Declaration of mailing: i certify 1 mailed a true and correct copy of this pleading and exhibits to

petrfjonerat 2906 SW 339th Street, Federal Way Washington 98023 on

JAH 2?
Ofih

VOflCo,Urr
CLQfy.
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christiansen NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
DOB 02/24/01 Exclusively assigned to Rogers J (ECD 448)

James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father, REQUESTED UPDATE RE
and CONTEMPT
Sederis W. Wright
Respondent Mother.

Respondent submits this requested contempt compliance update as directed in

this Court's January 16, 2015 order.

Petitioner has not provided any of the parenting information ordered as of 11:24

a.m. 1/22/2015. ' ' • ;

Instead petitioner has filed voluminous pleadings with the Court of Appeals and

one long motion for recusal with this Court.

Dated Thursday, January 22, 2015 and signed by:

DonaldW. Ferreil WSBA 1973

Attorney for Respondent

Page 1 Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973

10309 W. Kingswood Circle
Sun City AZ 85351-1940
206.522.5027
 FILED
15 JAN 30 PM 4:25

KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 01-5-00795-6 SEA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

GAIn re Parenting of: no. 01-5-00795-6 SEA

R.D.C.
(dob 2/24/2010) Child, NOTICE FOR HEARING
SEATTLE COURTHOUSE ONLY
JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON (Clerk's Action Required) (NTHG)
Petitioner,
and
SEDERIS W. WRIGHT
Respondent.
TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT and to all other parties per list on Page 2:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an issue of law in this case will be heard on the date below and the Clerk is
directed to note this issue on the calendar checked below.

Calendar Date: FEBRUARY 10, 2015 Day of Week: TUESDAY

Nature of Motion: MOTION TO STRIKE CR 11-VIOLATING PLEADINGS

CASES ASSIGNED TO INDIVIDUAL JUDGES - SEATTLE

If oral argument on the motion is allowed (LCR 7(b)(2)), contact staff of assigned judge to schedule date and time
before filing this notice. Working Papers: The judge's name, date and time of hearing must be noted in the upper
right corner of the Judge's copy. Deliver Judge's copies to Judges' Mailroom at C203

[X] WITHOUT oral argument

Date/Time: FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Judge's Name: JIM E. ROGERS

You may list an address that is not your residential address where you agree to accept legal documents.

n
James D. Christianson Dated January 30, 2014
1911 SW Campus Drive, #704
Federal Way, WA 98023-7732
(206) 522-5027

DO NOT USE THIS FORM FOR FAMILY LAW OR EX PARTE MOTIONS.

NOTICE FOR HEARING - SEATTLE COURTHOUSE ONLY Page 1
ICSEA06/22/12
www.kinqcountv.qov/courts/scforms
 LIST NAMES AND SERVICE ADDRESSES FOR ALL NECESSARY PARTIES REQUIRING NOTICE

DONALD W. FERRELL, WSBA #1973 Name

Attorney for Sederis W. Wright Service Address:_
4127 NE 96th Street City, State, Zip
Seattle, WA 98115 WSBA# Atty. For:.
****and**** Telephone*:
10309 W. Kingswood Circle
Sun City, AZ 85351

IIVPORTAIMT NOTICE REGARDING CASES

Party requesting hearing rrust file moticn 8iaffidavfts separately alcng wththis notice. List thenames, addresses andtelephcre
nuTbers ofall parties requiring notice (irdudng GAL) onthis page. Serve a ccpy ofthis notice, v^mrjtimcbarrents, cnall
parties.

Theaignal rrust befiled atthe Clerk's Office not less tr^nsixcajtcfeys priatorc<^jestBdl^aringcate, except fa Summary
Jidjnent rvbticns (tobefiled wthClerk 28days inad/arce).

TKS IS Ct\LY APAFUTAL SLMvftRY OF THE LOCAL RULES ANDALL PARTIESARE ADVIS ED TO CONELLT WTH AN
ATTORNEY.

The SEATTLE COURTHOUSE is in Seattle, Washington at 516 Third Avenue. The Clerks Office is enthe sixth fleer, room
E609. lTieJudops'rvfeilrocmisRccrnC203.

