SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE LAWRENCE CRONIN VIRGINIA CRONIN RICHARD HANSON MICHAEL WALTERS DOUGLAS TURNER

Petitioners, vs. SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE Respondents. I. Relief Requested NO.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioners, seek issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel Respondents, the Spokane Police Department, City of Spokane, to enforce the homicide laws of the State of Washington: We seek a Writ of Mandamus for the purpose of mandating that the Spokane Police Department enforce the homicide laws and investigate the deaths of children, who are human beings and persons from conception, at Planned Parenthood, 123 E. Indiana in Spokane, Washington; that they do so as they would in any other type of unlawful homicide investigation involving any other human beings or persons and that any type of subsequent legal actions taken to enforce the homicide laws be similar in nature to any actions taken in any other such enforcement of these laws with any other human beings or persons.
Petitioners: Cronin, Hanson, Walters and Turner Address 6716 E. Big Meadows Rd., Chattaroy, WA 99003

The reasons this Petition for Writ of Mandamus is being filed: 1. The Police have a clear duty to enforce the homicide laws of the State. This duty is imperative and not discretionary; and, 2. having requested the Police to enforce the homicide laws at Planned Parenthood and as they have refused to do so, we have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law; and, 3. the benefits to the petitioners, local society, the Police and the society at large of stopping the homicides of innocent children at Planned Parenthood in Spokane, Washington are profound, positive for all of us and too great to calculate. The benefits of a single human life to each of us are never ending and cannot be summarized. One cannot calculate the value of ones own life or of someone elses, i.e., Anne Frank, Emmett Till, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mohandas Gandhi, Earl Warren, Ronald Davies, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Harry Jaffa, anyones daughter, son or friend, etc.. A human life is sacred and invaluable; the right to this life is the foundation of all of our laws and our country. Everyone is negatively affected by the homicides of innocent children. The Petitioners have a right, most would say an obligation, to report the homicides of innocent children in the community. All persons are negatively impacted when the Police Department, the agency legally authorized to protect human life, does not protect human beings and persons in the community. Death destroys the people. The Petitioners have Standing by virtue of the preceeding and other arguments embodied within this Petition. II Statement of Facts/Statement of Grounds

The Petitioners did individually on June 17th, July 5th and July 21, 2011 make official requests of the Spokane Police Department, 1100 W. Mallon Ave., Spokane, WA. Each petitioner spoke with a police officer on duty and attempted: to file a homicide report, request an investigation of ongoing homicides and seek police action to enforce the homicide laws and stop the homicides occurring at Planned Parenthood, 123 E. Indiana Ave., Spokane, WA. See Affidavits of Lawrence Cronin, Virginia Cronin, Richard Hanson, Michael Walters and Douglas Turner, Exhibits A, B, C, D and E. Each petitioner reported unlawful homicides occurring at Planned Parenthood within the City of Spokane. Each Petitioner was told that no report or investigation could be undertaken,

either verbally or in writing, as under the Abortion Laws of Washington State, abortions at this facility would not be investigated as homicides. The Police refused to take any action to enforce the homicide laws, attempt to stop the homicides at this organization or to investigate them. The Police affirmed that abortions currently take place at Planned Parenthood. See Affidavits, Exhibits A,B,C, D and E, Id. The Washington State Department of Health indicates that 1761 abortions took place in Spokane County(many of them being performed at Planned Parenthood) in 2009, the last year for which statistics have been published: Washington State Department of Health, Abortion Data, available at http://www.doh.wa.gov/EHSPHL/CHS/chs-data/abortion/abormain.htm (last visited July 2, 2011). Planned Parenthood, Spokane, WA states that it provides abortions on its website: Planned Parenthood of Spokane, WA, Abortion Services, available at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/centerDetails.asp?f=2794 (last visited July 2, 2011).

III

Statement of Issues/Argument

The Spokane Police Department has a clear duty to enforce all laws passed by the State Legislature, including the homicide laws. The Police have a clear duty to abide by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The Spokane Police Departments most important role is the protection of human beings. In filing this Writ we support the police in fully enforcing all Washington State Laws including the homicide laws. The justification for this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is based on the following two legal arguments. Each of these arguments will be discussed in the course of this document. A. The Spokane Police Department must legally enforce the Washington State homicide laws against Planned Parenthood, according to Washington Revised Code(RCW) 9A.32.010-9A.32.070 (2010); 9A.08.010 and the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 1. Homicide laws: The terms human being and person are written in the law, but have not been defined. Because these terms have not been defined, the Spokane Police

Department is not in a legal position to define them, or assume that they have a clear or certain meaning. Because these terms have not been defined, the Spokane Police Department does not have the authority to interpret the homicide laws as excluding certain human beings or persons, from conception to death. 2. Abortion laws: The Spokane Police do not have the authority to assume and carry out their duties as though all terms describing the unborn, including fetus and embryo do not have the same meaning as human being and person. They do not have the authority to decide that these terms do not legally describe human beings and persons provided equal protection under the law. 3. Conflict between the two laws: The Spokane Police Department does not have the authority to choose which laws it may enforce and which laws it may not enforce, even if certain laws are in conflict with one another. The police have the responsibility to protect Public Safety and to err on the side of human life when it is at stake. Their definition of human being and person must encompass all living human beings and persons when enforcing the homicide laws. B. The Spokane Police Department, by not enforcing the Washington State homicide laws against Planned Parenthood, is in violation of The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. -------------------------------------A. The Spokane Police Department must legally enforce the Washington State homicide laws against Planned Parenthood, according to Washington Revised Codes(RCW) 9A.32.010-9A.32.070 (2010); 9A.08.010 (2010), and the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 1. Homicide laws. RCW 9A.32 (2010) Homicide Defined. RCW 9A.32.010 ( 2010) Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either (1)murder, (2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or(5) justifiable homicide. Manslaughter in the first degree. RCW 9A.32.060 (2010) (1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when: (a) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(b) He intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child. (2) Manslaughter in the first degree is a class A felony. General Requirements of Culpability. RCW 9A.08.010 (2010) (1)(b)(c): RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Discussion of Homicide: RCW 9A.32.010 (2010) The term homicide literally means man-killer, i.e, homo(man) and cide(killer). In the case of the homicide laws, the police are assuming that they know who man, human beings and persons are. However, none of these terms have been defined legally. Therefore, the police do not know the meaning of these terms and do not have the legal authority to define them. As human being and person have not been legally defined, they cannot enforce the laws in an equal and just manner, as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. The police cannot and are not enforcing the homicide laws equally as they do not know who a human being or person is. The Supreme Court and State Legislature have also not defined that born individuals are men, human beings or persons. In current law and Court case history there have never been legal definitions of the born and unborn, person and non-person as applies to the homicide laws. We must conclude therefore, that legally, a human beings life has not been defined as more than one part, based on time or other factors, but is one-ongoing human life, from a persons conception to a persons death . The police have no legal authority to assume otherwise. Discussion of Manslaughter in the first degree. RCW 9A.32.060 (1)(b) (2010) He intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.

