Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tullis v. Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson P. S., Inc.

Supreme Court brief2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

CL) Semen Cou, us.

OFFICE Of

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

CLINTON M. TULLIS and

MARGARET L. TULLIS

Petitioners

Law Offices. of LEE, SMART, etal, P.S. Inc.,

Law Office of WEST and COLLINS P.S.

Respondents

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Clinton M. Tullis &

Margaret L. Tullis

U.S. Citizens Pro Se

16300 184 Ave. S.E.

Renton, Washington, 98058

(425) 226-7399

WSpy)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner’s were trespassed upon by a Licensed

Contractor during an improper Mechanical Installation

which endangered Petitioners health and lives.

The Contractors and their Insurance Company chose

to hire a Law Firm to avoid responsibility of cleaning

up the hazards, Petitioners were subjected to.

The original law suit in the State Courts was due to

the violations of a contractor: “Nor Pac Heating and

Air-conditioning Inc.” of Auburn, Washington.

The Law Firm of West and Collins and the Law Firm

of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin and Patterson, et al, P.S.

Inc., Appeared to have no legal remedy, so successfully

chose to represent the Contractor and the Insurance

Company ; by using perjured documents, to gain —

success through the Washington State Courts; Which

should be more than adequate to entertain, a

completely separate Law Suit against the Law Firms, et

al; Having no obligations or benefits to the Law Firms

Former Clients; As they are not a party to this case.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Why hasn’t the Federal Courts given a “Four

Corners” observation of this case?

2. Why hasn’t the Federal Courts given “Judicial

Notice” of this case?

3. Did the Federal Courts Properly survey, their

authorities applied to their considerations?

4. Whether the Federal Courts erred in denying the

Class Action suit?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Continued

5. Why hasn’t the District Court and the Ninth Circuit

Panel, allowed Petitioners discovery, for authenticity of

Administrative Authorities answers, to Respondents

“false testimony” ?

6. Did the Ninth Circuit Panel bypass issues formerly

scorned by the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals?

7. Why didn’t the District Court Judge, allow

Petitioners, a change of venue?

8. Would there be a case against the Respondents, if

they had not falsified and assisted in falsifying

documents presented to the Lower Courts?

9. Is assisting fabrication of False Documents and

submission to a Court during Trial, considered perjury?

10. Is it perjury for an attorney, to assist his client to

concoct a False Document during discovery?

11. Is naming a Document that is false, within the

“Motion For Order”, to influence a Court decision,

to be condoned by the Courts?

12. Should all Court participants have equal status to

representation, free of bias?

13. Whether a Superior Court judge deserves increased

status; whom, at a hearing, only chastised Tullis’: to

stay out of law, and he would stay out of Real Estate?

A. Did this deny petitioners compulsory process of

law under the 6 and 14* Amendments?

14. Whether the Panel erred in honoring the District

Court dismissal of the Federal Civil Rights and

Environmental claims; proclaimed as Federal Laws,

Backed by Constitutional Amendments?

iii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Continued

15. Is Appellate Court decision, Scare Decisis: (very

slow to interfere with decisions of lower courts and

more often would decide otherwise were the question a

new one)? .

16. Whether the District Court erred, declaring Tullis’s

Cause; a continuance of the State Courts decisions?

17. Whether U.S. Citizens are expected to accept abuse

of Established Laws, by Attorneys and Officials, as a

Standard, Accepted Practice; Leaving the Public “no

recourse” for Injuries and Losses?

PARTIES TO PROCEEDING

CLINTON M. TULLIS and MARGARET L. TULLIS

and the Marital Community Comprised Thereof

Petitioners

vs.

THE LAW OFFICES OF LEE, SMART, COOK,

MARTIN AND PATTERSON PS. Inc.;

CREIGHTON S. HUTCHINS and “JANE DOE

HUTCHINS” and the Marital Community Comprised

Thereof;

KAREN A. KALZER and “JOHN DOE KALZER” and

the Marital Community Comprised Thereof;

RORY W. LEID If and “JANE DOE LEID” and the

Marital Community Comprised Thereof;

THE LAW OFFICE OF WEST and COLLINS P.S.;

ROBERT E. WEST and “JANE DOE WEST” and the

Marital Community Comprised Thereof.

Respondents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

TN picasa sescssesencsigcanndincennns i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED..........00...0000c0ee0ee i - iii

PARTIES TO PROCEEDING. .........00..cs00eceee0e iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............ssesccceseceees vi

CE I aisiiictinciciiisicisecscceasecees, 1

I i iviiiiniciei tice 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED... 3-4

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACT .............. 4-6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ......... 10

CCC A MNES tthsndcessDibasepacinesssadddlasinasdtalhs 23

DERIVITIVE TORT: An action in tort based on criminal

conduct of defendant which resulted in injury to

plaintiff, and for which injury plaintiff seeks

compensation. Action is distinct from criminal

prosecution which may result from same conduct by

defendant. The term also applies to liability imposed on

a principle by his agent.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases:

Petitioners Selection:

82 .s Ct. 894(1962)Dairy Queen v. Wood ......... 14

690 F. Supp. 400 (Ed.Pa. 1988) Ferri v. Fox, etal... 4

987 F.2d 1536 (11 Cir. 1993) 10.15 Malautea v.

67 F.2d 801 (9 Cir. 1995) U.S. v. Keys ............++ 22

910 F. 2d 652 (9 Cir. 1995) Wanderer v. Johnston.... 18

Published Opinions:

57 Fed. Reporter, 3d Series: Fed. Communications

v. William P. Johnson, and Hollis B. Johnson

Vacated and Remanded .................scseseseeees A-10, 11

892 Fed Reporter 2d Series: Laura Kraemer v.

Grant County, etal, Reversed.................. A-9

8 Fed. Reporter 3d Series: USA. v.

Millard F.McAfee Affirmed ... .............. A-9,10

998 Fed. Reporter 2d. Series’ 802 Fed. Supp/ U.S.A.

(2-4 Cir.) v. Shonubi: Vacated / Remanded...... .A-12, 13

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases:

Authorities of (9 Cir.) Court of Appeals & of Western

Washington District Court:

62 F. 3d, 287, 291 (9 Cir.1994) Affirmed ......... A-25

460 U.S. 462, 482, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983) Dist of

Columbia v. Feldman ..............ccccccccccecs A-5

3 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9 Cir. 1993) See School Dist.

No.1, Multnomah Co. v. AcandS, Inc. ..... ...... A-2

640 F.2d 702, 705 (5 Cir. 1981) Reynolds v.

NEOEE GRUNMIIIN ccccssuvascissensenesoestoscensssenseiiaen A-5

Federal Rules of Appeal, P 334; (a)(2) “THIS CASE” A-2

PF Cie. Rude 36S ......cccccccee THIS CASE....... A-2

Statutes, Rules and Constitutional Provisions:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1993 Amendment to Rule 11 (c ) (1) (A)............... 22

FRCP Rule 33 ...... Improper Signature......... 12

NE MEE UR cisdsntsassnciinisienindanseasbensnebenee 7,10,12,15

PAs TART cccoccsscsccnsccssccsesoseceneseseses 14

Rules of Professional Conduct:

BE cccccncscces 15, 18

United States Code:

Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1964; Title 28U.S.C.A 1367 ...... 22

Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1623 A...Civil Rights............... 22

Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1621 (1988)... Perjury dndinanneasoan A-12

Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1291 ..........seecseecerecereees A-2

Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1331 (1976 ed,Supp.v)... 1

Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1343.20... ceceeccreeeeceeeees 1

Title 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1985 .........cccececeeesereeee 1

Tide 42 USCA. DRL ..rccccccccccccccccccccccesce 5

Washington State, King County,

Violations of Administrative Authorities “Codes”..13,14

Administrative Authority Laws and Rules in

United States Constitution:

Fifth AMENAMENE ..........0ccrssrrescsssrceseeseees 3

TINNED insecnccsahcnbccsntsicbeniecceintneia 3,15,21

Seventh Amendment ...........:s:ssssssssssssesesees 3,14

Fourteenth Amendment .................0cc0005 seen 3,14,15

Violation of Civil Rights .................ssccseeeees 16

OPINION BELOW

The unpublished opinion of the United States Court

of Appeals, Ninth Circuit is contained in the Appendix

(hereinafter “A”) at pages 1-2.

JURISDICTION

The judgment to be reviewed was entered on March

29, 2001. A-1. Tullis’s petition for rehearing was denied

on May 25, 2001. A-3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this

Court by Titles 28 and 42 U.S.C.A. as follows:

1. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec 1331 (1976 Fed., Supp V) Provides:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States”.

2. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1343 confers jurisdiction on the

district courts for civil rights cases as follows: Sec. 1343.

