SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON,

COUNTY OF SPOKANE NO. 11-2-03051-7 ADDENDUM TO: REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS; REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL ON QUESTION OF FACT

LAWRENCE CRONIN, VIRGINIA CRONIN RICHARD HANSON, MICHAEL WALTERS DOUGLAS TURNER Petitioners, vs. SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE Respondents.

Reason for this ADDENDUM This ADDENDUM provides legal arguments, based on case law; and a recently reported Spokane Police Action, which are here submitted as additions to the Petitioners REPLY to the City/Polices RESPONSE to the PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. The case citations, the reported Spokane Police Action and arguments are presented as each relates to a specific, Affirmative Defenses, which the City/Police filed in their RESPONSE. Copies of all cases and the Reported Police Action are attached in the order that they are discussed. Affirmative Defenses and Addendum Replies 1. The Petitioners do not have standing. OConnor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589, 458 P.2d 154 (1969) This Writ of Mandamus was filed by a woman who was trying to recover damages from a party but did not have the fees to file the complaint in court. She filed a writ of mandamus to proceed in forma pauperis as this had been denied to her by the court. *2+ As the petitioner here maintains, the question whether she is entitled to pursue her ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 1

remedy at law for the alleged wrong, in spite of her poverty, raises a fundamental issue and one which must be decided by this court ultimately, whatever the answer of the superior court might be. We have said that we will assume original jurisdiction when the application involves the interests of the state at large, or of the public, or when it is necessary to afford an adequate remedy.. Although only an individuals right is being asserted in this proceeding, the question to be decided involves very deeply the interests of the public and in particular those of a regrettably large segment of our society. The right of the poor to obtain redress for wrongs, and to defend themselves when sued by the more affluent, is presently of nationwide concern, as is evidenced by the attention given to the subject in legal periodicals We are convinced that the question presented in this case is of such significant public import and urgency that we are justified in assuming original jurisdiction. *3+ The purpose of the rules of practice and procedure adopted by this court is to simplify and facilitate practice and, wherever possible, to eliminate delay in reaching a final determination of litigation, civil or criminal, on the merits. No rule of this court was ever intended to be an instrument of oppression or injustice or to deprive a litigant of his life, his liberty or his property without due process of law. *4, 5+ The inherent power of this court is the power to protect itself; the power to administer justice whether any previous form of remedy had been granted or not; the power to promulgate rules for its practice and the power to provide process where none exists.. In the matter presently before the court, we need only determine whether the petition is urged in good faith and presents an issue of probable substance, and we are convinced that it does. Application filed in the Supreme Court September 11, 1968, for a writ of mandamus. Granted. State of Washington, on the Relation of Romano v. Yakey, 43 Wash. 15, 85 P.990 (1906) This Writ of Mandamus was filed by a man who had been found guilty of assault with intent to murder. He had later produced witnesses who were willing to state that the two people who testified against him at his trial, were guilty of the crime of perjury. The first objection is that the relator is not a party beneficially interested. Of course, the fact that he was convicted on the testimony of these witnesses gives him no special interest in this proceeding. There is, no doubt, a conflict of authority as to whether a private party can be the relator in an application for a writ of mandamus concerning a public right or duty. In discussing ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 2

this question in State ex. Rel. Piper v. Gracey, 11 Nev. 223, the court said: Upon this proposition there is an irreconcilable conflict in the decisions of the different states. In Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California, they fully support the position of respondents, and hold that to entitle a private citizen to move for and prosecute the writ, he must show that he has some private or special interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be pursued and protected, independent of that which he holds in common with {*19} the public at large, and that it is for the public officers to apply when public rights alone are to be subserved..But we think the better and more reasonable rule is established by the decisions of the courts of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, which hold the opposite doctrine, and maintain that when the question is one of public right, and the object of the mandamus to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the relator is not required to show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient if he show that he is interested, as a citizen, in having the laws executed and the right enforced The Supreme Court of Washington denied the Petitioners Writ on other grounds. Our case is one of significant public import and urgency. We have shown via our PETITION that we are interested in having the laws executed and the right enforced We present these cases to show that we do have standing via our REPLY and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS and the arguments therein. 2. Mandamus is not available as a basis to challenge the constitutionality of governmental action or inaction. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) Although a Writ of Certiorari, we believe the eloquence of this Supreme Court decision regarding its discussion of the Little Rock Nine high school students and its relevance to and legal justification of Washington States Writ of Mandamus Law, specifically: RCW 7.16.160; as well as its discussion of the Courts power and authority based on the Constitution in all cases of law, allows us to use this in our ADDENDUM TO REPLY. This case was a test of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) The controlling legal principles are plain. The command of the Fourteenth Amendment is that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no [358 U.S. 1. 17] other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under State government..denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the States power, ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 3