This law defines child by virtue of whether the mother has felt the child moving inside of her, which is known as quickening. Quick is a vague legal term, as quickening can occur anytime between the 13th week and the 25th week after conception. As an example of the lack of clarity that this definition provides, consider the following: according to this homicide law-- a person who assaulted a woman in her 16th week of pregnancy would be guilty of the crime of homicide only if the woman who had been assaulted had felt her child move. A mother at the same stage of pregnancy, who did not feel her same age child, or did not admit to feeling the sensation, could not have the killer of her unborn child arrested and brought to justice. In enforcing this law, therefore, the police and/or the mother, must make the subjective judgment as to whether this child was quick or not. Together, they define human being or person and who might enjoy the protection guaranteed by law. A mother stating that she has felt her 16 week old unborn quick child has therefore now defined and protected her unborn child. The definition of human being in this situation is determined by the sensory experience of the mother prior to or during the assault, rather than the fact of the movement of the child. However, current medical testing makes a definition of human life based on the mothers perception of movement obsolete. Ultrasound imaging techniques allow us to see clear movement in the reflexes of the fetus at 6 weeks and thumb-sucking as early as 7 weeks gestation age. Though the sensations of the mother are variable and subjective, the reality of the unborn human child remains constant. Therefore, what of the mother who felt her child move after the assault? What of the mother who did not feel her child move? What of the child in both of these cases? The police do not enforce any other homicide laws based on the report of movement prior to or during an assault of someone. A person in a coma, or a person too ill to move, are not deprived of their right to protection from homicide based on their lack of movement. We are unaware of any such cases. And we are not aware of any other law which allows lawful killing vs. unlawful killing on the basis of the lack of movement of an individual. Rather, medical authorities look at lack of heart beat, lack of brain waves and other indicators to determine whether human life continues to exist. The Fourteenth Amendment states, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. In this police enforcement action there is a clear violation of equal protection under the manslaughter law by

the Spokane Police. The police are protecting children who are alive, but only if they are being felt by their mothers. They are not protecting living children of mothers who do not feel movement. It is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the police to enforce the manslaughter law without a definition of the terms used in it and the police cannot define the terms. The police cannot enforce this law when they are speculating as to whom they are protecting. The police cannot enforce it constitutionally because the law: cannot be applied equally to all unborn children; cannot be applied equally to all pregnant mothers; cannot be applied equally to all other persons, including those born, who do or do not quicken or move; cannot be applied equally to those who commit the assault. 2. Abortion laws. RCW 9.02 (2010) Reproductive PrivacyPublic Policy. RCW 9.02.100 (2010) The sovereign people hereby declare that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state of Washington that: (1) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control; (2) Every woman has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion, except as specifically limited by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902; (3) Except as specifically permitted by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902, the state shall not deny or interfere with a womans fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion; and (4) The state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Right to have and provide. RCW 9.02.110 (2010) The state may not deny or interfere with a womans right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health.

Definitions. RCW 9.02.170 (2010) For purposes of this chapter: (1) Viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetuss sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures. (2) Abortion means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth. Discussion of Reproductive Privacy: RCW 9.02.100 (2010) When we asked the police to enforce the homicide laws at Planned Parenthood, the reason they gave to us as to why they would not do so was because of the abortion laws. The homicide laws cannot be enforced in an equal and just manner by the Spokane Police Department because of the abortion laws and the Supreme Court decision regarding abortion, Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, which have upheld this decision. As a result of Roe v. Wade and the Washington State Abortion laws, the police assume that certain unborn children are not human beings and not persons. The police act as if they know who human beings and persons are, although they cannot know, as these legal terms have not been defined in either set of laws. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court, Washington State Supreme Court nor the State of Washington Legislature have defined human being and person. The Supreme Court refused to do so with these famous words: Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life, from and after, conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of mans knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159-160, 93 S.Ct. 705, 730. (1973). The Supreme Court had the clear opportunity to decide who a person was and they declined. They abandoned their obligation to be the final judge: they decided not to decide who is a human being or who is a person. However, they did not say that they lacked the power to

make such a decision. The courts do have the power to make such decisions, as we will discuss. Rather, they claimed that to do so would be speculation. It is the duty of judges to be the final arbiters of all legal decisions in our land. This is the Constitutional purpose of the judiciary. This must be so in matters of life, death and the equal protection of the public, as it is performed by the Spokane Police Department. The consequences of the courts lack of decision does not mean that others can make this decision, including the Spokane Police Department. Relevance of the Dred Scott Decision The courts ability and power to define and decide who is a human being, who is a person, and how to enforce the laws related to human beings and persons is not a new legal concept. The Supreme Court debated whether a certain race of individuals, Negros or African-Americans, were human beings in the infamous case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court decided that it had the right to decide whether a Negro (African-American) was a citizen to whom all rights pertained and it made a decision. Chief Justice Taney stated, The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing., at the beginning of his majority opinion. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 404.(1856). According to Chief Justice Taney, They show that a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings, that inter-marriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race. We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this, in order to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the people, was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions.Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 409.

