SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,               )  CASE NO.  _________________
                                  )		   (to be assigned)
        PLAINTIFF,                )  
                                  )  TO THE CLERK:
   v.                             )  AFFIDAVIT RE FILE ON
                                  )  DEMAND THE ACTION FOR
STATE OF WASHINGTON,              )  DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON,     )  ENFORCEMENT; AND SPECIAL
  CASE NO. cccccccccccc, AND      )  ASSUMPSIT ON SPECIAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON,     )  CONTRACT
  CASE NO. dddddddddddd,          )  
                                  )  
        DEFENDANTS.               )  
                                  )  

1  COMES NOW Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the above-entitled court of record to demand that the clerk perform only a ministerial function, that the clerk not perform any tribunal functions, and that the clerk file on demand and refer the ACTION FOR zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz; AND SPECIAL ASSUMPSIT ON SPECIAL CONTRACT (ACTION) to the court of record for tribunal determination regarding the filing of said ACTION.

2  In a letter dated mmmmmmmm dd, 2012 (Exhibit 2), the Clerk of the Supreme Court informed the plaintiff that the rejected papers “submitted are not construed to be a petition for writ of certiorari.”

3  The papers are not a petition for writ of certiorari.

4  The papers are an action filed in accordance with the Constitutional mandate in Article III, § 2-2  of the Constitution for the United States of America,  Rules 17 and 39 of the Supreme Court, and 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202; Amendment XI notwithstanding.

5  At all times material to this action, defendant State of Washington is a party and a State as contemplated in Article III, § 2-2  of the Constitution for the United States of America.

6  This action does not commence or prosecute a suit against the State but simply is a continuation of ones commenced by the state, and thus it can be brought under § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  This action is effectively a writ of error on the ground that the authority exercised under the State is repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America, and violates a right recognized by the State legislature.

7  No money damages against the sate are demanded in this action.  The portions of this action against State only contemplate declaratory judgment  and enforcement,  and special assumpsit on special contract;  and do not violate the historical intent and purpose of Amendment XI,  namely, “the prevention of federal court judgments that must be paid out of a State's treasury” and to protect the “dignity of the state of Washington”. 

I.	
AMENDMENT XI APPLIES ONLY TO CITIZENS 
AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
SOVEREIGN POWER OF ITS CREATION, NAMELY THE PEOPLE.

8  “A person may be a citizen for some purposes, and not a citizen for other purposes.”  Field v. Adreon, 7 MD 209.  Judge John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol. I (1868), Page 273, CITIZEN

9  Sovereignty:  “The power to do everything in a state without accountability...”  Story, Const. Sec 207

10  “The People of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.”  RCW 42.30.010, RCW 42.56.030

11  “Republican government:  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people  and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.”  [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v.  Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

12  Chief Justice Marshall  “attributed adoption of the Eleventh Amendment not to objections to subjecting States to suits per se but to well-founded concerns about creditors being able to maintain suits in federal courts for payment and stated his view that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar suits against the States under federal question jurisdiction and did not in any case reach suits against a State by its own citizens.”  Senate Document 99-16, The Constitution of the United States of America‑‑Analysis and Interpretation (U.S.G.P.O., 1987), Pages 1429-1430.  [Footnotes and cites omitted here.] [Emphasis added.]

13  “In Chisholm, the Justices of the Supreme Court rejected Geogia’s claim to be sovereign. They concluded instead that, to the extent the term “sovereignty” is even appropriately applied to the newly-adopted Constitution, it rests with the people, rather than with state governments.” 

14  For the purpose of this action plaintiff Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is not a citizen of any political body.   Plaintiff is one of the People of the United States and one of the People of the state of Washington as contemplated in the preambles of the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the State of Washington, respectively.

15  For the purpose of this action plaintiff Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, as one of the people, chooses to exercise the sovereignty of a people  directly. 

16  Because plaintiff is one of the people who does not yield her sovereignty to the agencies which serve her, and because she is not one of the citizens for the purpose of this action, the state immunity privilege of Amendment XI, which applies only to citizens, is not effective. (See also Sections II and III below; neither the dignity nor the treasury of the state is at risk.)

II.	
BECAUSE THERE IS NO CLAIM AGAINST
THE TREASURY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THE AMENDMENT XI PRIVILEGE IS NOT EFFECTIVE.

17  The portions of this action against the inferior Parental Rights Court and the inferior Dependency Court only contemplate declaratory judgment  and enforcement, and special assumpsit on special contract (enforcement of non-monetary obligation);  and do not violate the historical intent and purpose of Amendment XI,  namely, “the prevention of federal court judgments that must be paid out of a State's treasury. 