NOTICE FOR HEARING - SEATTLE COURTHOUSE ONLY Page 2

ICSEA10/12/11
www.kinqcountv.gov/courts/scforms
Declaration of mailing: I certify I priority mailed a true and correct copy of this pleading and order
to Mtjfione*jat 1911 SW Campus Drive #704, Federal Way, WA 98023-7732 on 2/4/15

Donald W. Ferreil' " .„•->- .........

-r
, t~td
^q^S-^G^
-o, ^'u/y

****»«**, C^f^c
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christianson NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
DOB 02/24/01 Exdusiveiv assigned to Rogers J (ECD 448)

James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father, REQUEST FOR AN*
and ORDER
Sederis W. Wright Setting Contempt Compliance
Respondent Mother> Hearing

REQUEST

Petitioner James D. Christianson was heid in contempt of this Court on December 2,

2014. A compliance hearing was scheduled. Respondent requests this Court to set a

compliance hearing date for petitioner to appear and show cause why he should not be
sentenced to jailfor his failure to purge his contemptofcourt. Petitioner appealed.

Petitionermovedfor a stay ofthe order and compliance hearing at the Courtof Appeals
Division 1. His motion was denied by order dated January 25, 2015 specifically finding "his
repetitive accusations against his opposing counsel and the trial court judge throughout thebrief
abusive". Exhibit A. Petitioner has not complied.

Icertify under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Washington theforgoing is
true and correct.

Signed at Sun City AZ on February 3, 2015

Donald W. Fetoeff WSBA 1973 Affomey for Respondent

Paoe j Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973
* 10309 W Kingswood Circle
Sun City AZ 85351
Phone: (206) 522.5027
 FILED
KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
FEB 12 2015

SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christianson NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
Exclusively assigned to Rogers J fECP 448)
DOB 02/24/01
James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father, ORDER TO APPEAR AT
10 CONTEMPT COMPLIANCE
and
HEARING
Sederis W. Wright
[1 Respondent Mother.

12
Petitioner James D Christianson is ordered to appear person before this Court at
13
the place and time below and show cause why he should not be sentenced to jail for his
14 failure to comply with this Court's December 2, 2014 order holding him in contempt for
15
failure to comply with the parenting plan and another order.
.CO
Date: T%frZXX**cU^ 2&) 2Q\^ Time: \Q *. C^fmJp.m.
16
Place: ^\\ \f~- CKll rtk X PbUuPfrVlA&L- Room/Department: \$~1?M
17 If you fail to appear in person and defend at these proceedings the court may or
18 issue a bench warrant for your arrest without further notice to you.
)mprisor\ment is requested by respondent, if you cannot afford an attorney, you
19
may request the court toiappoint
appoint an attorney to represent
represent you. jpv
20

21 Order dated Q^jiZ-j fS^ and signed by:

22

23

Page 1 Donald W Ferreil WSBA 1973

10309 W Kingswood Circle
Sun City, AZ 85351
206.522.5027
 The Court ofAppeals
of the
Riciiard d. joiinson State of Washington tsvfstoa i
iotirt AdmmislratorX ierx * ° One Union Square
MK> 1'niversuy StTcet
Seattle. V\ A
<3» 101-4I7B
(20&)464~775H
TDD: l2tK»»58?55tt5

January 26, 2015

Donald Wayne Ferreil James D. Christianson

Attorney at Law 1911 SW Campus Drive #740
4127 NE 96th St Federal Way, WA, 98023
Seattle, WA, 98115-2541 prosedad@iive.com
dwflaw@comcast.net

CASE #: 72897-1-1
Parentage of RDC. James P. Christanson. Appellant v. Sederis W. Wright, Respondent

Counsel:

The following notation ruling by Commissioner Masako Kanazawa of the Court was entered on
January 26, 2015, regarding appellant's motion to stay:

"This is a parentage case. On December 31, 2014, James Christianson (father) filed a
notice of appeal from the trial courts December 2, 2014 order on show cause regarding
contempt. In the order, the trial court found that Christianson intentionally and in bad faith
failed to comply with the court's orders on parenting plan entered in October 2002 and also
failed to comply with a parenting order entered in September 2014. The court ordered
Christianson to pay attorney fees of $1,500 and costs of $150. On January 7, 2015, more
than a month after the entry of the December 2, 2014 order, Christianson filed a 38-page
"emergency" motion to stay the contempt order. However, Christianson does not demonstrate
an emergency. Also, a stay is not warranted.

Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Case No. 72897-1-1, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

In his over-length motion, Christianson identifies no basis for a stay. Only in his reply
brief does he cite RAP 8.1(b). Under RAP 8.1 (b)(3), this Court maystay the trial court's
decision if Christianson demonstrates (1) that his appeal presents a debatable issue and (2)
thatthe harm without a stay outweighs the harm that would result from it. In balancing the
harm, this Court considers whether a stay is necessary to maintain the status quo and
preserve the fruits of a successful appeal in light of the equities of the situation. See Purser v.
Rahm. 104 Wn.2d 159, 177, 702 P.2d 1196 (1985). In granting a stay, the appellate court
ordinarily conditions such relief on the furnishing of a supersedeas bond, cash, or other
security. RAP 8.1(b)(3).

Currently, Christianson's separate appeal from the trial court's order on modification of
child support is pending in this Court (No. 72357-0-I). The Court's motion to dismiss for his
failure to file designation of clerk's papers and a statement of arrangements is set for a
hearing on January 30, 2015. In that appeal, Christianson has yet to file the required
documents despite this Court's letter of January 6, 2015 directing him to do so. Respondent
Sederis Wright (mother) argues that any stay should be conditioned on Christianson's
furnishing of a supersedeas bond, cash, or other security. But a stay is not warranted and is
denied.

First, Christianson demonstrates no debatable issue on appeal. At the outset, I note

that his motion and reply contain strongly-worded, serious accusations against the mother's
counsel and the trial court judge. For example, Christianson calls Judge Rogers' conduct
"outrageous and egregious, and possibly even incompetent (if it was not willful)." Motion at 6.
He claims, "Judge Rogers has desecrated and destroyed the integrity of the court system and
made a mockery of it and shamed the judicial branch and shattered the public confidence in
the courts." Motion at 7. He claims, "Judge Rogers' conduct is an outrage, let alone a show of
bias and abuse of discretion, utterly shattering the integrity of the judicial branch and the
public's confidence there - while causing me to suffer, on a tort-like level." Motion at 19. He
claims attorney "Ferreil in fact has made a living out of seeing what he can get away with and
has been successfully sued for malpractice." Motion at 19. There are other accusations of
similar nature in Christianson's briefs. Although I accepted his over-length motion, I find his
repetitive accusations against his opposing counsel and the trial court judge throughout the
brief abusive.

Christianson argues that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him to enter the
contempt order. But this is a parentage case, where the court acquired continuing jurisdiction
over the parties, including Christianson (petitioning father), and the subject matter in 2001.
See RCW 26.26.160.
Page 3 of 4
Case No. 72897-1-1, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

Christianson argues that that he was not personally served with the November 7, 2014
show cause order that required him to appear on November 25, 2014. But it appears that he
was personally served with the order and the contempt motion on November8, 2014 through
delivery to his address by professional messenger service, where his co-resident mother
accepted the service. Christianson points out an error in the show cause order describing
November 25, 2014 as a Thursday, although it was a Tuesday. But Judge Rogers' bailiff
confirmed through email to Christianson that the "hearing is set for Tuesday, 11/25 at 10 am in
W-764." On November 23, 2014, Christianson replied in email to the bailiff, stating, "The 25th
is on a TUESDAY. The Order to Show Cause says THURSDAY and it says 20." In light of
Christianson's objection, the trial court continued the hearing from November 25 to December
2, 2014 by issuing a corrected show cause order. Although Christianson claims that the
corrected show cause order had to be personally served, he shows no authority for his
argument. He was personally served with the show cause order (with a minor error that was
soon clarified) along with the contempt motion 24 days before the December 2, 2014 hearing
(or 17 days before the initially scheduled November 25 hearing). Christianson complains that
the email containing the corrected show cause order was sent to his old address. But he did
receive it and filed an objection to the December 2 contempt hearing on jurisdictional
grounds. Then, he did not appear at the December 2 hearing. In view of the parties'
arguments and the documents presented, I conclude that Christianson's personal jurisdiction
and service arguments present no debatable issue on appeal.