Justice Daniels (concurring) stated, Now, the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know- that the African negro race never have been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations; that as amongst them there never has been known or recognized by the inhabitants of other countries anything partaking of the character of nationality, or civil or political polity; that this race has been by all the nations of Europe regarded as subjects of capture or purchase; as subjects of commerce or traffic; and that the introduction of that race into every section of this country was not as members of civil or political society, but as slaves, as property in the strictest sense of the term. Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 475. The Supreme Court clearly defined that a slave was not a citizen, or person, when it made its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court decided, Hence it follows, necessarily, that a slave, the peculium or property of a master, and possessing within himself no civil nor political rights or capacities, cannot be a CITIZEN. Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 476. The later nullification of this decision by President Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution reversed the Courts decision to deny slaves and Negroes their lawful rights of citizens and persons. Justice Scalia, In my history-book, the Court was covered with dishonor and deprived of legitimacy by Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857), an erroneous (and widely opposed) opinion that it did not abandon Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 998, 112 S.Ct
2791, 2883. (1992).

This decision set important precedents relevant to the current Writ. In addition to overturning the Missouri Compromise and defining slaves to be property, this Writ of Error case, Dred Scott v Sandford, set the precedent for the courts to define the legal terms: persons and human beings. People are citizens; slaves are not citizens, according to Dred Scott. The Supreme Court and the State of Washington have not defined that a fetus, embryo, unborn child or any other term or language that describes an individual living human within a mother is or is not a human being or person as was done in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

10

Relevance of the Fourteenth Amendment As the courts and the laws have not defined unborn individuals as human beings, they also have not defined born individuals as human beings or persons. Therefore, the police must enforce the homicide laws and treat all born and unborn as equal--all are human beings and persons, including fetuses, embryos, unborn children, etc. All physically alive human beings must be equally protected. If the unborn are not human beings or persons, neither are the born, according to current law and court decisions. The courts and legislature have not defined two parts to human existence, born and unborn, person and non-person. Therefore, a human beings life must be seen as one continuous life: conception to death, not parts. If there are no parts to a persons life, the police cannot legally enforce the homicide laws based on who is born or unborn, person or non-person, as the distinctions do not exist in law. Accordingly, regardless of their location or age, no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment and as written on the front of the Supreme Court building in our nations Capitol: Equal Protection Under Law. In addition to Equal Protection, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, states, No State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV. A right to privacy of a pregnant mother as enumerated in the Constitution according to Roe v. Wade cannot be used to deny the right to life of the human being within her. Roe v. Wade acknowledges this reality in the following words, The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Roe, 410 U.S. at 156, 93 S.Ct. at 728.

11

and in the concluding paragraph on the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment in Roe v Wade: All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. Roe, 410 U.S. at 158, 93 S.Ct.
at 729.

Contradictions within Roe v Wade In the above concluding paragraph related to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court is relying on history to define the term person by what it does not include. However the Court cannot define persons and human beings by limiting the definition to what they are not. It goes against common sense to limit a definition of something, an object, or more importantly a person by stating what it is not. For example, to define a computer by what it is not, would be difficult for anyone to comprehend. It is even more difficult to try to define a person solely by stating what a person is not. As the Court declined to define who a person is, in this paragraph the Court is trying to define who a person, a human being , is not. However earlier in the same decision the Court stated clearly that they believed that they were not in a position to do so, We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 159-160, 93 S.Ct. at 730. One cannot decline to offer a definition of a term and then offer a definition based on what the term does not include. This is an inherent contradiction within the same overall legal decision. There are two other contradictions that the Court has made within the body of Roe v Wade: 1) since one must define such a term by stating what a person is, there is no definition at all, but rather speculation. The Court however stated that it was not going to be involved in speculation, the judiciary, at this point in the development of mans knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 159-160, 93 S.Ct. at 730.) The statement above therefore has no rational meaning as unborn and person are not defined; and 2) in Roe v. Wade, the Court sets viability as the "compelling point at which the State may have a legitimate interest in potential life. Roe, 410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 732. Viability as the point is then in direct contradiction to Justice Blackmuns statement quoted above, which sets the point of person at birth and not before. No law or legal ruling has ever defined pre-birth or pre-viable individuals and post-birth or postviable individuals in regards to their being human beings or persons. No dividing line or

12

moment has ever been established. Therefore all rights must apply to all living human beings and persons from the moment of their physical existence or conception, according to the Fourteenth Amendment. Immunity from death and the privilege of life for all is protected herein. Life must be protected by the police as one continuous human life from conception, because that is actually, physically and really when human beings and persons first become alive. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments The Ninth and Tenth Amendments also apply to this police requirement of homicide law enforcement: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. U.S. Constitution, Amendment X. The Spokane Police Department does not grant rights; the rights are already retained by the people, according to these two Amendments unless those rights have been limited. No such limits have ever been placed on human beings or persons by the Court, the United States Constitution or by the laws of the land. The police, therefore, must enforce the homicide laws equally to all physically alive conceived human beings and persons. As unborn children, fetuses, embryos, etc., have not been specifically excluded from being citizens, human beings or persons, as was the case in Dred Scott v. Sandford with slaves and Negroes; and as neither the born or unborn have been defined or limited as human beings or persons, the rights of human beings from conception, as people and citizens must be protected under each of these Amendments. If unborn human persons have not had their inherent rights restricted or limited by a due process of law; and, born human persons have not had their rights limited by a due process of law, then all must be protected equally by the Spokane Police Department. The closest the courts and the State have come to making a ruling on definitions of human being and person is in their laws and decisions related to viability.

