nearly 8 years since the day of the wreck June 4,
1971. I must without choice endure the injuries, the
repercussions and aftermath of the injuries, the humiliation
of an unfair trial, the heartbreak and disappointment in
wrongdoing of people I trusted, both attorneys. The burden
of pro se from necessity in a legal struggle for justice
has fallen to me. When a legal misstep is done in court
depriving a citizen of that cherished right to a fair trial,
there must be redress and remedy for the victim of the legal
misstep which resulted in deceit of the Judge, jury and the
litigants. There must be a reversal and an attempt of
restitutuion for those who have been deceived, wronged,
deprived of constitutional promises. We, the Petitioners.
I respectfully ask for Justice. I cannot touch a penny
of that verdict. To do so would be to partake of a verdict
obtained in deceit. It would be aiding the wrongdoers in
accomplishing a goal "to win a case"? It would be approving
the actions of those who deceived in a court of law. To not
protest, to not fight, to not resist would be deceit in a
trial sub silentio and a denial of justice. Please reverse?
Copy Sent Certified Mail to: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kenneth L. LeMaster and R. Scott Fallon CB, t ° &. Kohir
4333 Brooklyn Avenue NE Seattle, Wash.
98185 Telephone \ 633-1310 Drie q’ KR a ri
L
ABezeh Koker, Pro Se
SE Fe, 939 - North 105th Street
“re BUC IN 2.80 PURITHE S3ATE OF WASHING SHattle, Washington 98133
u C2 .
Reainiiy at
7 Wines Vawias) AN "Téléphone: 763-6998
Oppendi, “1-12 )
JOP JD CHANWAGNE The Sup t rie Gyiut
Citas
MPiate of Washington
REGuALD N SHiVER .
nm Puly Olympia
985046
June 1, 1979
Ms. Beatrice Koker
Mr. Erich Koker
939 North 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
Mr. Kenneth LeMaster
Mr. R. Scott Fallon
4333 Brooklyn Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98185
Gentlepersons:
Re: No. 46169 - KOKER V. SAGE
Court of Appeals No. 4916-I
Enclosed herewith is a copy of the Ruling Denying
Motion for Discretionary Review signed by the
Cornmissioner on May 31, 1979, in the above re-
ferenced cause.
vit ag Bs a 2.32
Pe Sette ra ae
oo "JOHN J. CHAMPAGNE eed
Clerk
JJC:aje
cc: Division I, Court of Appeals
THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
hs 9 f Ly
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE
E. KOKER, husband and wife,
Petitioners,
RULING DENYING MOTION
FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
NO. 46169
Ve
NOEL B. SAGE and WINETTA
SAGE, husband and wife, and
NOEL B. SAGE, JR.,
Respondents.
eee eee eee ee lee
This matter came before the Commissioner on May 31, 1979 on pe-
titioners' pro se motion for discretionary review of an April 13,
1979 order of the Court of Appeals, Division One, denying petitioners'
motion to recall mandate. Respondents have answered opposing the
motion.
Petitioners do not suggest why their motion should be granted in
view of the considerations set forth in RAP 13.5(b), but rather ap-
pear to argue that there were improprieties of some sort in the
original mandate procedure and injustices in past proceedings in
the long history of this lawsuit. These allegations are not really
relevant to the present motion, and in any event the files in this
matter indicate that petitioners’ case has received exhaustive con-
sideration at each of the various court levels which it has previously
passed through.
There being no grounds for discretionary review of the order
denying motion to recall mandate, the motion for discretionary re-
view is denied.
DATED at Olympia, Washington this 3lst day of May, 1979.
Nan, Probe
() Ghuberenn
pian Ass A-13
Vr i ed
— let
sa aw s BR = OC
31
32
— —
ECEIVE
tt in = & 1979 y
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
BRICH KOKER and GebRe fife SUPREME COURT 8 OS ae
KOKER, husband and @i#e(f WASHINGTON
Re: Discretionary Review
46169
Supreme Court - - 45846
Appellate Court - 4916-1
Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners,
y ‘ila sia
NOEL B- SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
Be SAGB, JR RULE _17+7 MOTION TO MODI
saeiel RULING - DIRECTED TO THE
HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT OF
Respondents.
a nae < Qatd ' pune §, (977
‘thee a ‘ Daman’ —_— s
“TDENTITY OF PETITIONER: Brich Koker and Beatrice Koker, Pro 5e
DECT'SION BELOW:
——
The Honorable Supreme Court Commissioner denies the petition
ers the motion for Discretionary Review of the denial of Recall
of the Mandate by The Court of Appeals Division I+ The Honorabl
Commissioner states the petitioners did not suggest why their
motion due be granted in view of the considerations set forth
in RAP 13+5(b) (2)-
~
Proven Grounds For Review:
RAP _13-5(b)(2): “if the Court of appeals has committed
probable error and the decision of the Court of Appeals
substantially alters the status quo or substantially
limits the freedom of a party to act, oF
Petitioners Desperation No Freedom To Act:
The legal limits of freedom of a pro se to act was 0
limited in the Court of Appeals Division I, as to accurately be
labeled "desperation." A personal journey was made to Olympia
by Beatrice Koker even to asking for relief under rule 4.3
because there was no place to go» Please ask Mr- Shriver for
verification that a pro se petitioner came into the office
saying she was not there to complain but simply because she
was desperate and could not legally move in any direction.
Papers pertaining to that restriction submitted to the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington April 9, 1979 and April 16, 197
TO JUDGES ONLY
Page 1 RULE 17¢7 Motion to Modify Ruling
Meprndiy Al 3 ~
Pe es ss: a
i ee a) ee en ee <
et
7s @w@8 @&&& & = &
21
DECISION BELOw: “Not Improprieties"
The impression of the Honorable Commissioner is that the
petitioner appeared to argue there were improprieties of some
sort in the original mandate procedure.
“Premature Mandate:
(a) A motion was submitted to the Court of Apveals Division I
and later the motion was denied.
(b) There was a lapse of 7 days from denial of the motion to
notification of the motion being denied.
(c) The 10 days time allowed to ASK for review of a ruling,
was then further diminished to three days.
(d) Within 24 hours of notification, the mandate was issued
prematurely destroying the constitutional right to ASK
for review of a denied ruling.
"To Correct Brror"
A motion to Recall Mandate was filed in the Court of
Appeals under Rule 12.9(a) = "to correct error."
The motion was not ruled upon as the 30 day finality of
a mandate approached. To allow the thirty-day-finality of a
mandate to lapse without question or motion or ruling, would
make moot the necessity of any decision. "No freedom to act"
became a facts “The mandate is final" was an oft repeated
sentence burned into my cortex April 6, 1979 while trying to
ferret information as to the whereabouts of Motion To Recall the
Mandate.
Every question was answered: "The mandate is final."
The motion was not located. The “freedom to act" annihilated.
Page 2 RULE 177 Motion to Modify Ruling
Ypendy f\-/ 3CA)
TO JUDGES ONLY
— =... ee
‘
/
4
5
6
7
DECISION BELOW: Court of Appeals:
The entire purpose of petitioners motions was to present
proof of "newly discovered evidence" when anplied to Brror 3(a)
in Petition for Review and Briefs.
A doctor changed his medical report in deposition.
The deposition was never transcribed.
The doctor was never called to testify.
The following letter-evidence proves concealment.
The following letter proves Error 3(A)
7 cate pesr
* S -
-
~~“
wn ihrO © SAEEL
ner weet, oe
«ecuvt °e7m
-
= €.evenson
pacocece ¥. OETTsS
vous C. PaTILeSON
@eaepicr ff. wewae
revi. © Ceecr
Seevct *. wvest
Teecr .. S8Oew
JOnm &. Beatie
S&S. THOmas preter a
OOVOLAsS & OURS
Livin GBlOe wl est
DOwALO C.CHes~er
Law Orrices
SKEEL, Mckewwy, HENKE, EVENSON & Betts
F ,40* FLOOR
8200 FOURTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9BI64
ac
Yea dboore € gt
com * m*eOEHs
ww. Pav no
or cov~rsc
ate ti aoe geCEIrep
_ August 21, 1975
FELIS ivy
CLERK OF COURT OF APPEALS
; oe STATE OF YYASHINGTON | °
Mrs. Beatrice E. Koker ,., Eile .
939 North 105th Street -* * - Hila o_
Seattle, Washington 98133
. » ,
Re: Koker vs. Sage
| E ance
Dear Mrs. Koker? ee
ee Se
As I informed you the deposition of Dr. Sata
was taken on Wednesday, August 20. Without going into a
lot of detail, this doctor stated in effect that he could:
find no real objective evidence to support your various
claims. ——
On Thursday, August 21, the deposition of Dr.
Please note there is no mention of a changed medical report
No mention of proven spondylosis aggravation, the reasonable
cost of a myelogram never testified to in court leaving litigant{
to pay with borrowed money
A denied ruling on motions quashed ASKING for review thus
preventing this evidence being presented to the Supreme Court.
(No freedom to act.) Denial of Motion to Recall Mandate which
was ptematurely issued contrary to constitutional provisions.
RULE 17+7 Motion To Modify Ruling TO JUDGES ONLY
Oppendiy hy3 Ca)
et nea — ane
Page 3
9
ll At Pat) _
roar --
1 DBCISION BELOW: Commissioner State Supreme Court
2 The Commissioner goes on to say the petitioners appear to
3 argue that there were improprieties of some for in past
4 proceedings and injustices- Allegations not relevant to motion.
. The packet of three motions stapled together and with tabs
. for the Convenience of the Supreme Court, you will find in
’ RAP 12+7 UNTRUTH #1 = #2 ~- #3 ~ #4 and the proof of each.
. All the facts relevant to the motion for Discretionary Review
° are within these three motions, plus the filing of the papers’
10 April 9, 1979 and Anri} 16, 1979+ These facts are relevant
i to the motion in all respects.
12
13 The very purpose for asking for the Recall of the Mandate
14 in the Court of Appeals was to Claim the right to ASK FOR REVIEW
15 of a ruling- That is relevant+ The very purpose of submitting
“s Motion 12+7 was to present "letter-evidence" proving without
- one doubt, the newly discovered evidence of Error 3(a)-.-
18 In view of these actions, ‘and denials, and rejections,
19 there is merit displayed that the "letter-evidence” is a factual
20 proof for reversals, that is being prevented by "no freedom to act."
21
The jury foreman affidavit in which a jury is so confueed
ses they must take a vote to determine guilt of innocence of the
- “victim of admitted liability", is certainly relevant to any
aspect of this case and the allegations of injustice have
= everything to do with an appeal, the discretionary review and
- motions- The allegations have been proven from the record.
27
28 The @ecthaustive consideration is appreciated. The Court of
29 Appeals found abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court decided the
30 petition for review en banc. The Closeness of the decisions
31 has everything to do with the Discretionary Review now and the
32 modification of the ruling, and weighing “newly discovered evidence.’