Civil Rights and elective franchises: (a) The district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action

authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for his person or property, or

because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a

citizen of the United States, by any act done in

furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section

1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to

prevent or aid in preventing wrongs mentioned in

section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were

about to occur or power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State

law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of

any right, privilege or immunity secured by the

Constitution of the United States or by any act of

Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all

persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other

relief under any Act of Congress providing for

protection of civil rights,...

42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with

civil rights provides as follows: (2) Obstructing Justice,

intimidating party, witness, or juror: If two or more

persons conspire for the purpose of impeding,

hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner,

due course of justice in any State or Territory, with

intent to deny any citizen the equal protection of the

laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully

enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any

person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of

the laws: (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges:

In any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one

or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be

done, any act in furtherance of the object of such

conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or

property, or deprived of having and exercising any

right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the

party so injured or deprived may have an action for

recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or

deprivation, against one or more of the conspirators.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Fifth , Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

(1). The Fifth Amendment

No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law.

(2). The Sixth Amendment:

Compulsory Process Clause: The right to offer

witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary;

The right to present a defense; the right to present the

defendants version of the facts as well as the

prosecution's to the jury, so it may decide where the

truth lies;

The 6 Amendment guarantees will be violated by

unfair treatment of the defendant in presenting his case:

If a judge harshly admonishes the defense or defense

witnesses and no others, compulsory process has been

violated: Webb v. Texas (1972)

(3). The Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value is more than

twenty dollars, right to trial by jury shall be preserved

and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise

reexamined in any Court of the United States, than to

the rules of common law(a). 7“ Amendment provides a

right to a jury trial in civil suits, a guarantee so

important to the judicial system that any curtailment to

the right of trial by jury has been closely examined by

the court. 7 is similar to the sixth Amendment in this

respect but does not apply to criminal cases and the

guarantee applies to Federal but not to State Courts.

This right also protects citizens from the oppression of

judges.

(4). The Fourteenth Amendment:

Provides that: “No State shall deny to any person

within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.”

In fact, the courts have held that : A” Pro Se, non-

lawyer plaintiff is held to a lesser standard (in terms of

requirements for the presentation of his or her case)

Ferri v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 690 F. Supp.

400 (E.D.Pa. 1988.)

Its clause protecting citizens from state infringement on

their privileges and immunities, guaranteeing all

persons equal protection under the laws and due

process, or fairness in the application of those laws.

“Every Important Bill Of Rights” has been

incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Tullis’s were trespassed upon during an illegal

installation of a Gas Furnace and Gas Water Heater by

a licensed, Washington State Contractor on 12/02/1999.

2. The Performance endangered Petitioners health and

lives, when the Contractors carelessly knocked

considerable Mold and Soot impregnated Fiberglass,

down from the old Loose Insulation in the attic, into the

interior of Tullis’s furnace being assembled in pieces.

Violation of Environmental Protection Agency Act.

The action taken by Attorney’s in this case, enabled

their clients to violate at least two Federal Statutes:

(1) The Federal Clean Air Act and (2) the Federal

SE, SS ae a

Comprehensive Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act.: CERCLA, as

amended by SARA 42 U.S.C.A.99601 et seq. The latter

provides for remedies for specified environmental

injuries caused by a release of a hazardous substance.

Hazardous substance is defined By CERCLA to include

any substance designated pursuant to Section 112 of

CERCLA and includes Airborne Particles which are a

known carcinogen.

3. Upon completion of the installation; The assemblers

turned on the furnace. The furnace fans shattered the

Fiberglass; Blowing the Particles throughout the heat

system and polluting everything within Tullis’s house.

4. Tullis’s called the Contracting Company “Nor Pac”,

whom sent a representative to the house on Saturday,

December 4, 1993 and informed Tullis’s after

observation of the pollution, that someone would be

out on Monday to cure the problem, On Monday,

December 6, 1993; The salesman came out with a small

hand vac and cleaned a small area around each heat

duct, then informed Tullis’s, that the new electronic air

purifier would take care of the rest of the problem. He

didn’t consider that it might take years to circulate

throughout the house before entering the system.

5. Upon the next inquiry; The Installing Contractors

secretary informed Tullis’s; Quote: The cleanup was

too much of a mess for them, they were not equipped

for such tasks, and the Secretary recommended Serve

Pro, of whom she explained, her Company sometimes

used. It was now obvious that the Company was not

intending to do anything about the contamination.

The indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Service of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, refers to Man Made

Fibers such as Fiberglasas Particles as Respirable Suspended

Particles (RSP), that are hazardous because: If they are

small enough to become air-borne, the larger particles

above 15 microns will be filtered out by your nose; the

microns of 15 or less may enter your lungs of which

those under 2 microns can penetrate the small air sacs

of your lungs. These particles can remain for months

and can cause eye, nose and throat irritation,

respiratory infections, bronchitis and lung cancer,

CERCLA does not require any particular concentration

level, so “any traceable amount of a hazardous

substance” is sufficient for finding a release.

6. It took eight days to clean the house by Serve Pro,

whom also used the services of a Furnace Cleaning

Company, and of a Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Firm:

“Leather Care”. It took three weeks to clean all of the

fabrics. Leather Care obtained a large Truck Load of

Tullis Fabrics and upon returning them, explained: It

was a real task to remove the contamination of the

mold and soot impregnated fiberglass particles.

7. The Tullis’s had to vacate the premises for eight days

with only the clothes they were wearing.

8. Robert E. West, false, written statement to the Court,

(quote): Their Client, Nor Pac Heating and Air-

conditioning Inc., completed its work in a good and

workmanlike manner.

Violation of FRCP Rule 11:

(b) Representation to the court. By presenting to the

court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later,

advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper.

An attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to

the best of the persons knowledge, information and

belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances; (1) It is not being presented for any

improper purpose, such as to harass, or to cause

unnecessary delay or needless increase in cost of |

litigation; (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal

contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by

a non-frivolous argument for extension, modification,

or reversal of existing law.

9. Three days after returning to the house, Tullis’s

found additional Fiberglass coming up through the

heat ducts, again contaminating the entire residence.

10. The Cleaning Company was again called and

ordered the Furnace Cleaning Company to return to

complete his job. They then proceeded to investigate

the immediate cause of contamination after their

professional cleaning, with a huge powerful Truck

Vacuum, of which they denied being questionable.

11. They found that, Nor Pac Heating & Air-

Conditioning Inc.,”The Original Contractor” had gone

under the house to insert a new short line into the

family room and had carelessly broken Two “hot air”

duct line connections, which were now sucking the

fiberglass wrapped insulation, from off the “Hot Air

Ducts”. Tullis’s again had to leave for a weeks cleaning. |

12. On December 23, 1993, Tullis clothing, curtains, etc.

were returned; 21 days after the Installations.

13. Tullis’s could not afford to do as suggested by

E.P.A. confirmed, Dr. Richard Knight (Whom received

$400.00 for his testing), and reccommended to seal the

walls and ceiling by repainting the house and replace

the carpeting or install hardwood. The house had been

painted during October and November of 1991 and the

large front room “Expensive” carpet, had been installed

in November, 1991. The balance of the Carpeting was

like new in 1991; just after Tullis’s purchased the home.

Consequently, Tullis’s carefully, constantly vacuumed

the carpeting and cleaned the premises.

14. Clinton and Margaret, both had reddish tints to

their eyes since the initial contamination from the

fiberglass. We thought after the initial problem was

resolved, that the redness was mostly caused from

Pollination as we had acquaintances that claimed this

problem, and we did live in a highly forested area.

15. During January of 1999, Clinton Tullis went to

Idaho to join his family to encourage a younger

brother, whom was scheduled for heart surgery.

16. Upon returning home to Renton, Washington on

January 19, Clinton asked Margaret what had

happened to make her eyes so red. She stated that their

getting worsened was why she hadn’t gone to Idaho

with me. They were now real bad. She had been in the

house continually since Clinton had left for Idaho and

usually, . »e would either be working out in the yard or

going shopping or visiting our children.

17. Clinton, exclaimed “Oh my God” Don’t tell me it’s

the furnace. Consequently, Clinton Tullis, then went to

Home Depot and procured several rolls of heavy Duct

Tape and a few pounds of sheet metal screws. Clinton

then went into the attic and peeled off all of the joints of

the Air return ducts, secured the joints tightly and then

caulked and made several wraps of tape around each

connection. This did not improve the situation.

18. Since December 2, 1993; You could always see

small particles between yourself and the light coming

through the windows. We thought that some of this

might be caused by a combination of our clothes dryer

and pollination from trees that seemed to be constantly

in the air. This situation had considerably increased.

19. Clinton then went under the house and secured all

joints of the Furnace. Then wrapped the joints with

several rounds of duct tape. This maneuver took

several, long days, and 9 rolls of Tape. The situation got

worse. The increased air pressure now was forcing

more particles into the house.

20. Tullis’s then called a reccommended Furnace

Company, Brennen Heating, whom came out and

opened the base of the furnace, and looked into the hot

air ducts under the house with a six volt flash light.