13

Discussion of Viability: RCW 9.02.110 and RCW 9.02.170 (2010). Present legal status of this term and its relationship to the Spokane Police Department enforcement of these laws Under both Federal and Washington State Law, the legal justification for mothers to legally obtain abortions depends upon RCW 9.02.170 (2010). Viability has been the legal foundation upon which Roe v. Wade, other Supreme Court cases and the State of Washington justify the abortion laws in our society. We argue that the concept of viability is not available for the Spokane Police Department to use in their lack of enforcement of the homicide laws. If they do so, they are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. Federal vs. State Definition The term viability is defined by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade: As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes viable, that is, potentially able to live outside the mothers womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Roe, 410 U.S. at 160, 93 S.Ct. at 730. The Supreme Court definition of viability allows for life with artificial aid outside the mothers womb, while the Washington State definition excludes artificial aid. The police therefore enforce a State viability law definition that violates a Supreme Court definition on this matter. 2. Viability no longer has time limits. Therefore it can no longer be equally applied to unborn children or to their mothers. Viability as defined in Roe, the fetus becomes viable, that is potentially able to live outside the mothers womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability may be placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Roe, 410 U.S. at 160, 93 S.Ct. at 730. The Court made decisions based upon these facts as they were understood by science in 1973.

14

Viability as defined by Washington State has no time limit as part of its definition. However in reality, the very legal meaning of viability changes over time. In 1973 a fetus was viable at 24-28 weeks gestation with artificial aid. Presently a fetus is viable at 20 weeks, with artificial aid. For the past 30 years, surgical operations have taken place on such individuals in-utero, presently as early as 18 weeks. University of California Fetal Treatment Center, Fetal Firsts available at http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/our_team/fetal_firsts.asp(last visited July 2, 2011) and have become increasingly able to save or improve human lives. However, according to the Supreme Court in Casey (1992), time is no longer a legal factor in the definition of viability, No change in Roes factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete..these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests, and the divergences from the factual premises of 1973 have no bearing on the validity of Roe's central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact. Pp. 2810-2811. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 835-836, 112 S.Ct. at 2798. and, We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons.The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can, in reason and all fairness, be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 163, 93 S.Ct., at 731.). Consistent with other constitutional norms, legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other than viability which is more workable. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 870, 112 S.Ct. at 28162817 The unborn child, therefore, under Roe, could be potentially protected by the State at the age of 28 weeks, as this was the average period of gestational time to viability in 1973. By 1992,

15

at the time of Casey, this had changed to 24 weeks, so second life at this gestational age could be protected by the State. Presently, the viability time line is as little as 20 weeks, so currently these second lives can be the object of state protection. As, over time, the independent existence of the second life can, in reason and all fairness, be the object of state protection Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 870, 112 S.Ct. at 2816-2817, this protection will be applied to in-utero individuals of different ages as scientific knowledge and skills increase. These second lives were not protected at 20 weeks in 1973 or in 1992, though today in 2011 they are legally protected. This reveals a violation of equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It also defies common sense, JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE THOMAS, join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, Of course, JUSTICE O'CONNOR was correct in her former view. The arbitrariness of the viability line is confirmed by the Court's inability to offer any justification for it beyond the conclusory assertion that it is only at that point that the unborn child's life "can in reason and all fairness" be thought to override the interests of the mother. Ante, at 2817. Precisely why is it that, at the magical second when machines currently in use (though not necessarily available to the particular woman) are able to keep an unborn child alive apart from its mother, the creature is suddenly able (under our Constitution) to be protected by law, whereas, before that magical second, it was not? That makes no more sense than according infants legal protection only after the point when they can feed themselves. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 990, 112 S.Ct. at 2879. The Supreme Court cannot logically claim a right to protect only individuals of a certain gestational age from death in a given year (1973) and claim the same right to protect individuals of an earlier gestational age in later years. Equal protection under the law cannot change year to year. As of 1973 all fetuses younger than 28 weeks, have been denied equal protection under the law. However, in 2011, many fetuses much younger (20-28 weeks) are given that protection while their younger agemates(younger than 20 weeks) are denied it. The only change is in the status of scientific skill. The development or second life of the fetus remains unchanged. In order to accept the reasoning required by the Courts viability standard, the Fourteenth Amendment cannot apply over time, but only in very self-contained and narrow strips of time.

16

This is the rational put forth by the Casey Court. However, Justice OConnor states early on in this same decision, The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which, by tradition, courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 849, 112 S.Ct. at 2806. And, the last words of Justice OConnor in this case are, Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us, and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 901, 112 S.Ct. at 2833. The police enforcement or support of the abortion laws is based on the viability standard. The viability standard, the foundational pillar of our States abortion law and the Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it cannot be applied equally to unborn children over any discernable period of time. It cannot be applied equally by the State with pregnant mothers from year to year. And it will continue to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the future due to medical science advances related to viability. President Lincoln addressed the difficulty of using arbitrary properties for purposes of definition, when addressing the rights of Negroes or African-Americans held as slaves (referring to the Declaration of Independence): I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal---equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant.Roy Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln 405-406 (1953).