Page 4 Rule 17+7 Motion To Modify Ruling TO JUDGES ONLY
Cfpendhie A-/3 Ca)
SRE ow ae
‘
v : ‘
1 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: ae
(1) Does not Rule 1365 (b)(2) apply to the circum J
to as
: tion because the "freedom to act" and the "freedom
despera —_
ed by premature mandate issued by the Cle
. 4 for review was estopp
5 of the Appellate Court?
=
the Court of Appeals
x 6 (2) The facts on record of & docket in gees
de February . °
S 7 shows the denial of Motion 12-7(a) was ma tel
jal of that motion
8 There is a notification letter of denia
9 | warch 6, 1979+
for
7 10 day limit to ASK
ot Is not a delay of 7 days out of a ioe
oF ¥ constitutional fF
= review the motion, be @ denial of a co
be 12
= 13 heard?
: ued within
t conclusive evidence that @ mandate iss
: oe ye f motion, leaves & void
f denial of a ’
‘ 15 24 hours after notification © e ;
16 || in constitutional protection?
| to the
9s (4) When the record shows Beatrice Koker made a journey to
4 e
ration
a T le of Justice in Olympia asking for helo in despera ®
cretion-
“i da that not apply to Rule 13+5(b) (2) and reason for Dis
oes
< ary Review to be granted?
; r rule 43
(5) Would not asking for jurisdiction be removed unde
. ° b) (2
f the Court of Appeals be & consideration for Rule 13+5 (b) (
23 rom e
4 and Discretionary Review?
late Court under
| ” (6) Motion 127 was submitted to the Appel ;
f of "newly discovere
* Rule 17-7 February 15, 1979 holding the proot °
Discretionary
" evidence-" An issue here being relevancy -for Be:
shed by the premature
2 Review because the "evidence-letter" is que ee
t for review o
29 issuance of the mandate cutting off the righ ms
reventing an absolute
30 rulings Would not @ premature mandate p ?
of law in anpea
31 right to ASK be denying the due process
THE JU
“3 Page 5 Rule 17+7 Motion To Modify Ruling TO DGES
Afrpendos A~/ 3Cw)
= z —<— ———— a ———_ aes °.
TET _ —e
oo oss lCCtrlUlCUC RUC OermlCMNLEC(i WN
el ee oe )
rr ee ee |
a i:
\
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW:
(7) What justification is there for issuance of a vremature
mandate and then the Court of Appeals upholding the error which
denies a constitutional privilege?
(8) Is untruth in a court of law by the quasi-judicial officers
of the court to be called "impropriety" or "fraud of the court"?
This is an issue because at no time have I mentioned the word
impropriety and if this is mentioned in the opinion, then it is
relevant in issues. Is "deceit" a mere impropriety?
(9) Why is it so difficult to get this "“letter-evidence" to
the Supreme Court?
(10)
why then the very last motion that could have been put in treated
with such elaborate rejection?
(11) The-past trial proceedings have everything relevant to do
with the motion. There was deceit in the trial in Error 3(A)
The motion was to present further “letter-evidence” to prove that
deceit. The motion to recall is based upon the rejection of the
motion 12-7 with proof of deceit and "newly discovered evidence’!
(12)
ions of injustices in the trial proceedings are not really
The Commissioner of the Supreme Court states the allegat-
relevant to the present motion.
The proceedings in trial court and the wrongful acts therein
and the allegations proven from the record apply to this present
motion because the very essence of the motion concerns deceit-
The letter-evidence is the subject of the motion, and from the
denial of that motion, a premature recall is issued, and then
recall is in limbo, surfaced, denied, only to end up in discret-
ionary review of the recall+ Denied. Still no Letter-evidence
getting before the Supreme Court.
Page 6 Rule 17+«7 Motion To Modify Ruling TO THE JUDGES
If the petitioners case has received exhaustive consideration,
Cppendisz A-/3 Ca)
> wv WN
31
32
STATEMENT OF THE CASB:
—_——
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY
February 2, 1979:
February 6, 1979:
February 7, 1979:
February 9, 1979:
February 14) 1979:
The petition for review is denied by the
State Supreme Court.
The State Supreme Court informed petitioners
the rehearing rule has been repealed in 1975+
Had there been a rehearing, the “letter-
evidence" could have gone direct to the
Supreme Court.
A evidence letter proving the petitioners did
never know there had been a changed medical
report in a deposition was found. In fact,
“the letter proved Error 3(A) and the letter
proved the litigants were also misled.
Motion 12+7(a) was sent to the Court of
Appeals Division I post-haste-
THE MANDATE HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED.
The Clerk of The Court of Appeals returned
Motion 12+7 to petitioners.
Motion 12-7(a) was re-submitted in Rule 17-7
February 15, 1979:
February 28 979:
March 6, 1979:
March 7, 1979:
March 9, 1979:
The Court of
heard. On April 6, 1979 I went to the Court of Appeals with a
motion to protect
Not hearing, and then not investigating, and having the 30 day
finality pass, would make the motion moot for recall-
Page 7 RULE 17+7
eee ono o
The Motion was accepted-
BEEN ISSUBD-
The docket sheet shows the mandate is issued
on this date.
A letter dated March 6, 1979 is sent to
the petitioners notifying of denial of
Motion 12+7(a) - “letter-evidence."
Within 24 hours the mandate is issued cutting
all "freedom to act" as per Rule 13-5(b)(2)-
Motion to Recall Mandate sent to the Court
of Appeals within 2 days of issuance of the
mandates Rule 12-9(a) - “to correct error."
Appeals had the Recall Motion and nothing was
my rights in that court and federal court.
TO THE JUDGES
Append A73 (a)
Motion To Modify Ruling
THE MANDATE HAD NOT.
a ee oe eee
it
rf
|
‘\
‘
. ‘
: 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTs: (Cont'd)
See
. 2 I_asked: That the Genial of Motion to Recall Mandate which Was .
STATEMENT OF FACTS: (Cont'd) 3 prematurely issued the Same day petitioners Feceived denial of
f <— 4 Motion to Recall, be overruled. i
April 6, 1979: Beatrice Koker asked the Clerk of the Court o
April 6, 1979: 5 :
Appeals if there had been a ruling on the Recall of the Mandate. ._ . I asked: After the Recall of the Mandate, to rule on the denies |
Answer: "The mandate is final." N . of Motion 12-7 and 17+7 regarding the “letter-evidence" proving |
J + :
ndate be final, if the motion is still : Newly Discovered Evidence" in error 3(A) a changed medica] Fepor
Question: “How Can a ma :
. pending before the court?" ‘ in deposition, and the contents of the deposition Concealed from
the jury, court and litigants. That letter being Proof the
Answer: "The mandate is final. 10
—_ 8 petitioners did not know of a changed medical report before the
rights was r
Then my motion to protect state and federal ut trial. The doctor was not Called to tria) to testify. The
, final." =
refused because,as he put it: "The mandate is 12 deposition had never been transcribed. A tight picture of proof.
= 13
rejection of my 5
I asked if he would put the reason for rej na 14 I_ asked: That under the circumstances of a premature mandate,
motion in hand on the margin of the front page a a “ Proof of deceit in a (hei wad Geeee & Whah Wie withetes tes
da mark the mo
would not sign anything- I asked if he woul a 16 review EN BANC (as previously) be used to Te-weigh the injustice
known a
, he did. An intention was make and to reverse the jur ct.
refused- This he P om 17 e the jury verdi
1 under 17-7 and he said he would not take ANY of my pap
a . ‘
ns lin toe 18 i_asked: That Rule 1.2 waiver and RCW 2.28.150 powers extraordinas
° b)(2) became desperation 19
“Freedom to act" Rule 13-5 ( be used to whatever means necessary for justice.
lementary submitted it says: 20
Beatrice Koker- In the Supp
s of Discretionar Revi
“There was no where to turn. I left the ese pe 21 mamensnnonary Review
the Appellate Court in tears and utter desp
ies 22 Notice came that discretionary review would be May 31, 1979.
to seek help-
April 9, 1979: A personal journey to Olympia . 23 All the facts were before the Supreme Court. The "freedom to act'
d that I was not there to '
+ Shriver was told the situation an 24 was obvious. The error of ® premature mandate was obvious.
are bu ly as a desperate woman who did not know which ma ie iene . wing sis
complain, but only © Cesperation o e@ pe oner was obvious.
11 He filed my
way to turn because my hands were tied legally- te “ Dae ma tas
attempted appeal and delved into where the Mandate Recall wa a y ew is denied by the Suptene Court elinons
foner May 31, 1979, saying the petitioners "do not Suggest why
t the Motion to 28
Word was received from Mr- Shriver tha their motion should be granted in view of the Considerations set
Recall the mandate was before the judges (The Mandate Was Not 29 forth in RAP 13,5 (b)(2).
Final As Told) and they would be rulings The ruling: Denied. |! 30
na
de a 31 I turned to the Supreme Court the best I could under the
; 8 an appea ’
April 16, 1979: Supplementary papers, plu PP ak ea 32 circumstances of being crippled Physicially and to be & pro se
was brought to the Supreme Court to be added to the is to be a struggling burden of a Cross to bear.
tapled-together motions 12-7 = 17+7 = 12-9 for review: Page 9 Rule 17*7 Motion to Modify Ruling TO THE JUDGES
a - j a=
8
Page 8 Rule 17-7 Motion To Modify Ruling TO THE JUDGES RLPefrarcaless A-/3 Ca)
Cpprncin A713 Ca) eeeeneeemes — , .
—s
ma oe are nd — —_ ™
at : ie ‘ ARGUMENT (Cont'd)
‘ —_—_—_
‘ ‘
1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Cont'd)
2 1 mandate condoning an error of the Clerk of the Court, and
The Supreme Court heard the Petition for Review EN BANC.
completely denying due process to be heard in a RIGHT TO ASK }
3 2
The finality for justice within the State of Washington was so
- . 4 3 for review of a denial of a motion.
Close+ The request was that the Supreme Court of the State of
4
5 =
ot Washington review this “evidence-letter™ comparing the already X The “freedom to act" was gone- In desperation a difficult
6 5 :
a proof of Error 3(A) and reverse the decision. = journey for me, was made to Olympia and asking that the entire '
6
S : case be lifted from the Court of Appeals so that justice could
8 All motions, request, desperation words from denial of 7
be done in recalling a mandate, ruling on Motion 12-7 and 17-7
9 “freedom to act" are in the Supreme Court to be considered. I, 8
and viewing the “evidence-letter" and finding proof of the
10 as a petitioner, personally xeroxed the 9 copies needed for the 8 9
et newly discovered evidence which in turn could reverse the jury
— 1 Supreme Court Judges so that the office work would not be extra . 10
r a verdict to allow justice.
N 12 became of me- Everything is there to see- I ask for the Judges 11
13 Honorable of the State Supreme Court to take over this case and 4 12 Justice:
finalize the remedy and redress in the State of Washington to one Beautiful Rule 1+2 states the rules will be liberally inter-
of her citizens for the past 37 years- Justice will then be preted to promote justice. Cases are not to be determined on the
Page 11 Rule 17-7 Motion to Modify Ruling TO THE JUDGES
Bppendiy A-/3 Ca) me ;
15 14
16 possible. Only then. 15 basis of compliance or noncompliance with these rules except
™ 16 in compelling circumstances were justice demands. Justice demands
- ARGUMENT 417 looking at the evidence, trying to forget there is a pro se giving
you the facts ineptly- The State Supreme Court has the power
19 The three year statute of limitations for other action is 18
to waive any of the rules in order to serve the ends of justice.