It was very obvious, as he exclaimed, that the fiberglass

had joined with condensation in the lines and had

cemented to the walls about one quarter of an inch

thick. It had been slowly leaching into the house and

recently was really breaking loose.

21. The only remedy was to remove the entire system;

Take the Furnace apart, clean it thoroughly and replace

all of the Air return and hot air lines with new piping.

Tullis’s called a reccommended E.P.A. suggested

Contractor, whom bid the total removal of all of the

carpeting from within the house, Environmentally

cleaning the entire internal of the house; Removing the

fiberglass insulation from under the house and from

the attic, and removing all of the piping; Then

vacuuming and sealing under the house and the attic.

22. He also dug a six foot deep trench tapering from

under the house foundation to about one hundred feet

from the house and draining into a five foot diameter,

by six foot deep hole so that the crews could work as

dry as possible. The trench was also necessary for

removal and replacement of the piping from under the

house.

16. Tullis’s contracted replacing the carpeting and we

contracted with Brennen Heating to replace the Furnace

and entire Heating system. We also contracted new

insulation installation, and Painting the entire interior.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. The Contractors Insurer chose to hire a Seattle Law

Firm to negate Company Insurance and Contractors

responsibility. The Law Firm realized, their case had no

merits and consequently chose to defeat the Tullis’s at

any costs, appearing to believe, using False Documents,

was the only possibility of quieting the cause.

Violation of F.R.C.P. 11

2. The Courts have refused to believe, the attorney's

would be so bold as to present false documents. The

courts, have avoided confronting the issue, by referring

to technical issues, that was most often, not at the least,

applicable to the true situation.

3. The continuance of this case, is reaction to past

application of injustice; from life-threatening exposures

and persecution of a citizen, by respondents and

consequent prosecution by disbelieving courts.

4. Tullis’s being total novices, thought it would be

better to allow the Contractor to sue us for the money

owed for the new furnace and water heater. Upon

commencing the case, we would pay the agreed price

and continue the case at the initial expense of the

Contractors, for disclosure to the court, of the Dilemma

Tullis’s household were subjected to.

This of course was a mistake, as it appears, the

Plaintiffs appear to have the upper hand in the

State Court system. We expected questions and

answers and adequate witnesses would suffice.

6. After Clinton Tullis made the error of adding the

Insurer into the case; The court ruled in favor of

Plaintiffs represented by Lee, Smart, et al.

6. Tullis’s hired an Attorney that had gained headlines

by representing a County area water purveyor’. She

agreed to represent us for a price to conclusion and

after getting the case returned for trial and paying her

two and one-half times what we had agreed upon to

get the suit to this point, she again asked Tullis’s for

more money.

7. Tullis’s had asked her to file interrogatory’s to the

opposition. Clinton had been subjected to a huge

number of Interrogatory’s by opposition attorneys and

partially understood their importance to determine the

arrogance of the opposition (Plaintiffs).

8. Unknown to Tullis’s; The Attorney had actually,

done nothing towards discovery and Tullis’s had no

idea of the attitude of the opposition, other than they

didn’t appear to be disturbed by the horrendous

contamination which Tullis’s had been subjected to.

Tullis’s sincerely believed an Attorney would know the

rules applicable to Tullis’s dilemma.

9. Clinton Tullis again took over the case and

commenced studying law, knowing Tullis’s were in for

a rough ride.

10. Tullis’s wrote interrogatory questions based upon

the information gained from various Contractors,

reccommended for obtaining the Truth of Tullis’

dilemma and to Augment the corrections Necessary for

Tullis safety.

11. The interrogatory’s were deliberately delayed by

Creighton S. Hutchins of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin and

Patterson, P.S. Inc. until too late for Tullis’s to benefit

for Discovery.

12. Even though Tullis’s were novices, they realized

the Signatures on the Interrogatory’s were improper

from both the Attorney and the fictitious, insulting,

name of a Gary Groetz, of whom is not known in the

Western part of the State of Washington. Larry Goetz

signed in front of a notary on June 11, and the attorney

improperly signed the interrogatory’s on July 1, 1997;

Violation of F.R.C.P. RULE 11

Violation of F.R.C.P. RULE 33: Improper Signature

13. Tullis’s then hastened to find out, what they could

do about getting inspections for Court information, and

found, inspections were only performed after obtaining

a permit; Tullis’s appliances being previously installed

negated obtaining those permits.

14. A King County Code Enforcer informed Tullis’s of

a Civil, Sheet Metal Inspector whom would come and

check the assemblies and make recommendations

if necessary. This Tullis’s did and a gentleman by the

name of Wayne Ester came to Tullis’s house, made his

inspection and wrote and signed a list of changes

needed to bring the assemblies up to the Codes

applicable to the date the Gas Furnace and Gas Water

Heater were installed in 1993. Those codes became law

in 1991. The permits could only have been obtained by

the Contractor doing the installation . A home owner

could only obtain permits for new installations or

replacements, which the home owner intended to

perform himself; and those would have to meet the

strict requirements.

15. Tullis’s then proceeded (due to necessity of safety),

to Phone contractors and ask for bids. Upon receiving

the bids for correcting the improper installations,

Tullis’s were able to obtain the Permits and have the

visual things brought up to Code.

16. There was so many safety things neglected, it was

staggering. A safety tire block had to be installed;

Electric wiring had been left dangling off the junction

boxes; Caulking and sealing the furnace and immediate

piping had to be performed, to keep exhaust fumes

from entering the house through the heating system;

Two high-voltage electric lines were left loose at one

end in the attic area and had to be removed; The Gas

Flex Line ran to the interior of the furnace and had to

extend the internal solid connection to the exterior of

the furnace housing, then attach the flexible line; The

water heater had to have the high pressure release

valve replaced and the three quarter inch copper line

extended to the exterior of the garage. The installers

had distorted the safety valve, which was not visible

until removed in the process of correcting the drain

line, It would not have functioned in any emergency

function; The heat vent to the garage had to be

removed from the furnace base, plated over, and the

base of the Furnace Caulked and taped. Codes will not

allow the furnace heat vent to be placed in a Group 2

Occupancy, which means a garage used for parking

vehicles. Curing of above, removed dangers subjected

to the people within the house. 1991 codes effective1997

17. Soon after above; Tullis’s took this information to

the Court. Tullis’s mistakenly expected the Court to

review the questions and answers and signatures on

the Interrogatory’s and to review the questions

answered by the Code Enforcers for facts and truth of

the case. Tullis’s also, had “paid for” and demanded

Trial by Jury.

18. This was ignored by all of the State Courts and

now the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals,

leading Tullis’s to believe that Perjury, as applicable to

the Opponents presentations to the Courts, was being

accepted as a Standard Procedure; Regardless of the

Laws emphasizing Torts and punishment for their

application.

VIOLATIONS of the SEVENTH AMENDMENT and

the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:

According to Supreme Court on Dairy Queen v. Wood

(1962), The right to jury trial attaches to every legal

issue. 82 S. Ct. 894. F.R.C.P. Rule No. 38: JURY Trial of

right: (a) Right preserved. The right of trial by jury as

declared by the Seventh Amendment to the

Constitution or as given by a statute of the United

States shall be preserved to the Parties inviolate.

(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of

any issue triable of right by a jury, by (1) serving upon

the other parties a demand in writing at any time after

the commencement of the action and not later than 10

days after service of the last pleading directed to such

issue, and filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d).

Such demand may be endorsed upon a pleading of the

party.

19. Washington State Superior Court Judge, Robert

Lasnik, (Now a District Court Judge, for the Western

District of Washington State); after reprimanding Tullis

for being in his Court as Pro Se; Determined to ignore

the wrongs and reprimand Tullis’s for bringing the

facts to the attention of the Court, then issuing

Summary Judgment in favor of the perpetrators based

on a distorted, false, Declaration of Dennis Devlin,

which was designed in the offices of Lee, Smart, Cook,

Martin and Patterson P.S. Inc.

Violation of F.R.C.P. Rule 11

Violation of R.P.C. 1.2,3.3,3.4;

Violation of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;

20. This Declaration, affluently presented by

Representatives of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin and

Patterson P.S. Inc., stated that all of the incorrect

measures, that Tullis had to have corrected, were either

performed to code or were already in place for the old

furnace and water heater and that Attorneys clients

were only replacing the original equipment and were

not Legally obligated to change anything.

21. The Codes given to Tullis by the Code Enforcers,

designate: A new installment, whether a replacement

or otherwise, shall first obtain a permit and shall be

brought to current codes regardless of their prior

condition. The permits are the absolute responsibility of

the installer and are available to the individual, only if

he/she is doing the installation, Regardless, the codes

must be applied and inspections performed prior to

energizing the equipment. |

22. The Code Enforcers gave Tullis copy’s of the 1991

Codes applicable to the 1993 Installations and informed

Tullis’s that all of Dennis Devlin’s Declaration was

farce, and Dennis Devlin, being a professional and

owner of the Business should and would have known

better. Creighton S. Hutchin’s should have also known

better or could have easily found out by calling the

Code Enforcers.