17

3. Viability and In-utero Surgery The legal standard of viability also fails to stand up to the scientific advances of in-utero surgery. In-utero surgery has occurred for 30 years on the unborn, at gestational ages as young as 18 weeks: University of California Fetal Treatment Center, San Francisco, CA, Fetal Treatment Center Web site: Id.; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Pediatric and Fetal Surgery available at http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/root/vumc.php?site=pedsurg (last visited July 2, 2011); Childrens Hospital in Boston, Advanced Fetal Care Center, available at http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site891/mainpageS891P0.html (last visited July 2, 2011) are a few. These procedures occur prior to many women feeling their children move (quickening), the standard cited in the manslaughter law. Therefore, it is possible that an inutero child can receive a surgical procedure in order to save his or her life, the mother assaulted prior to quickening and the killer of the child never arrested by the Spokane Police Department or brought to justice. 4. Embryos are human beings. Legal, Biological and Scientific Rationale In order for the police to enforce the Washington State Laws on abortion and thereby support the Courts statement upon which the abortion law is based: that it was not up to the Court to resolve the difficult question of when life begins Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 159-160, 93 S.Ct. at 730., the police must enforce one of the following that is true about living human embryos, according to present law and court decisions: 1. Embryos are not human from the moment of conception. At some point between conception and death, each of us becomes a human being and a person; or, 2. Embryos are human beings and they can be killed; or, 3. Embryos may or may not be human beings, but even if they are, they can be killed. In number one, the Court has not decided this point, therefore the police must look to statements two and three as a rationale for enforcing or supporting the abortion laws. Statements two and three are homicide as defined in the Washington State homicide laws(homicide and manslaughter). The Supreme Courts decision in Roe v Wade and subsequent decisions upholding Roes language, plus Washington State Law, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the police must enforce the homicide laws at Planned Parenthood because, in truth, there is no difference between abortion and homicide as argued in the cases and the law. They are the same thing.

18

Embryos are defined as individual, unique human beings for a number of reasons: First, the embryo is distinct from any cell of the mother or father; its growth is internally directed toward its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, the most important, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. and, The embryo is plainly a living being. The child that is born several months later is also a living being. The questionis this: Is that child the same living being? Or is he or she a different one? The leading authorities in human embryology and developmental biology are united in answering this biological question: The child and the embryo are the same living being, the same organism. Child and embryo merely refer to the same living being at different stages of maturity. Robert George and George Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, pgs. 50 and 171 (2008). Embryos have a unique set of DNA which defines them as unique beings separate from mother or father; they have individual blood types, separate and unique from the mother. Embryos within their mothers are separate bodies, separate human beings, although attached body-tobody. Embryos outside their mothers are human beings. They can and have been created in artificial environments. They therefore exist using artificial means, as defined in Roe v Wade. Because embryos can exist outside the mother with artificial aid, they must be deemed viable if we accept the viability definition of Roe v Wade: potentially able to live outside the mothers womb, albeit with artificial aid. Roe, 410 U.S. at 160, 93 S.Ct. at 730. If an embryo, before it develops into a fetus is legally viable and therefore protected by the Supreme Court, based on its viability, it cannot legally be denied this same status a few weeks later. Between conception and death there is no clear point at which the human being can be said not to exist and then suddenly begin to exist. Conception is the only clear point of beginning from a biological and physical standpoint. From the point of conception until old age and death, only the developmental stages change. Every living person is at some developmental stage between conception and death. Each person was an embryo; embryos are human beings and persons at the earliest developmental stages in hopefully, long lives until death. We are equal to them; they to us, just individuals at different developmental stages. I am the same human being I was at conception, at birth or at five years old. The alternative to this reality is some other reality, which the police do not have the legal authority to define or enforce.

19

Heart beat and Brain Waves Often medical science uses the permanent cessation of brain waves or heartbeat as a determination for death. Temporary cessation of brain waves or heartbeat, however, does not indicate a lack of a human being existing. Such temporary cessation can occur during serious injury, heart attack and many surgical procedures. The lack of a discernable fetal heart beat during the first 3 weeks following conception and the lack of discernable brain waves during the first 6 weeks do not indicate a lack of these individuals being human beings or persons. These conditions are not permanent; they are developmental and similar to someone redeveloping the use of his brain or heart after surgery, illness or accident. The Spokane Police Department does not have the legal right to designate an individual as not a human being or person due to a lack of discernable brain wave activity or a lack of discernable heart beat. As an example, a person on a heart by-pass machine or attached to an artificial heart for days or weeks while awaiting a donor heart, has no heart. These individuals are still legal human beings and persons. The police do not have the authority to remove equal protection under the law from any living individuals, whether they be a 60 year old woman who is having open heart surgery, a newborn infant or individuals of the earliest gestational age. 5. Legal definitions of viability and quickening no longer exist as a result of the PartialBirth Abortion Ban Act, 2003 and Supreme Court Case, Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007 upholding this Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, eliminated viability and quickening as a means of defining a human being or person or even a potential human, an undefined term used in the Roe and Casey decisions. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Act passed by Congress in 2003. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act states, The Congress finds and declares the following: (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. Partial-Birth Abortion Act, 18 USCS 1531, Chapter 74, pg. 885(2003).

20

According to the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy: The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 320 F.Supp.2d, at 971-972. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 147, 127 S.Ct., 1610, 1627.(2007). In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg, with Stevens, Souter and Breyer joining, states: (T)here is no line(more workable) than viabilityToday the Court blurs that line maintaining that the Act (legitimately) appl(ies) both pre-viability and post-viability because.a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. Ante, at 17. Instead of drawing the line at viability, the Court refers to Congress purpose to differentiate abortion and infanticide based not on whether a fetus can survive outside the womb, but on where a fetus is anatomically located when a particular medical procedure is performed.. A fetus is described as an unborn child and as a baby. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. at 186-187, 127 S.Ct. at 1649-1650. The language of Congress in this law is significant, as the Act defines what a child is. In Part (H), This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a person under the United States Constitution. Partialbirth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a person. Partial-Birth Abortion Act, pg. 888. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 specifies no gestational time requirement associated with partial-birth abortions. The procedure is banned based upon its method. Nowhere in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is the age or development of the child limited or defined. The human being suffering this procedure, referred to as child, baby and other terms in parts (H), (K) and (M)Partial-Birth Abortion Act, pg. 888. is in possession of the anatomical features described in the law(head and trunk) by the 4th gestational week. Therefore, a child of any gestational age may be considered a full, legal person, if a partialbirth abortion is planned, according to the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Supreme Courts upholding of this law in Gonzales v. Carhart. The intentions of the mother and the literal