20 June 9, 1979+ My trial June 4, 1979 as per the entire appeal 19
21 is denial of procedural due process and denial of procedural 20 (a) Are the ends of justice served when Motion 12.7 is denied
22 equal protection in a court of law under the Constititon of the 21 in appellate court when that motion holds the proof of "newly
23 United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington. 22 discovered evidence"?
24 23
Motion 127 in the pack of motions holds Untruth #1 and (b) Are the ends of justice met when the "letter-evidence" is
25 ° 24
Untruth #2 and Untruth #3 and Untruth #4 which the Commissioner prevented from the en banc consideration by the Supreme Court?
26 25
of the court refers to as "appearing to argue there were
27 26 (c) Could justice survive in a premature mandate cutting off the
improprieties of some sort in the original mandate procedures ;
28 i 27 right to ask a review of a ruling?
and injustices in past proceedings."
29 28
' (4) Where is justice in Discretionary Review not even recognizing
30 To issue a mandate within 24 hours of notification of a deni al 29
; 8 the petitioner's desperate lack of “freedom to act"?
31 of a motion I felt at first to be a "mistake" and appealed the ee 30 .
32 in that manner 12-9(a)- The appellate court upheld the premature 31
Page 10 Rule 17+7 Motion to Modify Ruling TO THE JU | 32
ipendky A-13 Cx)
er
en ee en ee ©)
21
23
28 |Jury Foreman Affidavit:
the defense attorney reads an original -medical Feport of a doctor
when he KNOWS that doctor changed the medical report in deposition
Page 12 Rule 17-7 Motion to Modify Ruling
ARGUMENT (Cont'd)
Attorneys are in a position of knowledge, expertise, and
law and a superiority over and protection for a litigant-client
in court proceedings and all litigation. The honesty, integrity,
honor, dedication and responsibility of the Oath and CPR of the
attorneys and the court is all that insures thexe will be a
fair trial- When there is deceit from the attorneys, the very
protectors of fairness, the day of the "day in court" is annih-
ilated.
The only recourse is appeal of the wrong. If the injustice
is not reversed on appeal, there is no justice to be had- Yet
the Rule 1+2 Waiver is a beacon to those who have been wronged.
But how does the beacon become available if the approach has a
detour in denial of motions, denial of discretionary reviews,
denial of due process to ASK for a review of a ruling?
No motion, no evidence, no pleadings will get to the Honorab]
Judges except through the proper personnel protecting the Judges.
from overwork, extra judicial tasks that can be handled elsewhere.
But when the motion is "evidence" that could overturn a wrong
and subsidize a “reversal” and that "evidence" is Waylaid in
technicalities and denials justice is obliterated in the process.
A jury foreman affidavit tells the story of confusion in a
trials A jury is so confused it takes him approximately 2 hours
to convince the jury the permanently injured plaintiff is "not
guilty-" What kind of a farce is a trial when the victim of the
injuries of an admitted liability automobile accident must have
a criminal deliberation to determine the damages only??7?7?
See Appendix'A-8 Petition for Review.
Is it noWtime to take another look at Krror 3(A) in which
TO THE JUDGES
aid
ve ee - o
—_— —_— _
ae oe ee
19
21
ARGUMENT (Cont'd)
See Motion 12-7 - 17+7 - 12-9 in the packet of three motiong,
ee Mo .
lus the papers submitted to the Supreme Court April 9, and
P .
April 16th The motions are stapled together with tabs for the
Pp 7
ro se
convenience of the courte All xeroxing was done by the pro
rt
to save trouble for the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court,
in the matter of these motions and also papers:
The very access which would enable a litigant to attain
f
consideration by the Supreme Court is cut off by denial o
Motion to Recall so that a premature mandate can be undone-
f
To deny recall in the Court of Appeals is to put a stamp ©
review
proval upon denying me a constitutional right to ASK for re
ap
of a motion!
e "evidence
That motion was tremendously important - 12-7 A “ev
ssued was in that motion
letter" sent before the mandate was even i
the
Denied» Then before I can even assemble papers to answer;
1
mandate is issued within 24 hours cutting off my right to appea
denial of a motion-
ther
Even the Discretionary Review of the error presents anothe
t
denial of justice using as a reason no grounds were presen ed
ed
under 13-5(b)(2) when the grounds were lived with and journey
the
with to the Temple of Justice for help, and recorded in
with
papers presented to the court April 9, and April 16 along
the complete set of denied motions in the tab packet-
"Freedom to act" is again in denial of Discretionary Review.
id
Where is justice when the wrong and deceit in trial are uphe
for
by affirmance on avpeal and the injured litigant is penalized
her honesty and truthfulness?
, =
The three years from date of trial will be tomorrow
t
have struggled and fought to present facts to the appellate
ew trial-
structure, to gain justice through appeal- To have an
~
TO THE JUDGES
——__—
Page 13 Rule 17-7 Motion to Modify Ruling
: = ~~ _— ~ wv
—
ARGUMENT (cont'd)
rror 10.
trial court, and the inadequate offer of proof in E
: oh ‘ f had been
There would have been a reversal if the offer of proo
, xr 10.
roper because there was abuse of discretion in Erro
4 prop
ar statute
. Sadness and sorrow come when the three ye
and reversal
6 is here- I still pray for a new trial
i tee I pray for
7 of injustice in my Washington State Pp a
eed for a new tria
= 8 additur which would wipe out the n _
qs ward for a arop
> 9 based on the $145,000- "sensible a
- , 1s Division
in 10 injury" as stated by the Court of Appea
= 975
: 11 in Ryan v Westgard 12 Wash App 500 (1 )
come
¢ The legal profession has my respect forever- I have co
i .
‘ those who have not upheld their
to separate the profession from
\' 14
promi ses
15 ; |
s "do you
16 The first thought associated with a court of law i
ing but the
17 swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
stion
18 truth"? Truth was told by the witnesses- Does the que
: t who have
1 ly to those quasi judicial officers of the cour
19 also app :
Oath and CPR as a reliance and insurance and a inspiratio
a vit . d wrong in
to be honorable? What happens if there is deceit an
: i case
, t by those under Oath are proven in untruths? I rest my
: 3 ~ e ds Theres
! hands here, and I rest my case in God's Han
23 jin your
| submitted,
” COPY SENT CERTIFIED MAIL; ———_ /
; Pro Se
t - K ’
2s 8s: a
. se Attorney }
B beats Fallon and Kenneth ind Soule A Kode ~
26 LeMaster 4333 Brooklyn Aven SS Gents pete 08 snesbiaiiad
a pp 21 Seattle, Washington capes
— ng [Court of Appeals Division I os |
ae |
a9 Ssbecibed and Sworn to de a Ht
” SEAL as oI? STUN
€ L ,
” Residing a' - —*
i Oppendiy A- 130%)
CO - ij > ; P
~ See Vo — — — — —
~ |
ere The Supreme Cmrt
7 State of Mashington
a ere ®lympia
96504
July 20, 1979
Ms. Beatric E. Koker
Mr. Erich Koker
939 North 105th Street
Seattle, WA 98133
Mr. Kenneth L. LeMaster
Mr. R. Scott Fallon
Attorneys at Law
4333 Brooklyn Avenue N. E.
Seattle, WA 98185
Re:
ae \
ata rym +
No. 46169 - ERICH KOKER, et ux, v. NOEL B. SAGE, et ux, et al
(Court of Appeals Cause No. 4916-1)
Counsel:
Following a hearing on July 20, 1979,
Notation Order was entered on Page 506,
Motion Docket:
"MOTION TO MODIFY RULING
(COMMISSIONER'S) :
DENIED.
/s/ Charles F. Stafford,
Acting Chief Justice."
the following
in Volume 14, of the
? Very We pe
JOHN J. CHAMPAGNE
Clerk
JIC:je
° A _ SA
<4
%S°IN A RULING BY
TION TO MODIFY
tT JUSTICES = -
» WRONGDOI NG
s
Beatrice E+ Koker
ealicte Eoker
yy) or _ a
APPBNDIX
ee ee ee ee a a
APPBNDIX
- 15(a)(b)
- 17(a)(b)
- 18(a)(b)
- 19
“78 Duprey -
20
21
22
23
24
(epey pO we)
—
10
>
Sang, Pe Pe...
© oo ~_ n wv
UT sy Mes
oO
ss
Opgernrdiy A-/5 Ca)
RKOKER, husband and wife,
pa
| ARPEALING: )
NJ
[RESENVE/)
AUG 7 1979
STATES CF AMER
OF SUPREME COURT.
) STATE OF WASHINGTON cea
IN THB SUPREME COURT OF THE NTT ERK
ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E-
/Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners, FROM
COURT OF APPEALS DIV. I .
STATB OF WASHINGTON # 491641
)
Vie ) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATS
: ) OF WASHINGTON. « #45846
NOEL SAGE and WINBTTA 2
SAGE sband and wife, and e ) SUPREME COURT OF THB STATE
NOEL GE, JR. ) OF WASHINGTON #46169
a | ) PERTAINING TO . « #45846
S 5! Defendants, )
oe Respondents. )
)
~
THIS APPEAL IS TAKEN PURSUANT TO 28 UeS-+C+eA+ 1257(3) AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAe
PARTIES TAKING THE APPEAL: ) BEATRICE E+ KOKER and ERICH KOKER,
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS/ PRO SE
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: )
APPEALING: }
AFFIRMATION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I OF
THE DENIAL OF “NEW TRIAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
ADDITUR" CR 59 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9).-
ADDITUR TO BE TO $4,600. WHICH WAS AWARDED FOR A.
DROP FOOT INJURY, PLUS OTHER.
APPEALING: ) SUPREME COURT DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. EN BANG
APPEALING: } THE ENTIRE WRITTEN OPINION DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED.
DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF "DAY IN COURT"
BECAUSE "REHEARING" IS ABOLISHED IN THE SUPREME COUR]
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONe RULE ROA I-50 REPEALED.
APPEALING: )
PREMATURE ISSUANCE OF MANDATE IN COURT OF APPEALS.
MOTION FILED BEFORE MANDATE ISSUED, APPELLATE COURT
RULED AND DENIEDe THE MANDATE WAS ISSUED WITHIN
24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION OF DENIAL OF MOTION. DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW ESTOPPING RIGHT TO ASK REVIEW
OF MOTION DENIED.
APPEALING: ) RECALL OF MANDATE DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS-
APPEALING: ) DENIAL OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PAPERS IN A RULING BY
THE SUPREME COURT COMMISSIONER. MOTION TO MODIFY
RULING TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES - «-
DENIEDe SUBJECT MATTER: “DECEIT AND WRONGDOING
Page 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
a3. Be. Koker
Ccalicte € oe
Koka
1-206- 783-6998
eater &-
ee REC EE a.
“av Munpyr iy
Clvaer!