23. Judge Lasnik ignored the facts, threw Tullis’s

exhibits out of Court, and this trend has continued to

the benefit of the perpetrator attorney’s. It appears that

no matter how timely or to what degree Tullis’s

attempt to enter the Truth; The system depresses the

Truths for the benefit of its class, by using a technicality

or Authority, of a point of law, even when it does not

apply at all, to any part of the situation.

24. The District Court Judge, Honorable Thomas D.

Zilly, continued the above consideration and used an

authority and his opinion that is not applicable to

Tullis’s Case. This case is not against the original

contractor. It is against the Attorneys and Law Firms

that are energizing Perjured Documents in violation of

all standards and degrees of Courts, to squash their

opposition. VIOLATION OF TULLIS CIVIL RIGHTS

25. If the original perpetrators of Tullis’s dilemma

would have performed according to the merits of their

trade; Tullis’s would have paid even more than the

agreement if necessary, to make certain the installations

were correct and their Representative Lawyers would

not have to step out of line to present their case.

26. If the Lawyers would have applied expected

standards and had not conjured perjury, Tullis’s would

not be here.

_ The activity of these Lawyers and their former clients

are a disgrace to our society and a belittlement to our

legal system, to subject the Public to unnecessary risks,

endangering every ones well being”. You cant live on a

hill and escape the smoke anymore. Such political and

legal attitudes must change.

27. Courts to Tullis’s to date, have used non-

complying references to other cases as an easy way to

shrink their work load. If they are too burdened to

properly perform at their work; It must be time to retire

or seek other responsibility that is not so strenuous,

and most certainly, not such a burden on the taxpayers,

for neglect of Public protection and expectations under

the Constitution Articles and Amendments protecting

our Civil Rights.

28. Yes, Tullis’s are disappointed in the Criminal

Treatment they have been exposed to and the

disrespect and the disregard by the Legal system in

violation of Tullis’s Civil Rights 3

29. The Respondent Attorneys and Law Firms have

continually, maliciously presented the perjured

documentation of: “Declaration of Dennis Devlin” to

influence decisions; of the Courts using inapplicable

Citations and Authorities to escape responsibility.

30. The Courts have ignored the Attorneys and Law

Firms abuse of process when Authoring and signing

the original Interrogatory’s .

31. The courts have ignored the false statement of

Robert E. West, when Lee, Smart, et al, Attorneys, have

presented it with pleadings made to the courts. :

R.P.C. Rule 1.2: Lawful Objectives, Unlawful Means:

A lawyer may never further a client's lawful

objectives through unlawful means. (Lawyer disbarred

for advising client's to invent evidence in defense of

drunk driving case). .

R.P.C. Rule 3.3: Candor Toward The Tribunal:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a

tribunal;

(4) offer evidence that a lawyer knows to be false.

Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652 (9 Cir. 1990)

“inexcusable obstruction of the opposing party’s

discovery efforts.”

R.P.C. Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party and

Counsel; A Lawyer shall not:

(a) Unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to

evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a

document or material having evidentiary value. A

lawyer shall not counsel or assist any such act;

(b) Falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to

falsify, or offer an inducement to a witness that is

prohibited by law;

32. Are the respondent Attorneys and Law Firms so

profoundly overwhelming their opposition with intent

of sweeping their Court contests, by usage of Court

honored, illicit, disconcerting Documents against their

opposition, that they are mistakenly believing that they

are entitled to believe, it is an accepted practice.

33. There is a profound difference of, “a stretching the

blanket type of lie”, and Fraud and Perjury; of which

entered into the Court, especially in writing; is

condemned by all of the rules and regulations

applicable, indicating various stages of Criminal

Application for punishment, and liability for Tort .

34. Robert E. West statement of: the Contractors

completed Tullis’s installations in a good and workman

like manner, was substantially incorrect and was in

writing presented to influence the Court.

35. Creighton S. Hutchins also Maliciously Abused the

Process through assisting in authoring and presenting

an illegal, improperly signed; and deliberate delay in

returning the Improperly answered Interrogatories to

Tullis’s, to avoid petitioners ability to properly and

timely perform discovery prior to cut off.

36. Robert E. West, of West and Collins. Creighton S.

Hutchins, Rory E. Leid, Karen A. Kalzer, and Lee,

Smart, Cook, Martin and Patterson P.S. Inc. all

supposedly had enough education to be aware of the

fact that they could obtain opinions of experts on the

Tullis’s mechanical installations to obtain the

conditions of the workmanship. From there, they could

make their recommendations to Tullis’s as to the cure -

and if not negotiated, Then project the Truth to the

Courts and alleviate the problems now endured.

37, If the illegal practice,s named above, are to be

expected as acceptable to our courts; Then change the

books; or educate the Attorneys and the judges to

respect the rules.

38. If the prior judges had of really Judicially surveyed

the Briefs, unbiased, and with prudence; this case

would have been settled. No wonder the Courts claim

to be overburdened. An Attorney is allowed to cheat,

_ lie and steal and be adorned for his ability to deceive

the Public by any method, unrestricted and definitely

unquestioned; as has been this case, and is intolerable.

39. At the commencement of this endeavor for Justice;

Tullis’s “Petitioners” simply wanted to have a new gas

furnace and gas water heater installed because the

electric furnace would run cold air for several minutes

before putting out any heat and we wanted a place for

all of our family to visit in comfort for the oncoming

Christmas and the holidays thereafter.

40. We expected the Contractor we trusted and hired

to perform the replacement, to know what would be

required for the installations and to make a proper,

“trouble free” installation. If their salesman was trained

as we expected, he would have known the regulations

and would have proceeded to tell Tullis’s the amount

of work and effort required and then base his estimate

on his knowledge of past like efforts. Tullis’s would

have gladly accommodated financially and otherwise

upon furthering their knowledge of what would be

required.

41. Tullis’s had absolutely no knowledge of what

encompassed such an endeavor. We certainly would

not have entered into an agreement for a slip-shod

installation. We had to trust the contractor and decided,

the one chosen, had a long term in business as being a

proper factor. Whom would dream; that the

Contractors were wired into Heavy Insurance and

would do as they recklessly pleased at their customers

expense of health and wealth; especially when they

were bonded by Washington State.

42. Tullis’s impression of the various Courts attitudes

is: Definition of Tullis’s as being opportunists. Under

no circumstances would any one witb half of a mind ,

subject themselves to the miseries Tullis’s have

endured and very possibly jeopardized our health

along with years of loss of peace of mind, for any

amount of financial gain.

43. Clinton Tullis recently had a cancer tumor removed

by a deep, long incision on his neck. That is the first

cancer known in all of our immediate family history.

This was the ensuing cause of delivery of a late Brief to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Real cause of the

tumor is unknown. Regardless; The exposures from the

unfounded, illegal and reckless installations of the

Mechanical devices into our home has not blessed our

health and longevity.

44. Tullis’s have never questioned for a minute , that

the Courts would give consideration to all factors of the

case and make a decision of the proper compensation

for the Financial losses and physical and mental

extremes we have been exposed to. Tullis’s have

considered at and since the first Court endeavor, that a

jury trial was essential. The lower Courts balked at any

suggestion of compensation and joined the opposition

in agreeing to let, Margaret and Clinton Tullis, enjoy

the experience and pay dearly for it.

45. Tullis’s would have accepted a reasonable

conclusion, as justice; whether jubilant or not.

Tullis’s , “Petitioners” have had their Civil Rights

Violated continually throughout the Legal system;

inclusive of the Federal District Court and again by

error of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; In violation

of United States Constitutional Guarantees; in violation

of United States Environmental Protection Agency

Standards; in Violation of the 7“ Amendment, of

Guarantee of Trial By Jury, in violation of the 6" and

14" Amendments; All commenced from chastising by

a Superior Court Judge; whom later was selected as

candidate for a Seat in the Western Washington United

States District Court; and Whom also denied Tullis’s

the right of defense through The Compulsory Process

clause of the 6th Amendment; and then denied Tullis’s

the right to Due Process violating the 14% Amendment.

Creighton S. Hutchins Malicious Abuse of Process;

“Legal Malpractice” through assisting in authoring and

presentation of a false Declaration to the Court,

adorned by Karen Kalzer and Rory Leid; Then

Creighton S. Hutchins denial to Tullis’s timely

discovery request, thwarted through the improper

answers, signatures and return of the interrogatory’s;

and Condoned by LEE, SMART, et al, P.S. Inc. and

these facts ignored by the Courts to date.