his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has not meaning.Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.339, 347. Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action.. The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendments command that no State shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.. The historic phrase a government of laws and not of men epitomizes the distinguishing character of our political society. When John Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he was not indulging in rhetorical flourish. He was expressing the aim of those who, with him, framed the Declaration of Independence and founded the Republic. A government of laws and not of men was the rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat, whether by the fiat of governmental or private power. Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court. Even this Court has the last say only for a time. Being composed of fallible men, it may err. But revision of its errors must be by orderly process of law.. No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 307-309(concurring opinion). Certiorari Granted, unanimous opinion, United States Supreme Court, September 12, 1958 The Police cannot support the deaths of human beings at any building in Spokane, WA, just as the schools supported segregation. The Police cannot rule by fiat that human beings and persons do not exist from conception until death. The Police must abide by the Constitution. These powerful and eloquent legal points are similarly, though not so eloquently, argued in the REPLY and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. D.C.R. Entertainment, Inc. v. Pierce County, 55 Wn. App. 505, 778 P.2d 1060 (1989) This Writ of Mandamus case involved the right of an adult entertainment business to obtain a county license to operate. *2+. These provisions may not be applied to adult entertainment licenses because a license to engage in constitutionally protected expression may not be denied based on the character of the applicant or the effects upon the general welfare. And, *6,7] Nude dancing is protected ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 4

expression under the First Amendment, 452 U.S. 61, 66, 68 L.Ed 2d 671, 101 S. Ct. 2176 (1981).The prevailing view under the First Amendment is that nude dancing is entitled to the same degree of protection as is expression at the core of the amendment. SEE KEV, INC. v. KITSAP CY., 793 F.2d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 1986). NATURE OF ACTION: The Superior Court for King County, No. 87-2 17312-7, Jim Bates, J., on February 10, 1989, granted a writ of mandamus and awarded the plaintiff attorney fees. We present this case to show that a Writ of Mandamus can be used as a basis to challenge the constitutionality of governmental action or inaction, which we state and argue in our PETITION. 4. A writ of mandamus compels an officer to perform a ministerial duty and cannot be used for purpose of compelling the performance of a duty which requires the exercise of discretion. Reported Spokane Police Action, The Spokesman Review, Friday, September 23, 2011, pg. A-7 The Spokane Police served a search warrant for an aborted fetus at Planned Parenthood, at the East Indiana Clinic, during the week past, of September 23, 2011. The Spokane Police Department obtained an aborted fetus and his/her fetal tissue. The police investigation of the crime of rape is the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or stationRCW 7.16.160, as is the investigation of unlawful homicides. As our Petition argues that all individuals are human beings and persons from conception until death, the Police have a duty to perform homicide investigations at Planned Parenthood at 123 E. Indiana, in Spokane, WA, as aborted fetuses exist at Planned Parenthood. No discretion by the Police is involved when a building contains human bodies and body parts; fetuses are human beings and persons, as we argue in our PETITION. The Spokane Police are exercising discretion that they do not legally have a right to exercise as argued in our REPLY and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. We also apply this argument in our reply to number 1., above. 6. Mandamus does not lie at the instance of an individual to enforce laws generally, or to compel a general course of conduct. There must be some specific right of the applicant involved differing from that pertaining to the general public. We apply our answer to number 1., above, as our reply to this City/Police RESPONSE, in addition to our argument in the REPLY. 7. Courts are not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to order a state officer to adhere to the Constitution. ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 5

We do not amend our answer in the REPLY, but we add our answer to number 2., above, to this City/ Police RESPONSE. Summary: We refer to our summary in our REPLY. The Petitioners respectfully ask that their PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS be granted in the Superior Court of Washington, County of Spokane, this year, 2011. Further, by way of reservation of rights, without waiver, Petitioners reserve the right to amend its REPLY by way of adding additional REPLY addendums, which may be appropriate after further investigation and discovery.

ADDENDUM TO REPLY, PAGE 6

Respectfully submitted this _____day of September, 2011,

_______________________
Lawrence Cronin

_____________________
Virginia Cronin

___________________
Richard Hanson

__________________________ Michael Walters

________________________ Douglas Turner