18  Therefore the Amendment XI state immunity privilege is not effective.

III.	
THERE IS NO CLAIM AGAINST 
THE DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  
BY ITS ACTIONS THE STATE HAS WAIVED IMMUNITY,
THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT XI PRIVILEGE IS NOT EFFECTIVE.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 348-350, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) 
     Page 348
“…The constitution declares that every citizen of one State, shall have all the privileges of the citizens of every other State. Suppose Virginia were to declare the citizens of Maryland aliens, and proceed to escheat their lands by inquest of office: the party is without a remedy; unless he can look for protection to this Court, which is the guardian of constitutional rights. Because the State, which is the wrong doer, is a party to the suit, is that a reason why he should not have redress? By the original text of the constitution, there is no limitation in respect to the character of the parties, where the case arises under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union: and the amendment to the constitution respecting the suability of States, merely applies to the other class of cases, where it is the character of the parties, and not the nature of the controversy, which alone gives jurisdiction. The original clause giving jurisdiction on account of the character of the parties, as aliens, citizens of different States, &c. does not limit, but extends the judicial power of the Union. The amendment applies to that alone. It leaves a suit between a State and a citizen, arising under the constitution, laws, &c. 
      Page 349 
where it found it; and the States are still liable to be sued by a citizen, where the jurisdiction arises in this manner, and not merely out of the character of the parties. The jurisdiction in the present case arises out of the subject matter of the controversy, and not out of the character of the parties; and, consequently, is not affected by the amendment. 
“But it is said, that admitting the Court has jurisdiction where a State is a party, still that jurisdiction must be original, and not appellate; because the constitution declares, that in cases in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction, and in all other cases, appellate jurisdiction. The answer is, that this provision was merely intended to prevent States from being sued in the inferior Courts of the Union; that the Supreme Court is to have appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; that where, in such a case, a State sues in its own Courts, it must be understood as renouncing its privilege or exemption, and to submit itself to the appellate power of this Court; since, if the jurisdiction in this class of cases be concurrent, it cannot be exercised originally in the Supreme Court, wherever the State chooses to commence the suit in its own Courts. Nor is there any hardship in this construction. The State cannot be sued in its own Courts; but if it commences a suit there against a citizen, and a question arises in that suit under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union, there must be power in this Court to revise the decision of the State Court, in order to 
     Page 350 
produce uniformity in the construction of the Constitution, &c. So, if a consul sues in the Circuit Court, this Court has appellate jurisdiction, although the consul could not be sued in the Circuit Court. And if the United States, who cannot be sued any where, think proper to sue in the District or Circuit Court, they are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Even granting, therefore, that a State cannot be sued in any case; the State is not sued here: she has sued a citizen, in her own tribunals, who implores the protection of this high Court to give him the benefit of the constitution and laws of the Union. The jurisdiction does not act on the State; it merely prevents the State from acting on a citizen, and depriving him of his constitutional and legal rights.

19  Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is one of the people of the state of Washington.

20  State of Washington codes dictate that “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” 

21  Because the state, in rebellion against the sovereign people,  has initiated two lawsuits (without claim of personal injury) against one of the people of the state, the state has made itself a party to a suit.  The state is presumed to act so as to maintain its dignity.  “Similarly, the state may waive its immunity by initiating or participating in litigation.”   The state waived its immunity from claim on the same subject matter and the same parties.   The state of Washington and its agency courts are so named in the above-entitled action because they are actors as well as defendants.

22  Therefore the Amendment XI state immunity privilege is not effective.

IV.	
BECAUSE THIS ACTION ONLY
INVOKES THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES,
NO JUDICIAL RESOURCES ARE REQUIRED.

23  This action invokes the judicial power of the United States.   The above-entitled action is in a court of record.   The justices are not required to participate in this matter, though their wisdom and advice would be welcome by the court.

//////////
//////////
V.	
FILE ON DEMAND

24  The clerk did not cite any rule to support the clerk’s quasi-judicial opinion.  Nor did the clerk cite any rule authorizing the clerk to function as a tribunal in this instance to extend the clerk’s authority beyond that of a ministerial function. 

25  Now, therefore, plaintiff Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx demands that the clerk “FILE ON DEMAND” the ANSWER for court determination regarding the filing of said ANSWER.  

26  I am Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  I am the plaintiff in this case.  I have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts and am competent to testify as to the truth of these facts if called as a witness.  I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing facts are true and correct.

	_________________________
Executed on mmmmm dd, 2012	Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	P.O. Box nnnnn
	ooooooo, NY  13815
	Fax:   (aaa)ppp-nnnn
	Phone: (aaa)ppp-nnnn