Lee, Smart, et al, Behavior, appears to have the same

Nucleus as “Civil, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act,” (R.LC.O.) 18 U.S.C.A. 1964; 28

U.S.C.A. 1367

1993 AMENDMENT TO RULE 11(c)(1)(A), Absent

Exceptional Circumstances, a law firm shall be held

jointly responsible for violations committed by its

partners, associates, and employees.

10.15 U.S. JUDICIAL SANCTIONS

Courts of Appeals decisions; Malautea v. Suzuki Motor

Co. 987 F.2d (11 Cir., 1993) ( default on liability issue

only, pl,us monetary sanctions for failure to comply

with discovery orders);

67 F.2d (9% Cir. 1995) U.S. v. Keys: Defendant received

five years for perjury 18 U.S.C.A. 1623(A) Perjury: In

perjury prosecution under statute prohibiting false

material declaration under oath, materiality is eiement

of crime and must be submitted to jury.

The standard employed by the Court below; accepting

all inferences of predisposition in favor of Respondents,

does indeed constitute an abdication of the court's

double responsibility to sincerely review the history of

the case. The decision of the Ninth Circuit conflicts

with other Ninth Circuit decisions and themumerous

cited decisions of the Federal circuit courts of appeals.

To correct the Ninth Circuit's misapplication of the

law and non-concurrence with Applicable

Constitutional Articles and Amendments. This Court

should review the decision below, determine proper

Trial, or remand this case to the Applicable lower Court

for trial by Jury and proper disposition.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, petitioners respectfully prays that

this Court grant its writ of Certiorari

Respectfully Submitted, |

Clinton M. Tullis, ProSe

Margaret L. Tullis, ProSe

16300-184" ave. S.E.

Renton, Washington 98058-0903

(425) 226-7399

i/o “0 U AA 177). Abs

Clinton M. Tullis ,Pro Se

‘Perfo abou L. Tullis Pro Se

No.

In The

Supreme Court Of The United States

CLINTON M. TULLIS and

MARGARET L. TULLIS

Petitioners

Vs.

Law Offices of LEE, SMART, etal, P.S. Inc.;

and Law Office of WEST and Collins P.S.

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The

Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

Opinion of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ...... A-1,2

Panel Denial of Rehearing...............:.s0sseseeee A-3

Superior Court of State of Washington............ A-78

District Court Order to Dismiss..................... A-455

District Court Minute Order for Denial of

PRORATED .rccccvececcsececccovocconsenssbtogenbssoueogses A-6

Published Authorities and Opinions.............. A-9-13

BRIS ..ccrcccccoccococccoeesoossbesntisesedeeoossoueee A-14-29

Declaration of Dennis Devlin .................0.++: A-14,15

Answers to Tullis’s Interrogatory’............... . A-16-22

” Administrative Authorities” Opinions &

Codes (ET UX: Code Enforcers)................+. A-23-30

There is no excerpts of record from the Federal Courts

as trial has been inappropriately denied Plaintiffs-

Appellants.

A-1

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-35558

D.C. Docket No. CV-00-00067-Z

CLINTON M. TULLIS; MARGARET L. TULLIS

Plaintiffs-Appellants

MEMORANDUM

versus

LEE, SMART, COOK; ET AL; PS. INC.;

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

0 For the Western District of Washington, at Seattle

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

(Filed March 29, 2001)

Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk

u.s. court of appeals

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit

Judges,

Clinton M. and Margaret L. Tullis appeal pro se from

A-2

the district courts judgment dismissing their action for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. 1291. We affirm. See Branson

v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9% Cir. 1994).

Insofar as the Tullis’ contend that the district court

erred by failing to certify their action as a class action or

by dismissing federal environmental and civil rights

claims against these defendants, we reject these

contentions as meritless.

We conclude the district court, did not abuse its

discretion by denying the Tullis motion for

reconsideration. See Sch, Dist. No. 1], Multnomah County

v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F3d 1255, 1262-63 (9 Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication

and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit

except as may be provided by the 9 Cir. R. 36-3.

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable

for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P.

334(a)(2).

A-3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-35558

DC# CV-00-00067-TSZ

ORDER

CLINTON M. TULLE; et al.,

Plaintiffs-A ppellants,

versus

LEE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN AND

PATTERSON P.S. INC., et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Washington at Seattle

(Filed May 25, 2001)

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, AND RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges, and ZILLY*, District Judge.

Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing is denied.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

“s/ CATHY A. CATTERSON”

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

A-4

UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

No. C00-0067Z

ORDER

TULLIS, CLINTON M. and TULLIS,

MARGARET L.. and the marital community

Comprised thereof,

Plaintiffs,

LE, SMART, COOK, MARTIN and

PATTERSON P.S., INC., et al., :

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, docket

no. 4. Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court, alleging fraud

and perjury on the part of the defendant attorneys, as

well as violations of environmental law and malicious

prosecution. These claims arise from King County

Cause No 94-2-11782-3 and subsequent appellate

decisions, all of which were decided adverse to the

present plaintiffs.

Federal District Courts “may not serve as appellate

Tribunals to review errors allegedly committed by the

State Courts."” MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th

Cir, 1987)(citing District of Columbia Court of

~A-5

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 75 L.Ed. 2d 206

(1983); see also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9%

Cir. 1994). This Court has no authority to review the

decisions of state judicial proceedings. See Branson v.

Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9thCir. 1994). Even if a decision

of a state court implicates federal constitutional issues,

the judgment does not give rise to a claim for violation

of constitutional civil rights in federal district court. See

Reynolds v. State of Georgia, 640 F.2d 702, 705 (5 Cir.

1981). Plaintiff's suit is “so connected with the original

suit” in state court “as to form an incident to it, and

substantially a continuation of it.” MacKay,827 F.2d at

943. Therefore, this Court cannot act as a appellate

court for the review of the prior state court decisions.

Similarly, there is no evidence linking violations of

federal environmental law to the defendants. Likewise,

the alleged malicious prosecution arises in the context

of the motions for reconsideration and subsequent

appeals in the state court brought by the Plaintiffs

themselves, not by the Defendants.

The Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss, docket no. 4. Although the Court views this

case as very close to a frivolous claim, the Court

DENIES the Defendants’ request for sanctions against

the pro se plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5 day of May, 2000.

“s / Thomas S. Zilly”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“s/ el” Filed 5-8-00 - Deputy clerk “initials only”

Stamped May 05 2000 U.S. District Court, at Seattle.

A-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON,

AT SEATTLE “s/ el” Filed

MAY 22 2000

AT SEATTLE

No. C00-0067Z

MINUTE ORDER

TULLIS CLINTON M. AND TULLIS

MARGARET L.,

Plaintiffs

Vv.

LEE, SMART , COOK, MARTIN, AND

PATTERSON P.S., Inc. et al.,

Defendants

On motion for reconsideration

The following Minute Order is made by direction of

the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States

District Judge: The Plaintiff has moved for the Court

to reconsider its order dated May 5, 2000 (docket no.

22). The Court hereby DENIES the motion for

reconsideration.

The Clerk is directed to send a cop[y of this Minute

Order to plaintiff.

Filed and entered this 19 day of May, 2000.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

“s/ Casey Condon”

DEPUTY CLERK

A-7

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

FOR KING COUNTY

No. 94-2-11782-3

NOR PAC HEATING AND

AIR-CONDITIONING INC.

Plaintiff

Vv.

CLINTON M. TULLIS and

MARGARET L. TULLIS

Defendants

The Defendant Clinton M. Tullis appearing as Pro Se,

The Court having heard arguments of counsel and pro

se litigant, having considered the files and records

herein, including:

1. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment;

2. Declaration of Creighton S. Hutchins with the

attached documents and excerpts from the deposition

of Clinton M. Tullis and Dr. Jonathon Ostrow;

3. Declaration of Dennis Devlin;

4. Defendants answer to Plaintiffs motion for summary

judgment;

(In this space was judge Lasnik writing : Quote: but not the

materials included which do not comply with CR 50.)

5. Plaintiffs reply, including motion to strike

pleading.

The court otherwise being fully apprised in the

premises, it is now, therefore: ordered, adjudged and

decreed that Plaintiffs Motion for summary Judgment

is hereby granted. “s/ RSL” The Motion to strike

improper and late pleadings is granted.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that all

of the Defendants claims are hereby dismissed with

prejudice. Done in open Court this 8 day of August,

1997.

“s/ Robert S. Lasnik.”

Presented by: Lee, Smart, Cook, et al, P.S. Inc.,

By: “s/ Creighton S. Hutchins” WSBA_No. 8456

of Attorney for Plaintiff

Notice of presentation waved; Copy received;

Approval of form.

A-9

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

1. 892 Federal Reporter 2d Series

Laura Kraemer, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Grant County,

Herbert Hottenstein, William Baker, Betty Baker, et all,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal of Mark D. Lawton No. 88-3519

United states court of appeals, seventh circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 1989. Decided Jan. 9, 1990

The United States District Court for the Western

District of Wisconsin, Barbara Crabb, Chief Judge,

ordered attorney to pay $3,000 toward legal fees of

adverse parties incurred in defending Civil Rights case

brought by Attorney on behalf of client claiming

conspiracy to evict her from land. Attorney appealed.