Christianson also argues that he had a right to be appointed an attorney on a contempt

motion. "When an adjudication may result in incarceration, the person accused must be
provided with appointed counsel if he or she cannot afford private representation." State v.
Knight, 142 Wn. App. 291, 174 P.3d 1198 (2007). But the contempt order did not order his
incarceration; the order assessed attorney fees and costs against him. The trial court found
Christianson in contempt of its September 2014 order that required him to provide Wright
(mother) with the current names and phone numbers of the child's healthcare providers,
counselors, therapists, and teachers/schools and documentation concerning the child's well-
being, including copies of report cards, school meeting notices, vacation schedules, class
programs. The order allowed Christianson to purge the contempt by providing the required
information to the mother's agent by December 16, 2014. Although Christianson states Judge
Rogers is now considering jail time at a January 23, 2015 review hearing, he may seek
appointment of counsel for the hearing at the trial court.

Second, even if Christianson demonstrates a debatable issue on appeal, a stay is stiil

not warranted because he fails to demonstrate that the harm without a stay outweighs the
harm that would result from it, considering the equities of the situation. In the December 18,
2014 order striking Christianson's motion for recusal/disqualification (as filed and noted for the
same day - December 18, 2014), the trial court noted:
Page 4 of 4
Case No. 72897-1-1, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

The contempt hearing is Monday at 10 am. The underlying issue is very simple.
Mr. Christianson has always been the sole decision-maker and he alone has
access to the child's school and medical records. The original parenting plan
requires him to provide this information to Ms. Wright, which he has not done
currently. Mr. Christianson declines to address his failure, which frankly could be
easily remedied, and the Monday hearing stricken. He prefers to fight, based
upon technical arguments of notice and service.

The equities do not favor a stay.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Christianson's motion for a stay is denied."

Sincerely,

Richard D. Johnson
Court Administrator/Clerk

emp
 The Court ofAppeals
ollric
kici iard d. johnson. State of Washington _ .j*™" i
Court Atlmmislralor/Ck-ri J a One UnionSquare
606 University Street
Seattle, WA
9X101-4170
T^fT PT. (206)464-7750
JT MlLumLU m& (2061587-5505
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FEB 12 2015

SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

oi-e-Ccnae-u?
January 26, 2015

Donald Wayne Ferreil James D. Christianson

Attorney at Law 1911 SW Campus Drive #740
4127 NE 96th St Federal Way, WA, 98023
Seattle, WA, 98115-2541 prosedad@live.com
dwflaw<S)comcast. net

CASE #: 72897-1-1
Parentage of RDC. James P. Christanson, Appellant v. Sederis W. Wright, Respondent

Counsel:

The following notation ruling by Commissioner Masako Kanazawa of the Court was entered on
January 26, 2015, regarding appellant's motion to stay:

"This is a parentage case. On December 31, 2014, James Christianson (father) filed a
notice of appeal from the trial court's December 2, 2014 order on show cause regarding
contempt. In the order, the trial courtfound that Christianson intentionally and in bad faith
failed to comply with the court's orders on parenting plan entered in October 2002 and also
failed to comply with a parenting order entered in September 2014. The court ordered
Christianson to pay attorney fees of $1,500 and costs of $150. On January 7, 2015, more
than a month after the entry of the December 2, 2014 order, Christianson filed a 38-page
"emergency" motion to stay the contempt order. However, Christianson does not demonstrate
an emergency. Also, a stay is not warranted.

Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Case No. 72897-1-1, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

In his over-length motion, Christianson identifies no basis for a stay. Only in his reply
brief does he cite RAP 8.1(b). Under RAP 8.1(b)(3), this Court may stay the trial court's
decision if Christianson demonstrates (1) that his appeal presents a debatable issue and (2)
that the harm without a stay outweighs the harm that would result from it. In balancing the
harm, this Court considers whether a stay is necessary to maintain the status quo and
preserve the fruits of a successful appeal in light of the equities of the situation. See Purser v.
Rahm, 104 Wn.2d 159, 177, 702 P.2d 1196 (1985). In granting a stay, the appellate court
ordinarily conditions such relief on the furnishing of a supersedeas bond, cash, or other
security. RAP 8.1(b)(3).

Currently, Christianson's separate appeal from the trial court's order on modification of
child support is pending in this Court (No. 72357-0-I). The Court's motion to dismiss for his
failure to file designation of clerk's papers and a statement of arrangements is set for a
hearing on January 30, 2015. In that appeal, Christianson has yet to file the required
documents despite this Court's letter of January 6, 2015 directing him to do so. Respondent
Sederis Wright (mother) argues that any stay should be conditioned on Christianson's
furnishing of a supersedeas bond, cash, or other security. But a stay is not warranted and is
denied.

