# Appendix — Koker v. Sage

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1253%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1980
- **Citation:** 444 U.S. 1040

## 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,

> > 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 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 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

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!

. 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 ~
;

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 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."

‘ . ‘ /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? ] 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

~ 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

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%

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1253%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.