Court of Appeals held that Rule 11 sanctions for

alleged failure to investigate claim prior to suit was

unwarranted where attorney had done everything

possible to gather information by hiring a private

investigator and instituted suit only after hostile

attitude of Potential defendants made it necessary to

gather information.

Lawton took all the steps he reasonably could have

taken before filing suit to determine the truth of

Kraemer’s allegations. He should not have been

sanctioned for turning to the judiciary, whose function

is to find the truth, when his own resources failed.

Reversed

2. 8 Fed. Reporter, 3d Series

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, 0. Millard

F. McAfee, Defendant-Appellant No. 93-1045

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Nov.30,1993

A-10

Defendant was convicted in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Mary

Lou Robinson, J., of willful perjury and making

irreconcilable contradictory declarations in proceedings

before or ancillary to court or grand jury. Defendant

appealed. The Court of Appeals, Duhe Circuit Judge,

held that : (1) perjury statute governing contradictory

statements made in proceedings before or ancillary to

court or grand jury of the United States applies to civil

depositions; (2) Evidence supported conviction under

statute; and (3) defendants alleged statements in two

civil depositions respecting name on checks were

material to point in questions required for conviction

under statute.

Affirmed

3. 57 Fed. Reporter, 2d Series

Federal Communications, Appellee, William P. Johnson

and Hollis B. Johnson, doing business as Radio Carrollton,

Intervenor. No. 75-1568

Argued April 8, 1976 Decided May 26, 1977

Appellant appealed from an order of the Federal

Communications denying renewal of its license to

operate a radio station. The Court of Appeals,

Spotswood W. Robinson, III, Circuit Judge, held that

the Commission erred in attaching greater weight to

the testimony of two parties who were lawyers, simply

because they were lawyers, than to the testimony of the

opposing witnesses.

Vacated and Remanded

Wilkey, Circuit Judge, concurred in the result.

A-11

1. Telecommunications U.S. 385 When two or

more applications for broadcasting licenses are

mutually exclusive, they must be considered and

resolved together, and Federal Communications

Commission may first grant one and then hear the

other or others.

2. Telecommunications U.S. 425 Findings of fact

by Federal Communications Commission must be

accepted by Courts when supported by substantial

evidence in the record considered as a whole and

credibility resolutions by administrative law judges are

entitled to great weight on judicial review of agency

action; however, neither type of determination can

stand when predicated upon material error of law.

4. Evidence U.S. 588

Witness occupation may in given situations be

factor bearing on his credibility, but fact that

occupation is respectable, even exaulted, does not of

itself elevate witness testimony above that of any other

reputable witness.

Faulkner Radio, Inc., appeals from an order of the

Federal Communications Commission denying renewal

of the license to operate a radio station. The challenge

to the commissions decision is rested on several

grounds, including the claim that the Commission

erred in attaching greater weight to the testimony of

two parties who are lawyers, simply because they are

lawyers, than to testimony of opposing witnesses. We

find that ground dispositive of the appeal, and remand

the case to the Commission for reconsideration.

Vacated and Remanded

A-12

4. 998 Fed. Reporter 2d Series ;

United States of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v.

Charles O. Shonubi, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 1307, 1433, Dockets 92-1607, 92-1653

United States Court of Appeals, second circuit.

Argued March 30, 1993. Decided June 30, 1993.

Defendant was convicted of heroin importation

and possession and was sentenced by the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Jack

B. Weinstein, J., 802 F. Supp. 859, and he appealed. The

Court of Appeals, Cardamone, Circuit Judge held that:

(1) finding of perjury during trial required district

court to enhance defendant’ sentence by two levels

under Sentencing Guidelines; (2) drug quantity was

improperly determined by multiplying quantity of

heroin seized from defendant following his last trip to

Nigeria by the total number of trips; and (3) finding

that defendant was not entitled to reduction as minor

or minimal participant was not clearly erroneous.

Vacated and Remanded

DISCUSSION: I Obstruction of Justice [1,2] We

discuss the cross appeal first. The government

contends the district court erred in refusing to enhance

Shonubi’s sentence for obstruction of justice. At

sentencing, the government must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence. The sentencing

guidelines provide for a two level increase in offense

level where the defendant “willfully” obstructed or _

impeded, or attempted to impede, the administration of

justice during the investigation, prosecution, or

sentencing of the instant offense. U.S.C.G. U.S.3C1.1.

This enhancement applies to a defendant who commits

perjury. Id. At comment. (nn. 1.& 3.). Perjury is defined

A-13

by statute as willfully giving false testimony under oath

concerning material matter. 18 U.S.C. U.S. 1621 (1988).

In the case at hand, the trial court found that

“defendant” clearly lied willfully during his trial

testimony. Shonubi, 802 F. Supp. At 863.

Supreme Court agreed that “after reviewing the

record”, we cannot say these findings were clearly

erroneous [5,6] These specific findings satisfy the

elements defining perjury because Shonubi’s false

testimony concerned matters and was given with a

willful intent to provide false testimony, not on account

of confusion, mistake, of faulty memory. That is to Say,

appellant lied willfully about importing heroin without

there being any extenuating circumstances [7]

The base of offense level for drug trafficking under the

Sentencing Guidelines depends on the amount of drugs

involved. (with $23,000 worth of cocaine, not a minor

participant). Consequently, the District judge did not

err in declining to characterize Shonubi as a minor or

minimal participant in heroin trafficking and to reduce

his sentencing accordingly. CONCLUSION: The

judgment of the district court insofar as it imposed

sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded to that

court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

A-14

EXHIBITS

Declaration of Dennis Devlin

I Dennis Devlin, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. Iam the President of Nor Pac Heating and Air-

Conditioning Inc., located at 3414-A St. ; No. 102,

Auburn, Wa. 98002.

2. In December of 1993, Nor Pac installed a hot water

heater and furnace at the residence of Clinton M. Tullis

and Margaret L. Tullis. I am familiar with the building,

mechanical and plumbing codes applicable to the

December, 1993 installation at the Tullis’ home. Since

the Tullis’ residence was outside of the city limits, the

King County Code was applicable.

3. Ihave personal knowledge of the installation and

have reviewed video of the furnace and hot water

heater recorded at the residence of Clinton . Tullis and

Margaret L. Tullis. I have also reviewed the various

allegations made by the Defendant against Nor Pac.

4. The installation of the hot water heater was in

accordance with the relevant provisions of the building,

plumbing, and mechanical codes in effect at the time of

the installation of the hot water heater. (A). An

earthquake strap was attached to the hot water heater

as required. The location of the strap was the choice of

the installer. (B). The hot water heater was placed in

the same location as the old water heater. No tire guard

was present when the old tank was removed. A tire

guard was not required until sometime after the

installation due to changes in the code. (C). The hot

water heater exhaust pipe was installed according to

the relevant provisions of the applicable code. The

A-15

space (Garage) was heated. Since the space was heated,

a single wall exhaust pipe was appropriate. (D). The

“Double Wall” was not required at the time of the

installation. The code has now changed.

5. The installation of the furnace was done in

accordance with the code in effect at the time.

A. All joints that required caulk were installed

properly. Most did not require caulking because they

were an “s” assembly that acts ass its own seal.

B. The gas lines to the furnace were installed

properly. Flexible line is proper. The code does not

require the gas line to be hard lined to the furnace

connection.

C. There was no specific regulations for the gas lines

relative to junction boxes. The gas line was by

provisions of the 1993 regulations.

D. The furnace was insulated to the relevant

provisions of the 1993 regulations. Since the furnace

was located in a heated space, no special or extra

insulation was required.

E. A double wall exhaust pipe was not required

because the space was heated. Once the exhaust line

entered the attic to exit through the roof, it was double

wall as required by code.

F. Nor Pac was under no contractual obligation to

repair or replace duct-work located in the crawl space.

It did not disturb or cause separation of the existing

duct work.

6. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the

contract between Nor Pac and Tullis’. Signed under the

penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of

Washington “s/Dennis Devlin” President of Nor Pac.

Note: No. 6 above is the only Truth of the entire Declaration.

A-16

Tullis’s Interrogatory’s below: To Nor Pac Heating and

Air-Conditioning Inc.; Answered by Larry Goetz,

Identified as Vice President of Nor Pac.

QUESTION: Please state with specifity why you do

not tape and/or seal each joint of metal in your furnace

and Air-Conditioning installations?

ANSWER: Objection. Argumentive, vague,

ambiguous, misleading and assumes facts not in

evidence; Furthermore, the answer depends upon the

circumstances, the construction, the scope of work for

which is contracted, and the cause of each joint

separation if, in fact, a separation exists; Furthermore,

the furnaces are manufactured by the manufacturer.