21

location of the child, rather than the gestational time of fetal development are used to define the child as deserving protection. Partial-birth abortions were banned in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because of the gruesome method required, not the age of the child. Other abortion procedures are equally gruesome. The Court carefully stated that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was not meant to limit the non-intact D&E procedure. In the Supreme Court Decision, Justice Stevens points out in his dissenting opinion: Non-intact D&E could equally be characterized as brutal, ante, at 26, involving as it does tear(ing) (a fetus) apart and rip(ping) off its limbs, (ante, at 1620-1621, 1621-1622. The notion that either of these two equally gruesome proceduresis more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational. Stenberg, 530 U.S., at 946-947, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (Stevens, J., concurring). Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. at 182, 127 S.Ct. at 1647. The wording by Congress in Parts (H), (K) and (M) of the Act; the fact that Gonzales was upheld; and Justice Stevens dissenting comments in Gonzales, lead to the conclusion that aborting a child while it is entirely inside the mother cannot be materially different from killing (homicide) the same child when it is in a location just a few inches away, while partially born. Today, as a result of The Partial Birth Abortion Act, an unborn child on one side of the birth canal can be considered a victim of homicide, while a child on the other side of the birth canal is not. The location of a person caused equal injustice to human beings prior to the Dred Scott decision. Prior to 1857 a slave killed on one side of the Mississippi River in Illinois was considered the victim of a homicide because the death of a human being had occurred. A slave killed on the opposite side of the Mississippi River in Missouri was merely a destroyed piece of property. After Dred Scott neither were considered homicide, as slaves were clearly defined as property. Then as now, location cannot be used as a criteria to define a human being. As a result of Gonzales, gestational age--trimesters, weeks of viability--do not define a human being. Therefore, the terms viability and quickening no longer have any rational legal meaning. The Gonzales decision is in direct contradiction to the Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v Wade, Roe, 410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 732 and Casey,

22

 The viability line reflects the biological facts and truths of fetal development; it marks that threshold moment prior to which a fetus cannot survive separate from the woman.. As a practical matter, because viability follows "quickening" - the point at which a woman feels movement in her womb - and because viability occurs no earlier than 23 weeks gestational age, it establishes an easily applicable standard for regulating abortion, while providing a pregnant woman ample time to exercise her fundamental right with her responsible physician to terminate her pregnancy.492 U.S., at 553-554, 109 S.Ct., at 3075-3076. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 932-933, 112 S.Ct.at 2849. Given the five arguments discussed above regarding viability it can only be concluded that the Spokane Police are not in a position to decide whether an individual within its mothers womb is viable, quick or not, as viability as a term has no clear, discernable legal meaning as applied to the homicide or abortion laws; and, quickening has no clear, discernable legal meaning as it is presently defined in the manslaughter law. The police are not in a legal position to either interpret who a human being or person is in relation to the homicide or abortion laws or to enforce these laws based upon their assumed understanding of these legal terms. 3. When the homicide and abortion laws are in conflict The Spokane Police Department does not have the authority to choose which laws it may enforce and which laws it may not enforce, even if certain laws are in conflict with one another. A. Public Safety is the primary duty of the Spokane Police Department The Spokane Police Department must always act on the side of the innocent and in protection of human life, according to their policies: A. Law Enforcement Code of Ethics Canons of Ethics Canon One ETHICAL STANDARDS Standard 1.1: Members of the Spokane Police Department shall recognize that the primary responsibility of their profession and of the individual member is the protection of the people within the jurisdiction of the United States through upholding of their laws, the most important of which are the Constitution of the United States and the State

23

Constitution and laws derived therefrom. and, Standard 1.6: Members of the Spokane Police Department shall respect and uphold the dignity, human rights, and constitutional rights of all persons. Spokane Police Department, Policy Manual, pgs. 2- 4, adopted May 4, 2011, available at http://www.spokanepolice.org/documents/PolicyManual_website.pdf (last visited July 3, 2011). The Spokane Police Department are not abiding by the Constitution of the United States. They enforce the laws as if human beings and persons are not protected from conception. The authority for making this decision is not given to them by the Constitution of the United States U. S. Constitution or the State of Washington Constitution State of Washington Constitution as these terms are not defined therein. They therefore are not upholding the laws within the Constitutions or the laws derived therefrom and are not uphold(ing). the human rights, and constitutional rights of all persons. U.S Constitution, Amendments IX and X. B.The Manslaughter Act: When the homicide and abortion laws are in conflict the Police must still enforce the homicide laws. Manslaughter in the first degree. RCW 9A.32.060 (2010) (1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when: (a) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or (b) He intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child. General Requirements of Culpability. RCW 9A.08.010 (2010) (1)(b)(c): RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Discussion of Manslaughter: The laws above are clear and are applied in a variety of situations. For example, a hunter, entering a forest for the purpose of killing a deer, who mistakenly kills a human being can be

24

charged and found guilty of manslaughter in Washington and other states. State v. McMahon, Connecticut Supreme Court, 257 Conn. 544, 788 A. 2nd 847, No. 16322,August 14, 2001. The Spokane Police Department faces a similar position regarding abortion and the enforcement of the homicide laws. Without legal definitions of human being or person, viability and quickening, they must enforce the laws that ensure that individuals and organizations in society are held to the same standards as the hunter. One must refrain from certain actions, i.e., shooting a gun, driving too fast, etc., if there is the potential that a human being might be killed. Justice OConnor states, Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 852, 112 S.Ct. at 2807. The Courts statement is supported by the fact that 51% of society believe abortion is morally wrong, while 39% believe it is morally acceptable. Gallup Poll, May 23, 2011, available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-ChoicePro-Life-Lines.aspx ) (last visited July 2, 2011). The Casey Courts statement supports the contention that a human life may be killed in abortion, just as it may be killed during hunting. The requirement to protect human life exists in spite of a clear conflict between these two laws. The police must not support others--mothers, husbands, boyfriends, or anyone or any agency who support an individual in reckless behavior in regards to the life and death of human beings, especially if there is a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur. According to the Manslaughter Law and Supreme Court there may be human beings at risk within the mothers, just as there are human lives at risk in other situations, such as hunting or driving too fast. The police are enforcing these laws as if there are two definitions of human being and person. The first definition is those born, the second is those who have not been born. They