<i en >. a
‘ AUS 7 3970 ‘ 4
CLERK OF Su°..EME COURT
STATE OF Wii l.Givti
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
APPEALING: ) THE NON-USE OF EXTRA-ORDINARY POWERS ON APPEAL BY
RULE RAP 1+¢2 WASHINGTON COURT RULES AND RCW 2.228.154
FOR JUSTICB REMEDY AND REDRESS-
APPEALING: ) THE PROCEDURES USED TO RESTRAIN VITAL LETTER-EVIDENCE
FROM EVER REACHING THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR A DECISION THAT COULE
(b) REVIEW OF MOTION ESTOPPED BY PREMATURE MANDATE,
(c) REOPENED PETITION FOR REVIEW, (d) REVERSED.
APPEALING: ) UNFAIR TRIAL-« CONFUSION OF JURY VOTING CRIMINAL
DETERMINATION OF “GUILT OR "INNOCENCE" FOR THE
VICTIM OF PERMANENT PERSONAL INJURIES IN A DEFENSE
ADMITTED LIABILITY.
APPEALING: ) NO REMEDY OR REDRESS GIVEN FOR UNFAIR TRIAL OR THE
PROVEN DECEIT, UNTRUTHS, MISLEADING THE JURY AND THE
COURT, CONFUSION, MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT, AND
APPEALING: ) THE VICTIM IS PENALIZED FOR WRONGFUL ACTS OF OTHERS
IN TRIAL AND NO RELIEF ON APPEALe
APPEALING: ) BROKEN PROMISES OF A "FAIR TRIAL" AND "DAY IN COURT"
WHICH ARE CONSTITJTIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA FOR EVERY CITIZEN THEREIN.
APPEALING: ) ALL ADVERSE JUDGMENTS AND RULINGS ON APPEAL IN THE
APPELLATE STRUCTURE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
KPPEALING:) A TRIAL OF ERRORS, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS.
COURTS APPEALED FROM: )
B STATB OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT - -. 2 + + © + + © © © wo
THB “STATE OF WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I «+ «+ «+ «© « « «
FINAL WORD OF FINAL STATE COURT: ) July 20, 1979
ICOPY TO:
WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT
Olympia, Washington
Cc
T OF APPEALS DIVISION I
Seattle, Washington
939 = North 105th Ste
Kenneth Le LeMaster and R- Scott Seattle, Washington 98133
Fallon - 4333 Brooklyn Ave NE
: Telephone‘ 783-6998
Seattle, Washington Defense Attys-
Page 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Beatrice B- Koker .
ve A JS Cb) Seattle, Washangton yo1s2
= 1-206-783-6998
Beatie E. Kehr
[- §. sellin tae ae
HAVE (a) PROPERLY ALLOWED RECALL OF PREMATURE MANDATE,
CONCEALMENT+« DISREGARD OF PROVEN WRONGDOING IN TRIAL-
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 208543
September 18, 1979
Mrs. Beatrice E. Koker
939 North 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
Re: Erich Koker, et al. v. Noel B. Sage,
et al., A-232
Dear Mrs. Koker:
Your application for an extension of time
in which to docket an appeal in the above-entitled ‘case has
been presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist who, on September 17,
1979, signed an order extending your time to and including
November 19, 1979. A copy of the Justice's order is enclosed.
Please notify opposing counsel of this
action.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL RODAK, JR., Clerk
By
Patricia A. Dean
Assistant Clerk
th
Enc.
2 ye, A-15 (©)
“.
Supreme Court of the United States
No. A-232
NOEL B. SAGE, ET AL.
ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of the appellants,
IT IS ORDERED that the time for docketing an appeal in
the above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, extended to and
including November 19 , 1979.
/s/ William H. Rehnquist
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States
Dated this 17th
day of September, 1979
5 je, A-
15 (aL)
SUBJECT:
goo 10"
Ormco, Foam MO. 08
@al 106) GOrmOn
as Pree 14) Com Fet-the
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
DATE:
Mr. Champagne Mie a/1i79
ain , Chief Deputy
spoke to the Clerks Uffice of U.S. Supreme Court. They said that
bon to Rule 10 a notice of appeal is to be filed with the court
possessed of the record, in this case your court. You only need give the
appeallant a ccpy of this notice with your recieved or filed stamp on it &
file the original away. The Appeallant sends this copy of the notice tc
the Supreme Court. If you have any questions please call.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
Dpperdiy A-/e
a \
7 —-———— °.e = a x oe al ae re ; . .
. . .
‘ . ve i: >
. : ‘ e J
‘ ‘A . 7 ~
; <a
county No. Judge bi
>
e~
County No. judge I
anata CRIMINAL
|
- CiviL
civiL ;' i
Indige.:! indigent 3
DISC. RE DISC. REV.
: PERSONAL
PERSON.
RESTRA! RESTRAINT
PETS/RE al af PETS/REV.
I
° =
: Counsel
1/ Petit Counsel , ot Appellont/ Petitioner Res nt
!
baie Poid Fee Poid Fee Poid : - Fee Paid
nen Filings ond Pi fi _Dale Filings and Proceedings
7/27/79| Vols. I-V of VRP checked out to Prederick V. Betts, to be returned
7/27/79| Vols. I-V of VRP checked out to Frederick V. Betts, to be returned
by Sept. 6, 1979. Exlrce fetes che ell cut §-1-77.
by Sept. 6, 1979. — iF
8/S/79 Request from Beatrice E. Koker for Certification of Record/Transmittal
8/9/79 _| Request from Beatrice E. Koker for Certification of Record/Transmitt -
' of Record
of Record +
8/21/79| Mrs. Koker advised that certification of record not necessary at thi. 8/21/79| Mrs. Koker advised that certification of record not necessary at this
time & | time |
' & 3/11/79 | Per phone conversation, Mr tts extended re i
September 24, 1979 (wb)
9/12/79 | Pouches returned by Mr. Betts. |
AL i
® rem or O88 Eres CO ee co bg ty tuse-r j AY ta
A TON cme tees @ ° — .
i Citpedertte: f f f f pL RES
‘ ° ce ~
| papti ber) 10,1974 0b 156 pre epg “UIE ;
| nee
-930-% parah te daolam. oe
Cppendey A-/7 Cx) : ppenduy A-/7 C4)
Co woxyauw elmlUMmMmUCUMNUCUCU
—_- —-_ —- —-& —-_ —- — SS FS
ee ee ’ e — |
21
23
26
27
Oppendiy A-/F Ca)
RECEIVED
OcT-'41979
}
WW RRS COMMTY SVPERIOF
MOTION COUFT CLERKS bFFiLt AE
Ss IAL ACCE CCBEDINGS
IN THB SUPREME COURT OF
STAIE OF WASHINGTON
BRICH KOKER and BEATRICE B-
KOKER, husband and wife,
#45846 Supreme Court of
Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners
PP - —— State of Washington
Vv
#46169 Re: #45846
Supreme Court of State
NOBL B- SAGE and WINBETTA SA
SB. of Washington
husband and wife, and
NOEL B- SAGB, .Jre
° #4916-I Court of Appeals
Division I - State of
Defendants/Respondents-
P - Washington
el ee et et eet tl eel etl et el tl at et
ORIGINAL FILB RELEASED TO ADVERSARY ) RE-CERTIFY ORIGINAL RBCOR
IN PENDING CIVIL ACTION - 46 days
——\
) ORIGINAL RBCORDS REMOVED
IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY:
) 46 DAYS - BY LITIGANT
Beatrice B- Koker, pro Se, plaintiff/appellant/petitioner,
identified as the recipient of injustice AGAIN in my own State.
A 58 year-old pro se woman is not exactly welcome in the courts,
especially if she is right. This opinion is not devised from
supposition but learned from long, hard, sad experience as pro sq
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEED:
THE ORIGINAL RBCORDS, AND PAPERS, EXHIBITS, THE ENTIRE FILE
ORIGINALLY FILED ON APPEAL, INCLUDING THE POUCH, WAS RBLBASED
QUT OF THE JURISDICTION,OFF THE PREMISES, OUT OF THE CUSTODY OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE FOR 46 DAYS WITH 12 BXTRA DAYS
GRANTED IN AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL RECORDS-
I AM ON APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. TIE COURT
OF APPEALS DIVISION I WAS SO NOTIFIED AUGUST 8, 1979 AFTER THE
TIMELY FILING OF NOTICE OF APPBAL IN STATE SUPREME COURT OF
WASHINGTON AUGUST 7, 1979+ (Final ruling in Washington July 20.)
TH Is OA ING CIVIL ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT FILED
JUNE 7, 1979+ THE COMPLAINT IS BASED UPON BVIDENTIARY PLEADINGS
TAKEN AND PROVEN FROM THE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS RELEASED TO.
PBTITIONERS ADVERSARY 46 DAYS. THE CIVIL ACTION IS FOR MAL-
PRACTICB, CONSPIRACY TO DBNY MB A FAIR TRIAL, CIVIL RIGHTS, OUT-
RAGE + (Cont'd)
Page 1 SPECIAL PROCBEDINGS MOTION TO Beatrice B- Koker
RE-CBERTIFY ORIGINAL RECORDS 939 - North 105th St-
Seattle, Washington
Beatrice E.Kpher/
———— ower
weet, we pee
gle sagt RP
-
ve: ee
eee ee ee ee
»@» ew @& & & ©’ WwW YF ©
21
23
29
31
Oppendiy A-/8&
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DBED: (Cont'd)
S OF THIS “UNDER C OF LAW" CONSTITUTIONAL
I KNOW THE SERIOUS
WRONG THAT COMMITTED. ONLY THE JUDGES OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT CAN ORDER PROPER RE-CERTIFICATION AND THIS IS THE
PURPOSE OF THIS SPECIAL ACCELBRATED PROCEEDING MOTION-
RAP_17-7: This motion is to be ruled upon by the State
Supreme Court JUDGES ONLY- This is NOT TO BE
ruled upon by any Commissioner or Clerk of
any court or anyone other than the State
Supreme Court JUDGES. I am sending nine
copies of this motion as per all proceedings
since February 1979 because the Petition for
Review was en bance A motion with the
ramifications envisioned needs nine opinions.
RAP_]60]7: OTHER RULES APPLICABLE FOR SPBCIAL PROCEEDINGS
| RAP_18-12 ACCELERATED PROCBEDINGS-
RAP le2 (a)(c): INTERPRETATION AND WAIVER OF RULES BY COURT.
RAP 423: RULE 4e3 IS 8EING USED IN THIS MOTION BECAUSE
PETITIONER DOES NOT WANT TO BE IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS DIVISION I FOR ANY REASON ANY TIME-
PRIOR TO THIS MOTION, RULE 4-3 WAS USED BEFORE
TO BE RBLIEVED OF THE JURISDICATION OF COURT
OF APPEALS DIVISION I - STATE OF WASHINGTON.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PROTECT THE
# ORIGINAL FILE RBCORD OF BBATRICE KOKER-
RCW 2.28.150: EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF THE STATE SUPREME COUR’
WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF COURT
RULES FOR THIS MOTION:
STATEMENT OF R SOUGHT:
Proper re-certification of entire original record, by the
State Supreme Court of the State of Washington- .
