This UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL ordinance against firearms in the Park si an ATTORNEY problem, not just a Council problem. Realize that the Council is composed here, as most everywhere, of CITIZENS, as it should be. Problem is, they are likely not versed in law. In the REICHland (sorry, I cant leave that jab alone, it works too well) the City Attorney made the Ordinances up, with FULL KNOWLEDGE AHEAD OF TIME THEY WERE ILLEGAL.
Heres my Grievance filed with the Washington State Bar Association. Hopefully youll copy/paste and file it also.
-------------------
David R Campbell
PO Box 1336
Richland WA 99352-1336
WSBA ODC
1325 Fourth Ave Suite 600
Seattle WA 98101-2539
10 January, 2010
Re: Grievance filing, attached statement thereto
To whom it may concern,
History.
The present matter and Grievance concerns several parties:
1.) Respondent, Thomas Lampson acting as City of Richland Attorney,
2.) Grievant David R. Campbell, a private Citizen of Richland, WA,
3.) The City of Richland WA
The matter overall involves an RCW Statute known as “preemption” referring to RCW 9.41.290, both the US and WA Constitutions, AGO Opinion 2008 # 8 and a Richland City Ordinance 9.22.70.
Both the U.S. and WA. Constitutions forbid Government to Infringe on Citizens Right to Bear Arms. RCW 9.41.290 forbids (Richland) from making a more restrictive Ordinance. Said RCW sets forth that any such Ordinance made contrary to preemption is pre-empted and repealed. The restrictions set forth by the Legislature,
as noticed by McKenna in AGO 2008 # 8 are with respect to:
1.) Restricted places such as inside a Court room
2.) Concealed weapons
3.) brandishing and reckless discharge of
with Mc Kennas clear note that said restrictions are intended to be extremely narrow. Why? Because the Legislature knows that they are acting in deliberate disregard for both Constitutions!
Earlier than November, 2008, the City of Richland did make a more restrictive thus illegal, pre-empted and repealed Ordinance known as 9.22.70 prohibiting Citizens possessing “weapons” in Howard Amon Park
(“the Park”)within the City of Richland, WA. Amon is a Public Park held out to Public use. “Weapons” under RCW, Definitions, includes firearms. Grievant was apparently in the employ of the City of Richland, WA when and after the Ordinance(s) was (were) enacted.
I discovered this Ordinance by means of a sign posted at the Park entrance adjacent to the Richland Community Center. The sign read “Weapons prohibited, including paintball guns.” This is, in fact, a total ban on possession of firearms in the Park.
I corresponded with the Respondent via the US Mail advising that RCW forbade such an Ordinance, and Respondent wrote back in complete agreement.
A year elapsed wherein Richland had opportunity to change said sign twice, once to remove the restriction on paintball guns, and after I ridiculed this on the Tri Cities Tea Party website, to replace the paintball gun restriction.
Dr. Robert Margulies, also a Richland resident, and myself confronted the Richland City Council in an open meeting last November regarding this matter. Respondent, as recorded for broadcast on Richland’s Public Access Cable channel 13, and as I audio-tape recorded, made two statements in response to Margulies questions:
1.) That the sign had not been changed,
2.) That the Ordinance would be corrected.
We were promised that the sign a/o Ordinance would be corrected.
Some weeks passed and I discovered that the sign had been changed, this time to allow concealed carry of firearms (CCW) but to prohibit all other weapons. This is forbidden by both Consitutions and Pre-emption Statute
since:
1.) Open - carry of firearms is not regulated under RCW, especially ‘long arms’ (other than pistols)
2.) Exclusion of open carry is more restrictive than RCW allows
I wrote a letter to the Richland City Council and Respondent, and have received no reply.
We confronted the City Council in the first January, 2010 Council session with no response.
Copies of documentation referred to, and audio recording of Respondent statements in the Council session are published at this web-site:
http://second-amendment.tripod.com
These facts are obvious:
1.) Richland’s Ordinance is clearly illegal, pre-empted and repealed. No such Ordinance(s) now exist(s) by the authority of the People through the WA Legislature,
2.) Respondent was apparently an Employee of Richland before said Ordinance was enacted,
3.) Respondent admitted in writing in his capacity as City Attorney that said Ordinance was:
a.) contrary to RCW with the words “conflict with State Law,”
b.) admitted that RCW was sufficient,
c.) admitted to “...prepared(ing) and circulated(ing)...” an Ordinance to “address and eliminate...”
4.) According to WSBA records, Respondent is an Admitted Attorney in WA State, bound by Professional Ethics of the Courts.
5.) Respondent did not make material objection to such illegal Ordinance, nor did he resign his position as a City Employee to preserve Public Trust, Ethics and Law, if/when pressured to comply with the Councils wishes to enact such an Ordinance.
Allegation of misconduct.
1.) Respondent, being an Attorney since at least 1983:
a.) knew of pre-emption Opinion of McKenna at least after November, 2008 after which the revised Ordinance was admittedly made, and knew beforehand that said Ordinance was illegal as it was more restrictive,
b.) knew that said Ordinance was repealed on its creation,
c.) probably had a hand in, or created said Ordinance in the first place,
d.) admitted to creating the replacement Ordinance, which is also illegal, pre-empted and repealed,
e.) had full knowledge of Law and Ethics did these unethical and illegal acts with fore-knowledge that such were unconscionable, unethical and illegal,
f.) made deliberate and willful false misrepresentations to Council, Citizens, Margulies and Grievant to the correction of sign and Ordinance(s), knowing (or should have known) the sign was changed already, and knowing that the Ordinance(s) had been repealed,
g.) has acted to, and continues to aid and abet Richland in creating, publishing and taking enforcement power in re. an Ordinance a/o Ordinances which in fact do not exist in light of repeal of RCW 9.41.290,
h.) that Respondents actions are contrary to the Courts Rules of the following sections of RPC:
1.) Rule 4.1, making willful and foreknowing mis-statements to “(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person”:
a.) to others such as Margulies and Grievant,
b.) presumably the same to the Council in advising them to make said un-Constitutional, illegal, pre-empted and repealed Ordinance else they,
being generally ordinary Citizens, would not have had knowledge to make said Ordinance,
2.) Rule 4.4 (b) (1) Respondent has clearly acted to disregard the rights of the entire People by creating 9.22.070 for Richland, his Employer, to deprive the People of their Rights.
3.) Respondent was under no obligation to make said Ordinance or assist Richland in the same, or remain in the Cities employ per RPC 1.16 (b) (4) and 6.2 (c) [2] as to “disagree with” and “repugnant cause,” since Respondent admits in writing to disagreeing with Richland’s Ordinance which is more restrictive thus illegal.
i.) That Respondents conducts rises to the level of serious misconduct under ELC 6.2 (E).j.) That considering that Respondent acted with foreknowledge that such acts were illegal and doing so in attempting to circumvent the Constitutions, Due Process and the Rights of the People at large, that suspension be ordered per ELC 13.3 especially as we note in “Fundamental Principles Of Professional Conduct:”
“Without it, individual rights become subject to unrestrained power,respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.”
Such unrestrained power to deprive the People of their Rights is categorically and expressly forbidden under both Constitutions.
Sincerely,
David R. Campbell
-------------------
The Grievance form is at:
http://www.wsba.org/info/operations/odc/grievance.htm
and is:
http://www.wsba.org/info/operations/odc/updatedapril2007.pdf
Court Rules, including RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/index.cfm
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=gaelc0505.01&pdf=1
Ill post the Grievance form and response letter from the Bar Assn on the front page:
http://second-amendment.tripod.com