First, Christianson demonstrates no debatable issue on appeal. At the outset, I note

that his motion and reply contain strongly-worded, serious accusations against the mother's
counsel and the trial court judge. For example, Christianson calls Judge Rogers' conduct
"outrageous and egregious, and possibly even incompetent (if it was not willful)." Motion at 6.
He claims, "Judge Rogers has desecrated and destroyed the integrity of the court system and
made a mockery of it and shamed the Judicial branch and shattered the public confidence in
the courts." Motion at 7. He claims, "Judge Rogers' conduct is an outrage, let alone a show of
bias and abuse of discretion, utterly shattering the integrity of the judicial branch and the
public's confidence there - while causing me to suffer, on a tort-like level." Motion at 19. He
claims attorney "Ferreil in fact has made a living out of seeing what he can get away with and
has been successfully sued for malpractice.'' Motion at 19. There are other accusations of
similar nature in Christianson's briefs. Although I accepted his over-length motion, I find his
repetitive accusations against his opposing counsel and the trial court judge throughout the
brief abusive.

Christianson argues that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him to enter the
contempt order. But this is a parentage case, where the court acquired continuing jurisdiction
over the parties, including Christianson (petitioning father), and the subject matter in 2001.
See RCW 26.26.160.
Page 3 of 4
Case No. 72897-1 A, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

Christianson argues that that he was not personally served with the November 7, 2014
show cause order that required him to appear on November 25, 2014. But it appears that he
was personally served with the order and the contempt motion on November 8, 2014 through
delivery to his address by professional messenger service, where his co-resident mother
accepted the service. Christianson points out an error in the show cause order describing
November 25, 2014 as a Thursday, although it was a Tuesday. But Judge Rogers' bailiff
confirmed through email to Christianson that the "hearing is set for Tuesday, 11/25 at 10 am in
W-764." On November 23, 2014, Christianson replied in email to the bailiff, stating, "The 25th
is on a TUESDAY. The Order to Show Cause says THURSDAY and it says 20." In light of
Christianson's objection, the trial court continued the hearing from November 25 to December
2, 2014 by issuing a corrected show cause order. Although Christianson claims that the
corrected show cause order had to be personally served, he shows no authority for his
argument. He was personally served with the show cause order (with a minor error that was
soon clarified) along with the contempt motion 24 days before the December 2, 2014 hearing
(or 17 days before the initially scheduled November 25 hearing). Christianson complains that
the email containing the corrected show cause order was sent to his old address. But he did
receive it and filed an objection to the December 2 contempt hearing on jurisdictional
grounds. Then, he did not appear at the December 2 hearing. In view of the parties'
arguments and the documents presented, I conclude that Christianson's personal jurisdiction
and service arguments present no debatable issue on appeal.

Christianson also argues that he had a right to be appointed an attorney on a contempt

motion. "When an adjudication may result in incarceration, fire person accused must be
provided with appointed counsel if he or she cannot afford private representation." State v.
Knight, 142 Wn. App. 291, 174 P.3d 1198 (2007). But the contempt order did not order his
incarceration; the order assessed attorney fees and costs against him. The trial court found
Christianson in contempt of its September 2014 order that required him to provide Wright
(mother) with the current names and phone numbers of the child's healthcare providers,
counselors, therapists, and teachers/schools and documentation concerning the child's well-
being, including copies of report cards, school meeting notices, vacation schedules, class
programs. The order allowed Christianson to purge the contempt by providing the required
information to the mother's agent by December 16, 2014. Although Christianson states Judge
Rogers is now considering jail time at a January 23, 2015 review hearing, he may seek
appointment of counsel for the hearing at the trial court.

Second, even if Christianson demonstrates a debatable issue on appeal, a stay is still

not warranted because he fails to demonstrate that the harm without a stay outweighs the
harm mat would result from it, considering the equities of the situation. In the December 18,
2014 orderstriking Christianson's motion for recusal/disqualification (as filed and noted for the
same day - December 18, 2014), the trial court noted:
Page 4 of 4
Case No. 72897-1-1, Parentage of RDC
January 26, 2015

The contempt hearing is Monday at 10 am. The underlying issue is very simple.
Mr. Christianson has always been the sole decision-maker and he alone has
access to the child's school and medical records. The original parenting plan
requires him to provide this information to Ms. Wright, which he has not done
currently. Mr. Christianson declines to address his failure, which frankly couldbe
easily remedied, and the Monday hearing stricken. He prefers to fight, based
upon technical arguments of notice and service.