(Cont'd)
3
Beatrice B- Koker
Page 2 SPBCIAL PROCEEDINGS MOTION TO
939 - Ne 105th Ste
Re-CBRTIFY ORIGINAL RBCORDS
Seattle, Washington
783-6998
i 4.) Pena i
Oe OE SP, Se 4° oes
— ? .
hee
ISSUE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME QN APPEAL = DELAY
RULE 2e5 PUBLIC INTEREST TO RETURN RESPECT FOR COURT SYSTEM
A TRIAL FOR THE CASE OF KOKER V SAGE WAS SET FOR JUNE 3, 1974. JUST 18
DAYS PRIOR TO THAT TRIAL, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY KENNETH L. LeMASTER OBTAINED
A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE OF "CONFLICT OF TRIAL DATES." A “HOTION" IS NOT A
TRIAL. TRIAL KOKER V SAGE SET CP 158 File #5 773620
CASE 755199 LUNT v CITY OF SEATTLE CP File 21. GRIEVE AND LAW STAMPED
RECEIVED NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET FROM KENNETH L. LeMASTER MAY 7, 197L. 5
WORKING DAYS NOTICE FOR A MOTION WHICH SHOULD HAVE PUT THE HEARING APPROX.
MAY 13, 197). THERE IS AN ERASURE EVIDENT ON THE ORIGINAL DATE IN THE COPY
CP WHICH DOES NOT SHOW ON XEROXING. THE DATE IS CHANGED TO JUNE 3, 197) =
WHICH WAS TO HAVE BEEN MY TRIAL DATE POSTPONED BY CONTINUANCE BY THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY. THE CONTINUANCE STATES "CONFLICT OF TRIAL" . . .A MOTION IS NOT TRIAL.
COURT MINUTES MOTION AND SHOW CAUSE CALENDAR MONDAY JUNE 3, 197), HONORABLE
JUDGE GBORGE W. RBVELLE DEPT 17 * LUNT V CITY G@ SEATTLE HEARD. KENNETH Le
leMASTER PRESENT AT THE MOTION OF CASE 755199 INSTEAD OF AT TRIAL FOR KOKER
V SAGE. ALL PAPERS AND PROOF IN APPENDIX pass A-/2 ,
DELAY: MISTRIAL 1975: FEBRUARY 10, 1975 ENDED IN MISTRIAL. DEFENSE ATTORNEY
LeMASTER CLADXED DR. SATA REFUSED TO TESTIFY: SEE: APPELLANTS' ANSWER TO
RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL STATEMENT AUGUST 23, 1976 p 3/229: p 4/2-26: SEB:
DR. SATA DEPOSITION SUBMITTED TO COURT OF APPEALS RULE 11.5(d) DECEMBER lh,
1977: DEPOSITION PAGE 25/20-25: p 26/14: SEB: APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF: p 1:
SEB: RP VOL I p 4/20-25: p 5/1-11: THE DOCTOR HAD TESTIFIED IN DEPOSITION TO
THE CONTRARY, (SEE ABOVE) AND DID NOT REFUSE TO TESTIFY AS PROOF ENCLOSED BY
APPELLANT IN ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS' CIVIL APPEAL ST. DR, SATA MENTIONED 58 Times
p 31 APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF. .
Append p-Aec
ARTHUR W. FREIDINGER, M. D.
PSYCHIATRY
1900 CASRINI MEDICAL TOWER
901 BOREN AVENUE
Qin) h.ASte <a -" Lh T he EANG. . ii ea . “SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
fas ms
! TELePHOome 662.3266
—- ake pat pen eer ee Cilzng ‘ian if
Cl Caa Mty, f= rae 1 Ugg F . 1 ( (ogy
Mw HON fon l (tae Sb 42 4ASN A ‘ :
Ca2k Prt, 7 -n~ sess | To Whom It May Concern:
ony -W- Ves & 2 he J
ee ai of Bs 3-8 ‘etn
6 SPH PSH Ri cel SII — wy Ph I have known Beatrice Koker since my first examination of her on April
9, 1976, and we have counseled every few months since her trial.
, Dvmbsy Vfnn-6=9¢s hig (2k 95") : I believe
2of Is A~0 Lea ‘as Milgles ; there has been considerable misunderstanding of her claims and her case,
Taoutt ae eee Aw Gi 9 “ resulting in unfairness to her. Therefore, I would urge that she have another
Co oy Yrqgre facki % Onut f ben rr rngn ~ Pinks trial.
; ble, (ee ~~ is
aed Ae ha
x <r) re Sie
ace ee ore ea ta. — cps : Sincerely,
-. ra ‘ :
2/7/75 A= .& Sole Called = - I danit do. EMG. --.-.- +: ere rags . Athen KE megton
‘2/ui7/75" 2 piétie call be Court appearance -I a wee a aly for defense is Hebe 4%.
atty. patte denies ny deposi tion, or letters to be tiieodeed AWF/cm
be cai — right after week-end
Could today “exo-post holiday at* a Oe, Oe SS SAR REESE REEL ES ESE SIRE ES ESERES ESS
sia : aes July 23, 1974
be - 9 ae Xx i ~. 3 “Wane ‘+. e es : \
eae at . toes AE igri ea . "0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
‘sy 2 S sce ~\\ > oop ° ny 3 \ -
al ; It has been my privilege to know Mrs. Erich
oP d 00% Bee ey 8 ee (Beatrice) Koker for a number of years.
I hold her in the highest regard as a highly
; : intelligent person of unassailable integrity,
mY a ae ; honesty, and character, to which should be
| , added "courage."
‘ . ‘ <5. ‘ yee ; ' Should detail or example be detect. the -
aa a feeder Te ; ' reader is invited to communicate ———,
ee ak ete ah Oe BAD with the undersigned,
—- ; . ee a ae mi | 1 y ar |
. ee i | 7 Nov OK bue
(eee A. Keene
Taz eds, Al — oa / § | bi + a i ; Séaee sharin —"
|
oe
,
| ppendie A-a2r
sani cuaiiias The Supreme Cont
CLERK
REGINALD N SHRIVER
DEPUTY
State of B hi tos AREA 206
Olympia
98504
October 10, 1979
Ms. Beatrice Koker
939 N. 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
Mr. Kenneth LeMaster
Mr. R. Scott Fallon
4333 Brooklyn N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98105
Dear Mrs. Koker & Mr. LeMaster:
Re: Supreme Court Nos. 45846 & 46169 - Erich Koker and
Beatrice E. Koker v. Noel B. Sage and Winetta
Sage, et al.
Mrs. Koker's "Motion for Special Proceedings" was received
on October 2, 1979. Our records indicate that Petition for
Review in cause number 45846 and Motion for Discretionary Review
(entitled Notice of Appeal) in cause number 46169 was denied
July 20, 1979.
Although this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the
referenced cases because of the denials, the files are in
storage in this Court.
In the event the United States Supreme Court grants
certiorari on these cases, it will then be timely to consider
the manner in which the “Motion for Special Proceedings" will
be handled by the appellate courts, and accordingly said
motion will be filed without further action at this time. The
files are, of course, available for inspection in this office
at any time.
. CHAMPAGNE
Clerk
JIC: dd
SBCOND MOTION
SPECIAL ACCBLERATED PROCEEDINGS
BRICH KOKER and BEATRICE E-
KOKER, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
#45846 Supreme Court Of
State Of Washington
NOEL B- SAGE and WINETTA SAGE,
husband and wife, and
NOEL B- SAGE, Jre
#46169 Re: #45846
Supreme Court Of The
State Of Washington
#4916-I Court of Appeals
Division I - State of
Washington
Defendants,
Respondentse
PENDING APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
RECERTIFY ORIGINAL RECORDS
MOTION: TO ACT ON MOTION I
UNDER THOSE RULES
THEREIN STATED:
PENDING CIVIL ACTION SUPERIOR COURT
mee ee a ae es ee eee ee eee sn naa”
IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY:
VtoweantteA> /3,/979
Beatrice E+ Koker, Pro Se» Plaintiff: Superior Court -
Appellant: Appellate Court -
Petitioner: State Supreme Court
Unconstitutional Deed:
The original records, papers, exhibits, the entire file on
#4916-I released out of the jurisdiction and custody of the Court
of Appeals Division I for 46 days; with 12 extra days extension of
time. The file removal was not docketed until this pro se discovered
the records missing.
Pending Appeal: There is a pending appeal to the United States
Supreme Court, a fact which the Court of Anneals Division I knew
as per sending copy of the appeal Certified mail to them.
Motion Rules: RAP 17«7: RAP 16017: RAP 1812: RAP le2 (a)(c):
RAP 403: RCW 2628-150
This “under color of law" misdeed is to be ruled
upon by the State Supreme Court Judges ONLY- This
kind of matter is too serious an issue for anyone
else to rules Please go by Motion I-
Page 1 SECOND MOTION SPECIAL ACCELERATED PROCEEDINGS
ampere, A- t#
STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT:
(1) Proper recertification of the entire record original file
renoved from the anpellate courte This is a serious Constitutional
Question under 28 U.S-C.A- 1343 (1)(2)(3)(4): 28 Use S- Ce As 1738:
42 UeS-CeoAe 1983-1984-1985: 28 U- S- Ce Ase Rule 1:
(2) Terms and sanctions for:
(a) The State Supreme Court because the records were gone
and already in the possession of the adversary out of
the custody of the Court when I filed the anpeal to the
United States Supreme Courte The Clerk of the State
Supreme Court indicated the records were in Olympia.
See: Appendix A-]: Memo From Ceputy Federal Court
stating Mr+ Champagne Had The Records In Supreme Court.
(b) The Court of Appeals Division I who obtained the records
and released the entire file, .ot even docketina same
until after discovery by pnetitioner that the files were |
missing.
(c) The recipient who received the original files Having f
been an attorney over 40 years he knows the rules of
the court and the law of the land and the pending civil
trial based upon the Original Report of Proceedings in
an Evidentiary Complaint. |
(3) I have not asked for any monetary sanctions for myself as that
would be a mercenary motion.
FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION:
Honorable John J+ Champagne replied to Motion I that he had
filed the motion, and no further action would be taken at this time.
The terms and sanctions include the Clerk of the State Sunreme Court
and for him to make a decision could be consideted "conflict of
interest.” No terms and sanctions will be taken when the motion
has been "shelved," thus inaction upon a Motion and protection from
Sanctions and terms for all reSponsible.
Mre Champagne is under the impression the Jurisdictional
Statement of this petitioner will not be accepted by the United
States Supreme Court and he assumes in that Case, the certification
problem would not be relevante Mr- Champagne did not take into
consideration the current need for the records for the Superior
Courte I reiterate the Ruies and Purpose of the first motion and
ask for a ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court.
Page 2 SBCOND MOTION SPECIAL ACCELERATED PROCEEDINGS
FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION: (Cont'd)
28 U-S-C-sA- 1738 Note 25 indicates that any court receiving
a Certified record does not even have to ask of the clerk of the
supreme Court has had custody of the original file since it was
filed- That fact is assumed because the rule is s9°% stringent
no one gets roginal files from the courts unless the court so
orders for another proceeding in another Court.