We are an installer and are not part of the

manufacturing process.

(a) Code Enforcer Response: All furnace joints,

chimney joints, duct work, etc. within the garage area,

shall be sealed & insulated to specifications of the codes

supplied to the Administrative Authorities.

QUESTION: Please state with specifity, why you do

not place a post or tire block in front of and to protect

the water heater against a vehicle being parked and

accidentally damaging the water heater?

ANSWER: Objection; Furthermore, as it applies to

the defendants home, the original water heater was

installed without a curb. We were simply doing a

replacement and were not contracted to do upgrades or

otherwise perform work above and beyond the scope

of our contract or by code..

(a) Code Enforcers response: On a group 2

occupancy such as Tullis’s residence; A suitable vehicle

block shall be placed to protect the water heater from

possible damage as per codes from 1991.

A-17

QUESTION: Do you recommend running the

flexible gas line inside of the gas furnace housing?

If so, please give a detailed explanation of this

procedure including the State and County rulings on

such procedure.

ANSWER: Objection; Vague and ambiguous and

irrelevant. Not defined as to the use of the gas line, its

source or terminus. Without waiving the objection,

flexible line is authorized by the particular municipality

and the Uniform Mechanical Code.

Correction: Wayne Ester of Northwest Sheet Metal

Inspection Service stated: The “Subject” Flexible Gas

Line, as it connects to the solid black iron piping a few

inches outside of the furnace and continues to about 4

inches inside of the furnace, to the furnace connector, is

not up to code.

Code Enforcer Response: The internal p piping of the

furnace must be a solid line. Flex line is proper from the

exterior of the furnace to the incoming hard line from

the fuel supply.

QUESTION: Isn't it the installers obligation to tape,

seal, and wrap pipe, metal ducts and all metal joints

disturbed by removal and installation of furnace and

air-conditioning equipment.

If not, please explain.

ANSWER: Objection; Argumentative. Also uses

undefined terms, i.e. disturbed. Depends upon the

situation and depends on what has been disturbed and

how it has been disturbed.

Comment: Evasive answer as Nor Pac was informed,

Nor Pac installer had damaged the ducts which were

professionally taped, sealed, and wrapped with

insulation, supervised by Puget Power, 1 year before

Nor Pac installation.

A-18

Code Enforcer Response: The new furnace joints

must all be sealed and wrapped with fire resistive

coatings and insulation to comply with section 603.1.1.

of the King County Department of Development and

Environmental Services (DDES) as per 1991 Codes.

QUESTION: Is it within the Code of ethics or the

various Electrical, Mechanical, or Gas Piping Codes to

mount the gas “Black pipe” against an electric junction

box? If so, please name the one, or those of the above

list of agencies authorizing such an installation. Explain

your opinion with specifity.

ANSWER: Objection. Use of vague, undefined

terms or phrases, i.e. Code of Ethics and “Within the

Code of Ethics or various electrical, mechanical, or gas

piping codes.” Further object as vague since no

jurisdiction is mentioned.

Code Enforcer Response: Dick Gilcrist, electric

inspections supervisor of the state of Washington

states: the J-Box must not be blocked by anything that

will have to be moved or forced aside to gain access to

the J-Box. The metal conduit must be fastened solid to

the J-Box and supported within 10 inches of each end of

the conduit to give a solid grounding, which is its

purpose.

QUESTION: Does Nor Pac recommend to their

employees to disregard a customer's request to clear

and clean the surfaces around their contemplated

working areas so as not to contaminate the area below?

If so, explain with specifity.

ANSWER: Argumentative, vague, ambiguous, not

defined as to specific circumstances or application.

Without waiving the foregoing objection, it is the

customer's responsibility to make access to the work

site clean, clear and free of obstructions or

A-19

impediments. Nor Pac cannot assume responsibility to

make access to the work site clean, clear and free of

obstruction or impediments. Nor Pac cannot assume

responsibility for moving materials, goods or property

of the owner for fear that it may result in liability. As a

general rule, Nor Pac does not recommend its

employees disregard a customer's request.

Code Enforcer Response to Nor Pac Answer:

Should be guaranteed by warranty.

QUESTION: Does Nor Pac condone disregard for

customers safety, comfort, and maximum performance

of their equipment installations on customer behalf.

Please explain expected performance from equipment

and installers.

ANSWER: Objection; Argumentative, vague,

ambiguous, and unintelligible.

Code Enforcer Response: Proper answer would be

to assure the homeowner of warranty of their

installations as per contract.

QUESTION: Are you familiar with the Sheet Metal

Industry Inspection Service? If so, please explain their

foundation, requirements and recognition, if any, from

various municipal inspectors. If not, please explain

with specifity where your company gets its

performance requirement data.

ANSWER: SMACNA and SAHRAE, the Uniform

Mechanical and Plumbing Code, training, experience,

conditions and manufacture’s recommendations.

Code Enforcers Response: In King County,

Washington; Codes must be applied from 1. King

County Plumbing Department; 2. Washington State

Electrical Department; 3. King County Development

and Environmental Services for Mechanical Permits

and Inspections.

A-20

QUESTION: Please explain why it is not mandatory

or not advisable to obtain permits for replacements of

furnaces and/or change over, from electric to gas

furnaces or vice versa.

ANSWER: Objection. Vague and ambiguous; not

defined as to time or locale. Without waiving the

foregoing objection, we do what is required by the

particular code in force in the municipality where the

work is being performed. Furthermore, we will also

omit permits from our quotes advising the customer it

is their responsibility to obtain the required or

necessary permits.

Code Enforcers Response: The three code

departments all demand that a permit shall be obtained

from each before the work is commenced and

inspections complete and approved prior to activating

the new installations. The permits are the responsibility

of the contractor doing the installation and not

available to the homeowner.

QUESTION: Will you please explain with explicity,

the length of time anticipated and the cost of obtaining

Furnace Installment or Changeover Permits, in King

County?

ANSWER: It depends from time to time. Generally

speaking, a permit can be obtained within days at a

cost of approximately $75.00.

Code Enforcers Answer: for 1993

(a) King County Plumbing ........... $57.00.

(b) Washington State Electrical Dept. $40.00.

OF ccacisicadeinaculis King County DDES $166.50.

Total=$263.50

QUESTION: Please afford a detailed explanation

of how long you anticipated the fiberglass, mold, and

soot particles, deposited by Nor Pac employees, to

A-21

circulate around in (Tullis) house before it would

escape from the furniture, clothing, bedding, carpeting

and indoor air into the air returns located in the

hallway ceilings, to go through the air-purifier to

remove the contaminants? Also show a factory and/or

engineering blue print for this to be a recommended

and perfected procedure.

ANSWER: Objection, argumentative, compound,

confusing, misleading and assumes facts not in

evidence.

Code Enforcer Response: Nor Pac Warranty should

have sufficed.

QUESTION: Does Nor Pac recommend to its

employees to disregard furnace factory statements of

fiberglass being termed as carcinogens by the State of

California? If so, please state with specifity why your

employees should ignore this warning including why

you afford customers with maintenance manuals

detailing these dangers.

ANSWER: Objection, unintelligible.

Code Enforcers Response: Warranty should

safeguard customers from unnecessary endangerment.

QUESTION: In your list of primary witnesses, you

mentioned three individuals, namely Kim Archer,

Dennis Devlin, Al Noah, along with: other possible

employees “unnamed” of Nor Pac whom may have

been present at the defendants residence, and may have

participated in the installation, repairs or call backs.

Please provide the following:

(a) A curriculum vitae or resume;

(b) Asummary of their opinions;

(d) A list of the documentation or materials they rely

upon in formulating their opinions.

A-22

ANSWER:

(a) With respect to the named employees, see answer

to number 1 and number 2. Other than that, no resume

or curriculum vitae exists.

(b) Undetermined at this time if, in fact, any opinions

will be requested from these individuals.

opinions will base their opinions on their training and

experience, the required mechanical, plumbing, and

health codes, as well as SMACNA regulations.

(d) In part, defendants’ video, discovery

responses, depositions, job documents, contract,

photographs, conversations, statements and all

attached material by the defendants in this litigation.

(Each denial answer not signed by Attorney);

Answers and responses dated this 1_day of July,1997

“s/ Creighton S. Hutchins” Attorney answering

interrogatories, Attorney for Plaintiffs, State of

Washington, County of King.

Witness actually answering interrogatories, being

first duly sworn upon eath, deposes and says;

That “s/ Gary Groetz’ is the officer in the above

entitled action, has read the answers and responses to

the within and foregoing interrogatories and requests

for production, knows the contents thereof and believes

the same to be true. “s/ Larry Goetz Sr.”

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 16]11 (?) day of

June by “s/ Larry Goetz Sr.” . |

“s/ Kimberly D. Archer” Notary Public in and for the

State of Washington. My appointment expires

9/10/00 Registration of compliance with CR 26(g)

Space for: Unsigned Name of Creighton S. Hutchins

WSBA 8456 Attorney for Plaintiffs (only Signed at top).