The equities do not favor a stay.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Christianson's motion for a stay is denied."

Sincerely,

Richard D. Johnson
Court Administrator/Clerk

emp
Declaration of mailing: I certify I mailed, H$t class postage paid, true and correct copy of this
.petitioner at 1211 SW Campus Drive #704, Federal Way, WA 98023-7732 on 2/4/15
' iVS^ ffl
\irjjll4* W FILED
-CINQ COUNTY, WASHINGTON
/. lFerre!l
FEB 12 2015

SUPERIORCOURTCLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christianson NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
DOB 02/24/01 Exclusively assigned to Rogers J (ECD 448)

James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father,
and MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
Sederis W. Wright &
Respondent Mother. ORDER EXTENDING TIME

MOTION

Relief Requested:

Respondent requests an order extending time for hearing on petitioner's notice for

hearing of his motion to strike respondent's pleadings dated January 30. 2014 (sic) with

decision requested on February 10, 2015 until properly noted.

FACTS

Petitioner has once again wrongfully noted a motion for hearing on the civil rather than

the family law calendar. His notice and his motion are both dated January 30, 2014. Both

arrived in a priority mail envelope tracked as follows:

Tracking Number: 9505500024265030000200

„ ~~.~ ^„-. Delivered, In/At Mailbox „, „, „,_, »-,--„-..,

February 2, 2015, 12:54 pm SUN CITY, AZ 85351

February 2, 2015 . 9:46 am Out for Delivery SUN CITY, AZ 85351

Page ] Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973

10309 W Kingswood C irde
Sun City AZ 85351
Phone: (206) 522.5027
February 2. 2015 , 9:36 am Sorting Complete SUN CITY, AZ 85351

February 2, 2015 , 5:05 am Arrived at Post Office SUN CITY, AZ 85351

February 2, 2015 , 2:30 am Departed USPS Facility PHOENIX, AZ 85043

February 1, 2015 ,10:57 pm Arrived at USPS Facility PHOENIX, AZ 85043

February 1, 2015 , 5:15 am Departed USPS Facility KENT, WA 98032

January31, 2015 , 10:21 pm Amved at USPS Origin Facility KENT, WA 98032

January 30, 2015 , 4:36 pm Acceptance (SSK) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023

This matter has long been on the 14 day family law motion calendar schedule by order

of Judge Rogers.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington the forgoing is
true and correct.

Signed at Sun City AZ on February 3, 2015

Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973 Attorney for Respondent

ORDER

Tho February 10. 2016 dote for decision is extended until peliliunm pmpeily iiulbs il on

thgjjjday family law inuliun calendar.

Order signed on "Mi*- [" by;

ondent's attorney TO 7Sd

Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973
10309 W Kingswood Circle
Sun CftyAZ 85351
Phone: (206) 522.5027
 FEB 12 2015
S^FWORCOURTCLERK

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
In re Parenting of:
R.D.C. No. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
(dob 2/24/2010) Child,

JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON ORDER re MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS

Petitioner,
and
SEDERIS W. WRIGHT Clerk's Action Required
Respondent.

THIS MATTER CAME ON FOR HEARING Petitioner James Christianson's Motion to Strike
Respondent's CR 11-Violating Pleadings Having read the pleadings and reviewed the file, the
court being fully informed, the court entered the following.

IT IS ORDERED:

The motion is denied.

•tf
The court maRelTtl is foJlwuafl_finajngs of facts and conclusions of law as to why
Pleadings should not be strickervwTTeTrthe^ calling ofthe custodial
parent such as"coward" or "mentally ill" or ''slu^la*~tTf^dangerous,, are as follows:

rv^*><h^&-+*-
_Li**L •fav*~c£+J
ksrZusfW' ^"^V &*<- U-*~*.\r<L4
"jlw /\\js>h^~ Mro f^k*^*^*^ Ap jprf^-^J',

ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS - 1 CO*>C<*- .