Shocking: It is shocking to realize.that if I had not come into
the appellate court for one copy of a page, and discovered the
file missing, those original files would have been out of the
jurisdiction of the court for a total of 58 days, or longer, then
sent back to the Supreme Court of Washington and nobody would have
knowne A_ thought: How many times could this have happened before?
NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DISREGARD FOR THE
RIGHTS OF A LITIGANT UNLESS THERE IS "DISCOVERY" BY CHANCE?
GROUNDS FOR RELIBF AND ARGUMENT:
The Clerk of the State Supreme Court knows that removal of
those original files is constitutionally wrong and an act "under
color of law-" The Supreme Court Clerk knows I am 100% for the
courts in spite of what has happened herein, and also in denial
of justice on appeal in this state-e I am not anory- I am very
disappointed, disillusioned, distressed, outraged, and the blood
pressure is elevated. Please undo the wrong of allowing original
Yecords out of your custody into the custody of a litigant+ Please
recertify the original file to the satisfaction of the United States
Supreme Court for this pending appeal.
Mre Champagne says the State Supreme Court no longer has
jurisdiction over the Case but the files are in storage in that
courte It is my right to have the original records protected
in the appellate courts of this state until the finality of the
entire outcome of the United States Supreme Court. In defiance of
all that is fair and just and in a deliberate way, the original
files were given out and away from the court for a lengthy period
of timee There is no way to excuse nor understand this wrong act.
Page 3 SECOND MOTION SPECIAL ACCELERATED PROCEEDINGS
———
GROUNDS FOR RBLIEF AND ARGUMENT: (Cont'd)
Beatrice B+ Koker, Petitioner, pro se, realleges Motion
I Special Accelerated Proceedings as set forthe therein and asks
consideration nowe Will you please help me?
T] CITATION |} USCA Constitution Amendment 14 §1 Note 155
“Neither the label which a state places on its own Conduct,
nor even the legitimacy of its motivation, Can avoid the
applicability of this Constitution."
“Where the individual has a constitutional right, and the
state has a correlative constitutional duty which it
deliberately fails to perform, there is state action
within this amendment."
In the event Mr- Champagne did not consider the current
civil action in superior court, it is respectfully asked again that
the Motion For Special Accelerated Proceedings be presented to the
Judges Only of the State Supreme Court for recertification of the
records to absolute original status that will be acceptable to the
United States Supreme Court.
Special AcCellerated Proceedings is reall s set forth
herein and I am respectfully asking for help in this
mattere Should the pro se be on the defensive when I
have not done the wrong? When there is an act “under
color of law" and the recipient of that act is willing
to go out of her way to be decent and pleasant and
cooperative can not you help in return to undo somethina
that is definitely a serious infringement on the rights of
anyone?
Respectfully submitted,
Beatise &. Xk
Beatrice B+ Koker, pro Se
939 - North 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
783-6998
Copy Sent Certified Mail To:
Court Of Appeals Division I
Kenneth L- LeMaster and
R. Scott Fallon, Defense
Attorneys 4333 Brooklyn Ave NE
Seattle, Washington 98185
APPENDIX
)
on Oo YY 2 YW WB KS
i
. °]
= 20
- 11
But
APPBNDIX
}}x+2h) CITATION: MODERN LEGAL FORUS Ch h p 383 § 381. Definition.
)
man affidavit is a written statement sworn to or affirmed before an author-
gzed officer. Where used in judicial proceedings it is sometimes defined
as a voluntary statement made ex parte without giving the adverse party
either notice or an opportunity to cross-examine,"
.
Mir. Wood dictated the affidavit statement to me. The statement was typed
verbatim and read back to him. He re-read before signing the affidavit before
a Notary. His svorn testimony is verification of the truth of the facts of
confusion and not unde standing by the jurors as proclained by appellant fron
the beginning to the end. The 11 month pro se Sequence-Search now ended.
7”-_ —_-
Case #773620 Koker V. Sage
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT
Trial by jury Jun 9, 1976 through Jv
cna os ’ ough June 15,
County 0f.......Seccsecstanscssnecanumnnl 1976. King County Superior Court, Honorable |
: Donald J. Horowitz, Presiding.
7712 Dayton Aveme North Seattle, Nastineton being first duly
sworn on oath deposes and says:
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
That .
I, Stephen M. Wood, Foreman of the Jury in the above mentioned case of Koker v.
Sage, relate by this affidavit there was a problem of confusion on the jurors! part
in deliberation, whether we were supposed to find the guilt or immocence of lirs. Saad
In jury deliberation of this cease, it was a time consuming effort of approximately
2 hours for ne to convince the jrrors there was no guilt or imocerce of lirs. Koker
4rrvolved but only the damages to be determined.
We, the jury, went throngh a voting process to ‘establish the imnocence of Mrs.
Koker and I, the jury foremen, explained no guilt of ltrs. Koker was involved. That
the boy had admitted liability for the accident and was at fault.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Notary Public in for the State of Washing residing at_-
Uy comission paler, A a3 ,197/-
t
CENTRAL AFFIDAVIT
Washington Lege! Blank Co, Beliewe, Via. Form No. 4n . WA —_ . —_-~
. -.
bel *
- -
AFFIDAVIT GENERAL FORM
Washington Lega! Blank Co . Bellevue Wa Form No 39
ee
Kermeth Le Le‘iaster, Defense Attorney _
Re Seott Fallon, Defense Attorney
Frederick Fetts, Plaintiff attormy
Beatrice E. koker, ilaintiff Apnellant
State of _SAvINOT I
beecie)
County of
RAL ALCRLNT APPELLATE CULT Ti wmnKcs _
PACIZIC DITLLING «=FLB.WY 225 1978 (sftermon Session) —
CASS LOL6~I King Coumy £773620 Emk V cso
State of VASNINGT B
. ss.
County of
Before me,-----:4 Dele 06.%.0--5 Cth NS eee ae... .. Sena
Leta State of. PASC? <sheaonneey
in and for the County 0f------=--=-------9----- 9909
r was at the oral arrunent as an interested tystandor and to lend
ry support even thouch lrse Koker had mo idea I was there.
Poth defense attorneys, ur. Leaster and his orcociate were in the
hall outside the Court of Appeals, February 22, 1978 itr. Retts
cane out of the elcvatore
Ur. Letaster said: "Fi Fred. What are you doing hore?"
tr. Fetts said: "I cance to goo what the old lady has on Us."
ur, Petts and Hire Le''aster's associate went downstairs and Lire
le ‘aster wertt back to the courtroce
Vhen the proceedings far Beatrice Koker started after the rocess,
there was a chance of judges.
Mire Rotts looked up at the juices and said: "Ch Cod mos mt hin.*
nd put his head between his hands. ) y
“Stephen U. Food
TT2 Dayton Averme Nerth
AFFIDAVIT GENERAL FORM
Washington Lega! Bian Co , Bellevue, Wa Form No 38
bat oe ae
A“ —— 7 ___ WASHINGTON : \_Kemeth L. IeMaster, Defense Attorney
‘ . “ty . ; R. Scott Fallon, Defense Attorney .
: . anty of _EDIO Frederick Betts, Plaintiff attorney
‘ , " Beatrice E. Koker, Plaintiff Appellant
, WASHINGTON Kenmeth L. LeMaster, Defense Attorney _
State of R. Scott Fallon, Defense Attorney RAL AROUENT APPELLATE = =
County of __ X10 ‘ Frederick V. Betts, Plaintiff attorney spaorrIc BUILDING FEERUIRY 22, 1978 (afternoon Sessian) .
. Beatrice E. Koker, Plaintiff al
CASE L916-I_ King County #773620 KOEFR WV SAcE
__ PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL - _KOKER V SAGE CASE 773620. __
SUPERIOR COURT - KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE JUNE 11, 1976
HONORABLE JUDGE DONALD J. HOROWITZ PRESIDING State of WASHINGTON _ Me ANS kee
. , as. . .
We AMB C= Before me, LV RAs AAs » Set...
— a SagesiOn G7 7 ” tv and for.the Cognty of- KING “State of.-WASHINCTON.
State of : ss -— & - 5 de Se ;
a8. N if noTAR, S: t : th residing at. 2. IA _ Wie a SLM. icininenenbiainasaiee
nr iN b -o* 4 N oe se ’ °
greemrT (16. 1208 i PE "persnaly come...BAV», UNTEL Yq SABRE awe
DefOE ER DESL TTI Hen Henn evennnnnnnwnrorennnnnneoo* NB 10, SH ce" eae See T1051 = Phinney Avenue Horth Seattle, Washington
: he Coynty of. ------ D5 io hiwischauasidee State of-_WASHRIGTOY**++.2ts** WO, H!
in and for the Coynty of SOF WAS" who, being by me duly sworn____----- Qi OATH according to law, deposes and says, that
@ residing at*__ LA... Krars,.- byt =: ee 2 a Enaiaarn
— 1 wes present in Appellate Court on February 22, since | hod an interest in Mrs Beatrice Koker's
PORE OR Heseess Seer a eeen -nnnennnnnnnennnnonnnnanonnnen nnn ee ot ee cose, being her pastor. I had also been present for the court proceeding which is under oppecl,
i '
- North 103rd Street Seattle, Washington 98133____________.-------------- hence I recognized both Mr. Betts, and Mr. LeMoster. Mrs. Koker's Case was not due for a
<—e Tak = Herth ied. Sireet_._ Seattle, Washington 252) time, so | was waiting out in the hall. 1 saw Mr. LeMaster, and Mr. Betts talking together, and
who, being by me duly sworn_----- . i ee: according to law, deposes and says, that was able to hear a portion of their conversation. They were discussing the case of Mrs. Koker;
, ond I heard several derogatory remarks made about Mrs. Koker. There were two instances of such
discussions in the hallway. When I saw the two attomies, Mr. LeMaster and Mr. Betts, together
T, as a witness, was requested ty Mr. Iam » Cateane ere, © nag Ay a wit Mr. LeMaster's associate, go out to the hall again, I also went out. They didnot know me,
courtroom until my time to take the witness stand. When Mrs. Koker came 0 n C) and apparantly thought that I was an attomey, since they eked 17 U hal ¢ emte pending that eiter=
hall from the courtroom, she said the court was recessed for lunch. neon.
1 om not sure during which discussion the following was said, but it was during one of the two
conversations | witnessed in the hallway. Mr. Betts asked Mr. LeMaster - “What's she trying to
occomplish?" Mr. Betts also stated - "You have only hod to put up with her for a few morh®,
1 hove hod to put up with her for years." Other similar statements were mode, but I cannot recoll
their content. .
Wanting to ask Mr. Betts a question, I returned to the courtroom just at the
i beginning of the moon lunch hour. The Judge had left the Courtroom.