25

treat each set of individuals differently and thereby apply the laws unequally. They are violating there own policies by not enforcing the homicide laws and are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on assumed legal definitions for these terms, which do not exist. B. The Spokane Police Department by not enforcing the Homicide Laws against Planned Parenthood is in violation of The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Declaration of Independence A) Created vs. born The Declaration of Independence is the foundational legal pillar of the Constitution and of all of our laws. The Declaration states in the second paragraph, We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, (1776). A Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson, 1755, the standard English dictionary was used at that time. Britannica Encyclopedia, see Dictionary of the English Language 79 (2002). The Samuel Johnson Dictionary defines the word create: To form out of nothing; to cause to exist.. Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, see Create (1755). When Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, used the word created in the Declaration, he chose not to use the word born. Born is defined as, The participle passive of bear. To be BORN.v.n.pass.(derived from the word To bear, in the sense of bringing forth: as my mother bore me twenty years ago). Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary, see Bear and Born,(1755), Id. Thomas Jefferson made two clear statements regarding the unborn as related to both slaves and to men. The first was made in a comment in 1786 on the failure of the States in 1784, to pass, by only one vote, an article prohibiting slavery in the new Territories after the year 1800: The voice of a single individual of the State which was divided, or of one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented this abominable crime

26

from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent at that awful moment! But it is hoped it will not always be silent, and that the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail.Foley, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, in part 7930, Slavery, abolition of, 811. and the second in a letter to Dupont de Nemours in 1803: For myself and my country, I thank you for the aids you have given it; and I congratulate you on having lived to give those aids in a transaction replete with blessings to unborn millions of men, and which will mark the face of a portion on the globe so extensive as that which now composes the United States of America.Foley, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, in part 4860, Louisiana, Treaty ratified, 519. In comparison, he used the word born and not create in a letter to Thomas Law in 1814, it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule. Some men are born without the organs of sight, or of hearing, or without hands. Yet it would be wrong to say that man is born without these faculties...John Foley, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, in part 5519, Moral Sense, a want of, 592 (1900). Human beings and persons, i.e., all of us, exist prior to birth. Being born does not create men. Men are created and then are born. The Spokane Police Department violates the Declaration by their lack of enforcement of the homicide laws against Planned Parenthood, who engage in taking human beings lives after they have been created. As a result of their own inaction in enforcing the homicide laws against Planned Parenthood, the Spokane Police Department does not recognize that all men are created equal; nor of their unalienable right to life. B. The Right of Kings v Equality: The Idea the United States was Founded Upon Negroes had, for over 250 years, the same not human status as the unborn have carried for the last 38 years. Abraham Lincoln said, My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with

27

all that is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me But if a Negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? If a Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one mans making a slave of another.October, 16, 1854: Paul Angle and Earl Miers, The Living Lincoln 169-170 (1992). The Declaration preceeded the Constitution and the words of the Declaration have a powerful influence upon the meaning of the Constitution. They speak to the decision of the thirteen colonies to form a new country based on the Consent of the Governed and the Right of the People. Declaration, paragraph 2. This was in opposition to the power of the King, whom the Declaration refers to as a Tyrant. Declaration, paragraph 30. Prior to the founding of our country, the king defined who was human, who lived and who died. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, Declaration, paragraph 11. and destroyed the Lives of our People.Declaration, paragraph 26. In the same way, current law makes the unborn individual dependent on the will of the pregnant mother alone, giving her essentially the same power as the king had over the people prior to the Declaration. The founding of our country rid all Americans from the tyranny of a King who could take upon himself all authority. Our country was founded on the belief, unknown and an experiment at the time, that all power and authority rested with the people, all equal to one another, not with a single individual, set above all others. Only in the laws of abortion, of all the laws of our land, the Court has taken the powers of the king and provided them to pregnant mothers. Only a pregnant mother can decide who is human and who is not. Women who are not pregnant, children who are not pregnant and men do not have this power. One pregnant mother requests life-saving surgery for a sixteen week old unborn child and receives it, while another requests death for an individual of the same age and receives it. Only a pregnant mother, including a fourteen-year-old mother, can decide to end the life of her child within her. She, like kings before her, can decide the humanity of her child and take his life. The courts and legislatures, with the polices support and acquiescence have given the absolute power of the king over life and death to pregnant mothers alone, thereby reversing the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is the foundational pillar of our country.

28

Abraham Lincoln saw the same situation in his time. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. Seventh Lincoln-Douglas Debate, October 15, 1858, Alton, Illinois: Angle and Miers, The Living Lincoln 281; and, I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold to do it!. Lincoln, July 10, 1858: Angle and Miers, The Living Lincoln 229. The Spokane Police Department supports laws and practices which are in direct opposition to the principles that our government was founded upon. They support the same powerful idea that our country was founded against, that an individual, in this case--a pregnant mother--can decide issues of life and death over others and thereby decide that all men are not created equal: not her, compared to all other members of society and not her unborn child. The Constitution of the United States of America The Constitution first and foremost states, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. U.S. Constitution. A) We the People and Posterity Over 50 million people, human beings, persons have died in our country since Roe vs. Wade, half of them female. These millions are the Posterity guaranteed the Blessings of Liberty in this revered document. There is no evidence that any of the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution knew, assumed or planned for, the loss of more than 50 million of the People from the Posterity as a result of abortion, when they wrote these most profound words. Posterity came with no assumption of human losses from abortion as it must today.