 [ 1 \ The motion is granted.
James Christianson shall submit a list of all documents {with Sub #, page and line
number of offensive language) and the court will review and enter and order striking
'leading if indeed there are abusive, insulting, personal attacks that are irrelevant
;ould have only been used to personally attack or insult-

Other orders,\f any:

21
Entered on February 1ft 2015
22 E. Rogers

23 Presented by:

24

25
Jajfies Christianson, pro se
26 Petitioner
ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS - 2
Declaration of mailing: 1certify I mailed a true and correct copy of this pleading and exhibits to
petitioner at 2906 SW 339th Street, Federal Way Washington 98023 on jFJX, R fck
•<«*3 COUNTY WASHINGTON
FEB 12 2015

SUPEWOR COURTCLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christianson NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
DOB 02/24/01 Exclusively assigned to Rogers J {ECO 448)

James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father, REQUESTED UPDATE RE
and CONTEMPT
Sederis W. Wright
Respondent Mother.

Respondent submits this requested contempt compliance update as directed in

this Court's January 16, 2015 order.

Petitioner has not provided any of the parenting information ordered as of 11:24

a.m. 1/22/2015.

Instead petitioner has filed voluminous pleadings with the Court of Appeals and

one long motion for recusal with this Court.

Dated Thursday, January 22, 2015 and signed by:

DoriaTd W. Ferreil WSBA 1973

Attorney for Respondent

Page Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973

10309 W. Kingswood Circle
Sun City AZ 85351-1940
206.522.5027
Declaration of mailing: I certify I priority mailed a true and correct copy of this pleading and order
to Rfftitionepvat 1911 SW Campus Drive #704, Federal Way, WA 98023-7732 on 2/4/15

id^m. FILE1>
<JNQ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FEB 12 2015

SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
SEALED FILE
In re the Parentage of: Reed Christianson NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA
DOB 02/24/01 Exclusively assigned to Rogers J (ECD 448)
James D. Christianson
Petitioner Father, REQUEST FOR AN*
and ORDER
Sederis W. Wright Setting Contempt Compliance
Respondent Mother. Hearing

REQUEST

Petitioner James D. Christianson was held in contempt of this Court on December 2,

2014. A compliance hearing was scheduled. Respondent requests this Court to set a

compliance hearing date for petitioner to appear and show cause why he should not be

sentenced to jail for his failure to purge his contempt of court. Petitioner appealed.

Petitioner moved for a stay of the order and compliance hearing at the Court of Appeals

Division 1. His motion was denied by order dated January 26, 2015 specifically finding "his

repetitive accusations against his opposing counsel and the trial courtjudge throughout the brief

abusive". Exhibit A. Petitioner has not complied.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington the forgoing is
true and correct.

Signed at Sun City AZ on February 3,2015

)onald W. FeVrell WSBA 1973 mey for Respondent

Page I Donald W. Ferreil WSBA 1973
10309 W Kingswood Circle
Sun City AZ 85351
Phone: (206) 522 5027
 FILED
*1NG COUNTY, WASHINGTON

t-hB 17 2015

SUPERIORCOURTCLERK

LN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

Christianson

Petitioner,
vs.

NO. 01-5-00795-6 SEA

Wright

Respondent

Email to bailiff is attached.

Gillum, Monica

From: J <prosedad@live.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:35 PM
To: Gillum, Monica
Subject RE; CHRISTIANSON V. WRIGHT

Where does your incompetent boss get the idea that email from a judge is a form of service?

And why does he act like Ferreirs personal secretary and draft orders on his behalf? Oh yeah, they're in bed
together against me.

As a woman of color do you enjoy your boss working FOR a racist, sexual deviant abuser of women? How
does it fee! to be helping such perverts?

From: Monica.Gillum@kingcounty.ROv
To: prosedad@live.com; dwflawfficomcastnet
CC: svd wrightQ7@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: CHRISTIANSON V. WRIGHT
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:40:21 +0000

Please see attached Orders.

'Monica

Aiwuca (fi££um
53(ii£i#faffadgefames £. //fag&%a
Jiing 6<wittt{ Cewdfieiue
5/6 yfivtdGacmie; Cvuvt-umm £-/26'f
Seati£e,Wa 9SM4
(206) 477-/597(&*ect)
(2C6) 296-<?9$6(faa:)

'/aJJ&ing&aujtip^HW
(P&ase note: In order to a%>oid'inappropriate exjparte contact please ma^e sure affparties are includedin the email Hihis
message is intendedfor the use ofthe individualor entity ofwhich it is emailed Ifyou receive this in errorplease notify by
telephone or emailandthe contents shallnot Se disclosed, copied usedoraCtered