Mr. Betts and Mr. LeMaster and the second defense attorney of whom I did not know
; his name, were standing on the right side of the Judge's bench near the witness chair, ‘
with their backs to the back of the courtroom and they were talking in low tones. The hall conversations gave to me the opinion and impression that there was some kind of
No one else was in the courtroom when I walked up to the attorneys and I heard Mr. conspiracy between the two above nomed attomies against Mrs. Koker. ; : :
LleMaster to Mr. Betts '
_ — : . . I did speak to Mrs. Koker prior to the court proceedings on the 22nd, and informed her of y
"Fred, I can't lose this trial." what | hod overheard. - :
Mr, Betts said to Mr. LeMaster:
"Ken, you don't have anything to worry about."
Then the three attorneys turned around, apparently not knowing I was there, ; ay - i“ Q .. ° Daw if x. . ¢
and all three had a shocked and stumned look to see me standing there, . Rev. Daniel L. Sabrowsky
221051 Phimey Aveme North
Seattle, Washington
’
AFFIDAVIT GENERAL FORM
g ‘a ‘ | Washington Leg Biant Co Bellevue, We. Form Me. 38
° CB BOWIE BRORN sie : . Cunie® i. ' |
Cpe pendy -3 Tis = Worth 103rd Street Ee. sae Lf prepa chess a Le of
Seattle. Washinetnn A122 i
-
. a *. .
Kermeth L. IeMaster, Defense Attorney _
R. Scott Fallon, Defense Attorney
KING Frederick Betts, Plaintiff attorney
Beatrice BE, Koker, Plaintiff
ve of __WASHDNCTOY
County of
PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL - KOKER""+V SAGE Case #773620
i SUPSRICR COURT - KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE February 11, 1975
|| HONGRAHELE JUDGE DAVID C. HUNTER, PRESIDING
THIS TRIAL ENDED IN A MISTRIAL
| State of __ WASHINGTON
| County of __SNCHGUTSH
| Before
in and for the County of
| a
\ residing ot. laa anid oiled iia a sinsinnnaienninnniiemnnaay watanoan
|
|
personally came....---.---~-- BONNIE FROWN
! ‘Dn the February 1975 trial, as irs. Koker was testifying about the
1) NGxeeedures of the myelogram and how the doctor took out some of the
a = fiuid, I heard Mr. IeMaster say under his breath: Quote:
Ay GW ss F
4, a :
i! Tees tN
et Sagoo bad they didn't take all the fluid out of her."
| how ae ttt
| Bomie Brom
P. 0. Box 28)
Lake Stevens, Washington 98258
AFFIDAVIT GENERAL FORM
Washington Lege! Blank Co, Betievue, We. Form Ho 38
Ani ee ere a —
PIS Ara Eo Sith
DR. AwdeERS E. Sota, PLamtisfs TREAtWG
fa} GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TASHINGTON = 1950.
J>] TOOK A ROTATING INTSRISHIP AT TACQ!A-PIERCE COUNTY HOSPITAL.
Jc] RESIDENCY IN PHYSICAL MEDICINE AT THE VETERANS HOSPITAL,
PORTLAND, OREGON,
{a§ CHIEF, PHYSICAL MEDICINE SERVICE, LACKLAND AIR FORCES BASE
HOSPITAL, IN CHARGE Of PHYSIATAY AND HERABILITATIGN MEDICINE.
Je} PRESENTLY AN APPOINTENT WITH THE PAIN CLINIC AT THE UNIVERSITY
GF WASHINGTON. PRIVATE PRACTICE AT NORTHGATE, SEATTLE, WASH.
FOR MANY YEARS.
ff] INVITED TO THE INTESNATIONAL PAIN CONFERENCE, FLORENCE, ITALY-
"19756
PESSONAL FRIEND OF s
JANET TRAVELL, M.D. PEIVATE PHYSICIAN TO FRESIDENT LYNDON
JOHNSON AND PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND USED DR. SOLA'S
TRIGGER POINT NEEDLING USING NORMAL SALINE TECHNIQUE TO
TREAT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S BACK FSOSLEM, (SEE DR. SOLA'S
PUBLISHED PAPERS.)
PIA:
ROBERT L, WILLIAUS, M.D.
CHIEF OF PSYCHIATRY AND NEUSOLOGY
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER
HOUSTON, TEXAS T1025
MADE FILM WITH IR.
ANDERS E. SOLA WHILE
IN THE AIR FORCE IN
THE 1950's.
FIIM WAS ®TSIGGER POINT NESDLING® USING NCEWAL
SALINE, FIL! WAS SHOuN AT THE AMA NATIONAL
CQVENTION IN NEW YORK IN 1973 AND FRC THERE
THE FILM WAS SHOWN IN VARIOUS PLACES BY THE
MEDICAL DOCTOR WHO HAD IT. PHYSICIAN IN CHARGE:
IR. RON MELZACK.
MEDICAL DOCTORS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES FEFE2 PATIENTS TO DR.
SOLA. THS PAIN CLINIC AT THE UNIVERSITY CF WASHINGTON REFERS
PATIENTS TO DR. SOLA. DR. JOHN BOQVICA, PROFSSSGR AND DIESCTOR oF
THE PAIN CLINIC, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINCTON.
DR. SOLA'S WORK IS MENTIONED IN BOOKS BY PHYSICIAN AUTHCGES. DR.
JANET TRAVELL, DR. WILLIAM A. McGAREY, DR. LOUIS MOSS, DR- **"™~
Py- &
a
Append
Doe
wate of ____ WASHINGTON |
County of. —
ie
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
REGARDING: BEATRICE E, KOKER, Patient
State of WASHINGTON
| ae.
County of__KING
Before me,..Katherine M. Hutchison . a :
in and for the County of...King.. 9 -State of..Washington oo ’
according to law, deposes and says, that
Beatrice Koker was injured in an automobile accident June 4, 1971, Initially
she sustained an acute cer vical Sprain involving the left posterior cervical
region and left upper extremity, and a twisting injury to the lumbo sacro
region L4, L5, S$).
Mrs. Koker was treated in my clinic for a period of time in 1971, and has inter-
mittently been treated until present. The patient has had multiple complaints
and symptoms, many of which were difficult to evaluate, in the head and neck
area, these complaints were localized to the left ear and around the left eye,
left Upper extremity, and left facial area, The most obvious problem was
‘freguent,muscte spasm of the left posterior cer vical region. The patient
suffered @ severe cervical Sprain involving nerve root C5, C6 on the left.
Thi was ‘aggravated by the pre-existing minimal osteoarthritis which was pre-
‘sante: Urg.: Kokér still suffers from frequent episodes of acute torticollis
| and muscle<spasm which | have treated intermittently with injections of
ky ha¢aine and saline which brings temporary relief.
reese os
In ‘addition, Mrs Koker suffered a severe injury, as mentioned above, involving
the Iumbo sacro region, This was associated with an Electromyogram evidence
of peripheral nerve injury involving nerve roots L4, L5 on the right. There
is also muscle weakness in the quadriceps and anterior tibial muscles on the
right. Mrs, Koker also has weakness of the left quadricep muscle which causes
some instability of her left knee. She requires treatment once or twice a
month with injections of xylocaine and saline into the painful trigger points
in the gluteal and hip muscles both right and left and also the left posterior
“Cervical region, These injuries are permanent. The lumbo sacro injury has
Caused @ permanent drop foot of the right foot which necessitates the wearing
of a short leg brace on the right leg.
2*s0, “0
.
~
«
-
Bk ee
ANDERS E. SOLA, M.D. \
| . a7
ron Koha fh.
AODRESS. —— ee a
Cprraneaae. Joe ~~
A/S
7 bd ae"
no Sonne fan, >
~ SUBSTITUTION PERMITTED To g POIGPENSE RS PRITIEN
219 AU Ov Pm _ Stig ¢ 5
EA NO VENUE NOY
“STON 93323
Date ++ $$.” ADRESS
EINAR HENRIKSEN, M.D.
ORTHOPEOICS ANDO FRACTURES
Prone 363-8666
120 NORTHGATE PLAZA
Beatrice Koker of
a ostieerteraedicnsh etoile site nein ——
5-3-78
OE ___oare__ 2-3" 78
ale
‘mel eat nn, ne ae
= rs
U.S. Reo NO
— a ee ee ee ee Se er. ae oe ee eee ee 2
jueuljipdeg [DUO}IPy
mas o wei Op Ze" zy
‘QUI ‘DoOWeUly jo e;nyysu] ledpdsmen
G3—-/ oe
‘JOSIBY S@SI@ASI BY} UO YO} JaS SD P1OSEI By} YIM
eouDpIOSop ul ‘1eaAo[dula aatjedsold D 0} aduUalaja1 SD DOWeUY jo ajnyYsuy] Jedpdsmeyy
ey} esn 0} palleju0d Aqaiey jYyHu ey} esIoJexe [[DYs Jequiew ay} jt yUueuAOCTduIa Jo}
suocIDoOgYOND siequisw ey} JO jUSeUesIopua SyIdeds pup uoyMoyddp jo eu ey} jD
yua}sixe sebaltaud [[D 0} payjyue st puD ‘diysiequieur 10} uolpotjddp ay} jo sua} ay) Aq
pesodul suoypbi/qo ey} [[D jo eHipyosip Aq pup sjuewubissy Buy ey} jo uoINdexe UH | 0
Aiojopysyjps Aq poweuly jo aynyysuy edpdsmey oy} ul diysiequieur 10} paytonb spy
UDO HONS “SYN
DY} SYTIES ‘DOeUly JO aynyysu] Jedpdsmey ey} JO FDS [EUO}IPY oy}
jO Jequieul D pup updeq ey} jo semnyoubis ey; Aq peyppypa ueyM ‘JUDIIDM S/H
YAO, MON 4O F1DIS @4L 4O SMD] By] JePUL, jOOYXZG s2UaepUOcdsalIOED YW Sy peaoiddy
BINaWy Jo aynyiysuy Jadedsmay
Yrynopwoy fo yooppag,
to bring his vehicle to a stop before entering on Dayton Avenue
—_
2\|| North and was driving at an excessive rate of speed and operating
3|| his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
4 Yeo
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY | i P As a direct and proximate result of the reckless,
5 ERICH KOKER and BEATRICE E. ) 6]| negligent and careless driving by the defendant Noel B. Sage, Jr.
6] KOKER, husband and wife, ; 7)| the plaintiff Beatrice E. Koker suffered permanent and lasting
. Plaintiffs, ~_ 8] injuries, both physically and mentally, which has in the past
’ me ; COMPLAINT | 9} and will in the future materially affect her ability to carry
: ae cases ae ; 10 on a normal life and that by reason of the injuries she has been
10] and NOEL B. SAGE, JR., ; 11] unable to carry on her normal duties and activities as a member
+“ Defendants. : | 12] of the marital community composed of herself and her husband,
12 13} all to their general damages in the sum of $50,000.00.