29

The opposite beliefs regarding the meaning of Posterity have been publicly stated or written by the signers, Founding Fathers and leaders of our country over the past two centuries. The following statement, in reference to the King of England, was used in the Declaration as one of the arguments for founding a new country and for declaring Independence from England in 1776: He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; Declaration, paragraph 9. Other statements include, We contemplate this rapid growthto the multiplications of men susceptible of happiness, educated in the love of order, habituated to self government, and value its blessing above all price.President Thomas Jefferson, First Annual Message, Dec. 8, 1801: Merrill Peterson, Thomas Jefferson, Writings 503 (1984). It has also been a great solace to me, to believe that you are engaged in vindicating to posterity the course we have pursued for preserving to them, in all their purity, the blessings of self-government, which we had assisted too in acquiring for them.Jefferson letter to James Madison, February 17, 1826: Peterson, Thomas Jefferson, Writings, 1515. And not only so, but the increase of our population may be expected to continue for a long time after that period, as rapidly as before; because our territory will not have become full. I do not state this inconsiderately. At the same ratio of increase which we have maintained, on an average, from our first national census, in 1790, until that of 1860, we should, in 1900, have a population of 103,208,415.Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 1, 1862, Annual Message to Congress, speaking when the population was thirty-one million: Angle and Miers, The Living Lincoln 520. And Justice OConnor in 1992, Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us, and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one.

30

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S.at 901, 112 S.Ct. at 2833. The Constitutions proclamation of We the People is no longer true. Since the year 1973, 50 million of the people have been killed. 29% of the Posterity of our country have not been born since 1973. The lack of homicide law enforcement by the Spokane Police Department against Planned Parenthood ensures that the first three words of the Constitution, We the People, no longer has the meaning intended by the Constitution and that many more people, i.e., our Posterity will die in the future. Both of these are violations of the Constitution of the United States. B) Separation of Powers The Constitution divides power into three separate and independent areas: Legislative, Judicial and Executive, which form the legal basis of our countrys continued existence: No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. (James Madison, The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison), and No political truth isof greater intrinsic value than that The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison). Pregnant mothers as individuals have accumulated all powers: Legislative power: a pregnant mother writes the law by legally defining human being and person for her unborn child only; Judicial power: a pregnant mother judges whether the law that she has written regarding the existence of a human being within her is legal; Executive power: a pregnant mother executes the law for herself and decides whether the child, the human being living within her, lives or dies.

31

There is no Constitutional language that enumerates rights for any individual to: a) decide whether someone is a human being or not; b) decide which human beings live and which ones die; or c) take the risk that they are killing a human being. Our country was founded on the exact opposite idea: we are all equal. No individual has the power of life and death over others who are equally alive. Therefore, the police have no legal authority to support such rights. America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation.. It has portrayed the greatest of giftsa childas a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered domination over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. (Mother Teresa, amicus curiae brief, U.S. Supreme Court: Loce v. New Jersey, 510 U.S. 1165, 114 S.Ct.1192(1994) and Krail et al. v. New Jersey, 510 U.S. 1165, 114 S.Ct. 1192(1994). The police failure to enforce the homicide laws at Planned Parenthood and acquiescence with certain individuals onlypregnant mothersin exercising all aspects of governmental power for their individual interests over other human beings, is a violation by the police of the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Final Thoughts and Prayer for Relief Lincoln said in discussing the perpetuation of our political institutions, At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up against us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.January 27, 1838: Angle and Miers, The Living Lincoln, 21. By not defining what human life is, the Supreme Court allows death to define our country--past, present and future. We the People and our Posterity cannot exist via the death of the people.

32

Without a definition of human beings or persons and based on the arguments presented, we are justified in stating that individuals from conception, prior to and after birth, are in fact human beings and persons, entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Spokane Police Department does not have the authority to interpret the meaning of human beings or persons in one manner over another, when the legal definition does not exist or has not been defined by the Courts or in Washington State Law. The Spokane Police are presently in violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The Police Departments primary duty is to protect human life. Commenting on Senator Stephen Douglass famous statement that he didnt care whether Negroes were human beings or not, a question that Lincoln repeatedly pressed him to answer, Lincoln said, Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man---such as a policy of dont care on a question about which all true men do care.Speech at the Cooper Institute, Feb. 27, 1860: Angle and Miers, The Living Lincoln, 319. In a famous speech given before President Clinton, Mother Teresa had the courage to state, Yours is the one great nation in all of history that was founded on the precept of equal rights and respect for all humankind, for the poorest and weakest of us as well as the richest and strongest.Your impetus has almost always been toward a fuller, more all embracing conception and assurance of the rights that your founding fathers recognized as inherent and God-given. Yet there has been one infinitely tragic and destructive departure from those American ideals in recent memory. It was this Courts own decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) to exclude the unborn child from the human family...Your opinion stated that you did not need to resolve the difficult question of when life begins. That question is inescapable. If the right to life is an inherent and inalienable right, it must surely exist wherever life exists. No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency. It was a sad infidelity to Americas highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined, when the inalienable right to life began for a child in its mothers womb.Mother Teresa, amicus curiae brief, Id; guest speaker, National Prayer Breakfast, February 5, 1994.
Dedication: I dedicate this effort to my wife, Virginia, who stated the Truth about abortion. In our first talk, she calmly said, You dont know much about abortion do you? She suggested, Read Roe v Wade and then well have a discussion---LC

33

Respectfully submitted on this________day of July, 2011.

________________________ LAWRENCE CRONIN ________________________ MICHAEL WALTERS _______________________ VIRGINIA CRONIN _______________________ DOUGLAS TURNER ___________________________ RICHARD HANSON

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_______day of July, 2011. ___________________________ Notary public in and for the State of Washington. My Commission expires: ________

34

35