K
Kirk Whitcombe
Guest
What is the name of your state? Washington State
In 1996 the State judiciary states they moved our property boundary lines previously established by existing surveys of record, making us trespass, and fined us for trespassing, without showing they moved our property boundary lines or what laws were followed in doing so. (1) The State then bought our land to satsify the State's judgment against us, the purchase included the area the judgment moving our property boundary lines said was no longer ours because the judgment failed to disclose where it moved our property boundary lines. (2)
According to state law, The Survey recording Act, Public Disclosure Law, citizens property boundary lines can not be moved without public disclosure, RCW 58.09.040 Records of survey--Contents -- Filing--Replacing corner, filing record, and compliance to existing laws regarding surveys, subdivisions, platting and boundaries, which the Survey Recording Act supplements, RCW 58.09.010 Purpose -- Short Title. Furthermore judgments affecting real property are required by state law to be recorded, RCW 65.04.070 Recording judgments affecting real property. The Federal Bureau of Land Managment has produced a letter condemning such State practices, pretending to be following their (BLM) advice, as violating State Citizens Bona Fide Property Rights. (Please see 43 USC 772)
Since the State is not following the laws or Federal advice we asked the state in two seperate court actions to review what they are doing to our Rights. In response the State fined us $4000 for filing such a "frivolous" lawsuit (3) and, for filing a claim that "Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction" to address and we have "failed to state a claim" even though we and the Federal government allege citizens Bona Fide Property Rights are being violated. (4)
We are very poor financially and can not afford to pay the two recent judgments against us without sacrificing food and giving up our children to the DSHS for lack of fiancial support. The DSHS has already put us on six years probation in 2001 so we had to leave the state in order to keep together as a family.
We have not found a way to fight government corruption when government refuses to provide public disclosure affecting our property rights.
Respectfully, Kirk and Susan Whitcombe, Shane (14) Katie (13) Sterling (11) and Lionel (10) email - [email protected] (623) 551-3900
(1) 9/20/96 King County Henak v Whitcombe Judgment # 95-2-02783-1-SEA.
(2) 9/22/97 King County Lis Pendens No. 95-2-02783-1. State financially satisfied judgment without state's compliance to state's own judgments cause. Henaks got paid $53,216.17 for filing lawsuit but never got title for the extra land they sued for. The State got the property the judgment said no longer was ours. Both the State and Henaks are satisfied by this "under color of state law" arrangement and have been defending their interests in State courts ever since. King County Assessors rolls based upon square footage assessments, Whitcombe land parcel - #112308-9011, Henaks land parcel - # 112308-9050, Whitcombe Staaaatutory Warranty Deed # 1849486-1, and unchanged 1979 Bennett Short Plat No. 1278085, King County recording No. 7907240737, which controls the location of the common boundary line between Henaks and Whitcombe's confirms.
(3) Court of Appeals No. 42170-5-1 & 52005-9-1 (consolidated) Unpublished Opinion, now on appeal in State Supreme Court Case # 75807-7-7 Kirk Whitcombe, et, ux, v. Richard kitz, et ux, et al.
(4) Whitcombe v State, Okanogan County Superior Court # 01-2-00065-1, now on appeal in Court of Appeals 111, No. 21637-3-111.
In 1996 the State judiciary states they moved our property boundary lines previously established by existing surveys of record, making us trespass, and fined us for trespassing, without showing they moved our property boundary lines or what laws were followed in doing so. (1) The State then bought our land to satsify the State's judgment against us, the purchase included the area the judgment moving our property boundary lines said was no longer ours because the judgment failed to disclose where it moved our property boundary lines. (2)
According to state law, The Survey recording Act, Public Disclosure Law, citizens property boundary lines can not be moved without public disclosure, RCW 58.09.040 Records of survey--Contents -- Filing--Replacing corner, filing record, and compliance to existing laws regarding surveys, subdivisions, platting and boundaries, which the Survey Recording Act supplements, RCW 58.09.010 Purpose -- Short Title. Furthermore judgments affecting real property are required by state law to be recorded, RCW 65.04.070 Recording judgments affecting real property. The Federal Bureau of Land Managment has produced a letter condemning such State practices, pretending to be following their (BLM) advice, as violating State Citizens Bona Fide Property Rights. (Please see 43 USC 772)
Since the State is not following the laws or Federal advice we asked the state in two seperate court actions to review what they are doing to our Rights. In response the State fined us $4000 for filing such a "frivolous" lawsuit (3) and, for filing a claim that "Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction" to address and we have "failed to state a claim" even though we and the Federal government allege citizens Bona Fide Property Rights are being violated. (4)
We are very poor financially and can not afford to pay the two recent judgments against us without sacrificing food and giving up our children to the DSHS for lack of fiancial support. The DSHS has already put us on six years probation in 2001 so we had to leave the state in order to keep together as a family.
We have not found a way to fight government corruption when government refuses to provide public disclosure affecting our property rights.
Respectfully, Kirk and Susan Whitcombe, Shane (14) Katie (13) Sterling (11) and Lionel (10) email - [email protected] (623) 551-3900
(1) 9/20/96 King County Henak v Whitcombe Judgment # 95-2-02783-1-SEA.
(2) 9/22/97 King County Lis Pendens No. 95-2-02783-1. State financially satisfied judgment without state's compliance to state's own judgments cause. Henaks got paid $53,216.17 for filing lawsuit but never got title for the extra land they sued for. The State got the property the judgment said no longer was ours. Both the State and Henaks are satisfied by this "under color of state law" arrangement and have been defending their interests in State courts ever since. King County Assessors rolls based upon square footage assessments, Whitcombe land parcel - #112308-9011, Henaks land parcel - # 112308-9050, Whitcombe Staaaatutory Warranty Deed # 1849486-1, and unchanged 1979 Bennett Short Plat No. 1278085, King County recording No. 7907240737, which controls the location of the common boundary line between Henaks and Whitcombe's confirms.
(3) Court of Appeals No. 42170-5-1 & 52005-9-1 (consolidated) Unpublished Opinion, now on appeal in State Supreme Court Case # 75807-7-7 Kirk Whitcombe, et, ux, v. Richard kitz, et ux, et al.
(4) Whitcombe v State, Okanogan County Superior Court # 01-2-00065-1, now on appeal in Court of Appeals 111, No. 21637-3-111.