7 Plaintiffs complain and allege as follows: 14 That the plaintiffs have been required to incur substantial
” I. 15|| expenses in connection with medical treatment in the past and
” That at all times herein mentioned the plaintiffs were } 16] will be required to incur expenses for medical treatment in the
16 d d residents of King County and that
« ee: SO ree . of 17} future. That in addition thereto they have incurred additional
7 <a nd Winetta Sage were husband and
the defendant Noel B. Sage a 8 18] expenses including medication, assistance.in the maintenance of
18 t 4tal community under the laws of the
ee eee oe . 19] their home, all of which is in an amount uncertain at this time
19] state of Washington; and that the defendant Noel B. Sage, Jr. is
20 but will be proven at the time of trial.
20] their son. That all actions of Noel B. Sage, Jr. were done for =) oe
214 and on his own behalf and on behalf of the marital community of | 22 DTUMEMAIRESS Suntete was depreciated in market
|
22 | Noel B. Sage and Winetta B. Sage, his wife. That all of said 23] value in the sum of $750.00.
231 defendants are residents of King County, Washington. | 24 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment waiters the
™ _ 251 defendants and each of them in the amount of $50,000.00 general
™ That on or about June 4th, 1971, at approximately | 261 damages together with medical expenses and other special damages
26) 1:00 P.M. the plaintiff, Beatrice Koker, was northbound on Dayton a7 | wxtch will be proven at the tine of trial, together with $750.00
27 | avenue North, driving their Plymouth Fury automobile, and crossing 281 ror i Se the pibeecbite, together with plaintiffs’
28
North h St t, when the defendant Noel B. Sage, Jr. was
a] we ee ° 29 | costs and disbursements herein to be taxed.
29 | griving a Chevrolet belonging to said defendants in a negligent
. iin 30 VATED this 3rd day of August, 1973.
30
on North 90th Street. That said defendant failed
er er ee 3 : SKEEL, McKFELVY, HENKE, EVENSON & BETTS
31
By F. V. Betts LAW OFF ices
aworric Frederick V. Betts =e s 6
= aa Attorneys for Plaintt fis women sume
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON @8104
Oppendiys F3—1/ (+)
Sxect, McKa.vy, Hanae, Evenson @ Barre
1020 MORTON BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 88104 \ COMPLAINT. -2=-
COMPLAINT. -l- Z, ] 2 2B ~ wW Ce 629-1031
___.
23-1031
ANDERS E. SOLA, M.D
120 NORTHGATE PLAZA. ROOM 340
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98125
TELEPHONE EM 3-1616
ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC REPORT
L RIYA
FEB 10 1975
SIL, MeKELY
,
P 7? ‘iy
*ENSOW *.ID Bei 35
40m FLOOR 9.9. 4h AVE, SEATILE
NAME: BEATRICE KOKER
Dr. Dr. Henriksen, Or. Rothstein
MUSCLES-NECK & UPPER EXTS,
Paraspinal, POST. PRIWRY DIV. N.
C1, C2, G3, C4, CS, 08, C7,
T1, T2, T3, T4, TS, TH, T7, TS
Sternocleidomast. (C2,3) CR. N. (XI)
Trapezius (C2,3,4) CR. N. (0)
SCAPULAR
Rhomboid (C5), DORSAL
Supraspinatus (CS)
Infraspinatus (CS)
SUPRASCAPULAR N.
Serratus ant. (CS5,6,7), LONG THORACIC N,
Latis. dorsi (06,7,8), THOR ACODORSAL N,
Deltoid (CS)
AXILLARY N,
Teres minor (C5)
Biceps (G,6), STANEOUS N.
Triceps (C7,8)
Brachioradialis (CS, 6)
Ext. carpi radialis (0,7)
Ext. dig. communis (C7)
Ext. carpi ulnaris (C7,8)
Ext. pollicis long. (C7,8)
A.-l, pollicis long. (C7,8
RADIAL N.
Age
Plex. — onary ba MEDIAN N.
Flex. dic. sublimis (C7) queue
Flex. dig. profundus (C7)
THENAR GROUP
Abd, pollicis brev. (C7,8
Qpponens pollicis (C7,8) nail
Flex. pollicis brev. (C8)
Plex, carpi ulnaris (C3) ULNAR N,
Flexor dig. profundus (C7,8 forearm
HYPOTHENAR GPOUP
Abd. digiti quinti (Tl) ULNAR N.
Opp. digiti qinti (T1)
Flex, digiti quinti (TI)
Interossei, 1,2,3,4, (@,Tl
MUSCLES-LOW BACK & EXTS.
Paraspinals, POST PRIMASY DIV. N.
To, T10, T11, T12, L1, 12,13,
4, L5, 51,52, 3,4, 55
I}iopsoas (L2) FEOORAL N.
Quadriceps (L3,4)
Adductors (L2,3),,OBTURATOR N.
Gluteus med. (LS)
SUP. GUUTEAL N.
Tensor fascia Jata (L5)
Gluteus max, (S1) INF. GLUTEAL N,
Hamstrings
Biceps femori (L5)
Semitendinosus (Sl)
SCIATIC N,
Semimembranosus (81)
Tibialis ant. (LA)
Ext. dig. long. (L5)
Ext. hallucis long. (L5)
Peroneus long. (L5)
Peroneus brev. (L5)
PERONEAL N.
*
Gastrocnemius, Jat. hd. (51)
Gastrocnemius, med. hd. (51, 2)
Soleus (L5,51)
TIBIAL N.
Intrinsic Muscles of the Foot (51, 2)
Flex, digiti brev.
Abd. hailucis
Abd, digiti quinti
Interossei,
. MED. PLANTAR N.
LAT, PLANTAR N,
ANDERS £— SOLA. M D
120 NORTHGATE PLAZA ROOM 340
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98125
TELEPHONE EM 3-1616
Or-ANDERS E, SOLA, M.D.
5-: 7-76 ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC REPORT
_ NAME: _BEATRICE_KOKER mee.
WUSCLES-NECK & UPPER EXTS, Flex. carpi redialis (Os) ASDIAN
Parespinal, POST. PRIVARY DIV. N, Plex. dis. sublimis (C7) ieee * Gluteus med. (LS)
C1,C2, C3, G4, C5, 06, C7, Flex. dig. profundus (C7) Tensor fascia Jata (L5)
Tl, T2. T3, 74, TS, TH, 17, 18 THENAR GROUP
Sternocleidomast, (C2,3) CR. N. (XI) Abd. pollicis brev. (C7,8 MEDIAN N Hemstrings
Trapezius (C2,3,4) CR. N. (Xt) Opponens pollicis (C7,8) Biceps ferori (LS)
Rhorsoid (C5), DORSAL SCAPULAR N, Flex. pollicis brev, (C8) hand Semitendinosus (S1)
Supraspinatus (cs) } EUPRASCAPULAR NN. Flex, carpi ulnaris (C3) ULNAR N, Semimembranosus (81)
Infraspinatus (CS) Flexor dig. profundus (C7,8¥ forearm Tibialis ent. (L4)
Serratus ant. (CS5.6,7), LONG THORACIC N, HYPOTHENAR GPOUP Ext. dig. long. (LS)
Latis. dors! (06,7,8), THORACODORSAL N, Abd, digiti quinti (T1) ULXAP N Ext, hallucis long. (LS5)
Deltoid (C5) Opp. digits quinti (T1) : roneus Jon
Teres minor (CS) ATULARY Plex, digiti quinti (T1) ae “% ae
Biceps (CS,6), | ANDOUS N. Interossei, 1,2,3,4, (@,T1
Triceps (C7,8)
Brachioradialis (CS,6)
Ext. carpi radialis (0,7)
Ext, dig. communis (C7)
Ext.. carpi u)naris (C7,8)
Ext. pollicis Jong. (C7,8)
Abd. pollicis long. (C7,8
RADIAL N,
SUSCLES-LOW BACK & EXTS.
Paraspina]ls, POST PRIMASY DIV. N.
T9, T10, T11, T12, L1, L2, L3,
4, LS, 51,S2, 53,4, 85
I}iopsoas (L2)
Qadriceps (L3,4) FEMOPAL Ni.
Adductors (L2,3),, OSTURATOR N,
SUP. GUTEAL N,
Gluteus max, (Sl) INF. GQWTEAL N.
SCIATIC RN,
PERONZAL N,
Peroneus brev. (L5) .
Gastrocnemius, lat. hd. (S1)
Gastrocnemius, med. hd. (SI, 2)
Soleus (LS, 51)
Intrinsic Muscles of the Foot (S51, 2)
Flex. digiti brev,
TIBIAL BN
Abd. hallucis WED. PLANTAR N.
Abd, digiti quinti ee
eens LAT. PLANTAR N,
Copy to:
Einar Henriksen, M.D.
120 Northgate Plaza,
98125 1570 N. 115 98125
Ted L. Rothstein, M.D.
F. V. Betts, Attorney
Norton Bldg.
Seattle
An Electromyogram was done on Beatrice Koker, 2-7-75, of both upper extremities, both lower
extremities and back. : Bago
and positive sharp waves in the le iceps.
polyphasic potentials associated with secondary muscle spasm.
and other parascapular muscles were normal.
Nerve root irritation C5, 6 on the left, moderate.
normal
IMPRESS ION:
r tials
rmal potentials were notea tn tue form uf polyphasic poten
oy ; The right anc left trapezius revealed numerous
The right upper extremity was
Examination of the lower extremities revealed abnormal polyphasic potentials opty
with some fibrillation potentials in the anterior tib and peroneal muscles, on the right.
| was unable to detect any abnormal potentials in the lumbar paraspinal muscles.
All other
muscle groups tested, which included the hamstrings, quadriceps, gastrocsoleus, and anterior
tib and peroneal, on the left, were normal.
IMPRESS ION:
AES: jv
Nerve root irritation L5 on the. right, moderate.
i believe the above findingdexplains her difficalty in gy erga to
of injections and physical therapy treatment in the shoulder girdle.
should be re-evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon.
liiddir
‘
a
UOT LA
ANDERS Es SOLA, MoD.
Zi 6%, Co- /*%
the temporary effect
{ think these findings
An Electromyogram was done on Beatrice Koker, 5-27-76,
Spinal muscles, the gluteals, were normal.
abnormal potentials in the form of fibrillat
The right anterior tib and peronea
potentials and fibrillation potentials at re
minimal.
_IMPRESS JON:
Exemination of the cervical area revealed
ials in the left Ssupraspinatus, the anter
ition, the triceps, a few scattered polyphasic potentials were noted at rest.
the parascapular muscles, extensors, flexors of the wrist were normal.
IMPRESS ION:
AES: jv
Examination was done of the para-
On the right,the tensor fascia lata revealed
ion potentials and positive sharp waves,
1 muscles, revealed numerous polyphasic
st throughout all the dorsi flexors.
The right gastroc soleus also revealed a few scattered fibri
Ilation potentials on the
medial head of the gastroc muscle,
The right quadriceps and hamstrings were normal.
On the left, no abnormal potentials were noted on the left
lower extremity which included
the gluteals, hamstrings, gastroc soleus, dorsi
flexors of the foot.
Nerve root irritation L4, L5 on the right, marked,
—————
>
Nerve root irritation C5, 6, minimal on the left,
» on the left,a few scatered fibrillation poten-
ior portion of the deltoid, and triceps. In add-
The rest of
ANDERS E, SOLA, M.D,
Dpopendiye CB- 12%
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.