A-23

ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES

King County _

Department of Development

And Environmental Services (DDES)

900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest

Renton, Wa. 98055-1219

July 27, 1997

Mr. Clinton M. Tullis

16300-184" ave. S.E.

Renton, Wa. 98058-0903 -

Dear Mr. Tullis

It was a pleasure meeting with you last week regarding

your furnace installation.

You had listed several questions pertaining to King

County Code requirements and change in

the code from 1993 to 1997. The 1991 Uniform -

Mechanical Code (UMC) was in effect in 1993 and the

1994 UMC is applicable to current work so we

have listed the differences between these codes.

Attached are our responses. (BELOW)

You should contact King County Health Department

regarding plumbing and gas piping issues. Please

contact the electrical Division of the State Department

of Labor and Industry regarding electrical work.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 296-6750

should you have any additional questions.

A-24

Sincerely,

“s / Chris Ricketts”, Supervisor, Building Plan Review.

cc. Ramon Mariano, Mechanical Plans Examiner

1991-UMC vs. 1994 UMC

1. Sealing of joints for furnace ducts:

(No Changes)

2. Installation of Ducts:

Ducts — 1994 UMC added “fire resistive coatings-

ducts shail be located so as to Maintain the minimum

required thickness of fire resistive materials applied to

structural members to provide the required fire

resistive rating” per section 603.1.1.

3. Earthquake Straps:

(No Changes)- “Appliances designed to be fixed in

-position shall be securely fastened in place. Supports

for appliances shall be designed and constructed to

sustain vertical and horizontal loads within the stress

limitations specified in the building code.” Section

304.4.

4. Vehicular Protection:

(No Changes)- Appliances installed in garages,

warehouses or other areas where they may be subject to

mechanical damage shall be suitably

guarded against such damage by being installed

behind protective barrier or by being elevated or

located out of the normal path of vehicles”. Section

308.1.

Comment: Heating and Cooling equipment (water

heaters included) located in a garage and which

generate a glow, spark or flame capable of igniting

flammable vapors shall be installed with the pilot

burners or heating elements and switches at least 18

ee Se ee ee

we eA nl ane oe OER BOR WO

A-25

inches above floor level. Section 308.2.

9. Double Exhaust Pipe (Gas Vent?):

(No Changes)1991 Table 9-8 vent selection chart

1994 Table 8-C vent selection chart

Under column 1 Type “B” gas vent is required for all

listed gas appliances with draft hoods such

as furnaces and water heaters.

Type “B” vent is double wall.

Connector Located in Cold Areas

Connector shall be listed type “B” or type “C’” or be

provided with equivalent means of insulation, per

section 815.1.7, UMC.

6. Heat Vent To Garage:

(No Change) “Fire dampers need not be

installed in air ducts passing through the wall, floor, or

ceiling separating a group “

“R-3 “ from a Group “U” occupancy providing such

ducts within the group “U” occupancy are constructed

of steel having a thickness not less than No. 26 ga. And

have no openings into the group “U” occupancy.

Insulation: Minimum duct insulation R-8 for

ducts located in garage, per table 5-11,W.S.E.C.

7. Cost Difference:

1993 Base Fee: ............... 109.00

Furnace up to 100 BTU 57.50

PEE i nticmesinin 166.50

1994 Base Fee...............s00 114.00

Furnace up to 100 BTU 60.40

WE sentitcensere 174.00

- 8. Blocked Sewer Access:

Section 406 & 1107 of the 1991 UPC-requires

Clean-out to be readily accessible to allow cleaning for

which it is intended.

A-26

UNIVERSAL PLUMBING CODE

Water distribution Section 1007

regulating device or check valve at its source or any

water system containing storage water heating

equipment shall be provided with an approved, listed,

adequately sized pressure relief valve.

(d) Each pressure relief valve shall be an approved

automatic type with drain, and each such relief valve

shall be set at a pressure of 150 pounds per square inch

(10333.5kPa.).

(e) Relief valves located inside a building shall be

provided with a drain, not smaller than the relief valve

outlet, of galvanized steel, hard drawn copper piping

and fittings, CPVC or PB with fittings which will not

reduce the internal bore of the pipe or tubing (straight

lengths as opposed to coils) and shall extend from the

valve to the

outside of the building with the end of the pipe

not more than two (2) feet nor less than six (6) inches

above the ground and pointing downward. No part of

such drain pipe shall be trapped and the terminal end

of the drain pipe shall not be threaded.

Section 1303- Permit:

It shall be unlawful for any person to install, remove,

or replace, or cause to be installed , removed or

replaced any water heater without first obtaining a

permit from the Administrative Authority to do so.

Final water heater inspection: This inspection

Shall be made after all work authorized by the

A-27

permit has been installed. The administrative Authority

will make inspection as he deems necessary to assure

himself that the work has been installed in accord with

the intent of this Code. No equipment or part thereof

shall be covered or concealed until the same has been

inspected and approved by the Administrative

Authority.

Section 1305-Gas Fired Water Heater Approval

Requirements:

boilers shall be provided with, in addition to the

primary temperature controls, an over temperature

safety protection device constructed, listed, and

installed in accordance with nationally recognized

applicable standards for such devices.

Section 1310 : Protection from damage:

subjected to mechanical damage; shall be suitably

guarded against such damage by being installed

behind adequate barriers or by being elevated or

located out of normal path of a vehicle using any such a

garage.

King County Department of Public Health.

King County still uses the 1991 UPC Codes

“s/ George Wells” (East Side Senior Inspector)

A-28

State of Washington Department of Labor and

Industries; Electric Section.

August 4, 1997 Bellevue, Washington

From Dick Gilcrist, Electric Section Supervisor.

Subject: NEC in 1993 and 1996

1. QUESTION: Would the electric code of 1993,

permit a 220 volt line to be taken loose at one end and

be left laying loosely in the attic area?

ANSWER: I don’t know of any electric code that

would permit such an installation. This type of

violation would not be permitted under RCW

19.28.210. An unsafe condition would be present

For persons and property, which could lead to an

electrocution or fire if energized.

2. QUESTION: Would a page be available for the

States expectation of removal of electric lines from a

residence by a contractor?

ANSWER: The electric license law doesn’t address a

requirement per RCW 19.28, that a contractor would

have to be licensed as an Electric Contractor to remove

electric lines unless they were coming from an

energized source; Then the work has to be done by a

qualified person. Article 100 of the NEC addresses the

definition of qualified

3. QUESTION: Would you please state the difference

in the 1996 codes versus the 1993?

ANSWER There are quite a number of changes in the

1996 versus the 1993. The code changes every three

years.

4. QUESTION: Would you permit the electric junction

box to be partially blocked by a black iron “Propane

A-29

Gas Line” in 1993 or 1997?

ANSWER: Article 370-29 of the 1993 code requires

that the wiring in “J” Boxes can be rendered accessible

without removing any part of the building or other

apparatus associated with the building.

5. QUESTION: Would the 115 volt circuit be

allowed to dangle loosely around the furnace

installation, per 1993 or 1997 code?

ANSWER: NEC 350-18 requires supports for metal

flexible conduit within 12 inches of each junction box

and then every 3 feet. Also, NEC 340-12 requires

support for electric metal tubing within 3 feet of a “J”

Box and then every 10 feet thereafter.

6. QUESTION: During the year of 1993; Would the

flexible metal conduit ends, that were being used as a

ground return path, between the furnace and the

electric junction box, be allowed to dangle on the

internal wiring at each end?

ANSWER: NEC 350-14 addresses grounding

required for flexible metal conduit. The fiexible metal

conduit is required to be connected at the furnace and

at the “J” Box, in order to have a complete ground

return path and the conditions of article 350-5 shall also

be met to use the flex line as a grounding means.

7. QUESTION: What is the expectations of a

contractor in the two respective years, as to electric

installations?

ANSWER: A licensed electric contractor has an

administrator assigned to the company. The

administrator is required per RCW 19.28.125 to be

knowledgeable of the RCW, NEC, WAC (Washington

Administrative Code) for installation of electrical

conductors. Also, (an electrical permit is required) per

WAC 296.46.495 or chapter 19.28. RCW, for an

A-30

inspection of the electrical installation when installing |

or altering circuits, services or electrical equipment.

Inspections shall not be made, equipment energized,

nor services connected, unless an electrical permit is

completely and legibly filled out and readily available.

Each person, firm, partnership, corporation or other

entity shall furnish an electrical permit for the

installation, alteration, or other electrical work

performed or to be performed by that entity.

“s/ Dick Gilcrist”

Dorothy J. Gray

Notary

Dick Gilcrist - Elec. Section Supervisor

Department of Labor & Industries Public

616-120" ave. N.E. Suite C 201 - Feb. 25, 2001

(425) 990-1420 State of Washington

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.