Practice Law 5j592k

RCW 2.48.170 & RCW 2.48.190 and Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Code of 1881 give Luis Anthony Ewing and Kurt Ranald Riggin the RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT ISSION BY THE SUPREME COURT Both Luis Ewing and Kurt Riggin who are in good standing in the following Foreign Jurisdictions: Federal Bar Association, American Bar Association, Puyallup Tribal Court, Muckleshoot Tribal Court, Kikialis Tribal Court, Snoqualmoo Tribal Court, Tulalip Tribal Court and the National Native American Bar Association have the Right To Practice Law WITHOUT ISSION BY THE SUPREME COURT pursuant to former RCW 2.48.170, RCW 2.48.190 and Section’s 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881. See former RCW 2.48.170 Only active may practice law which reads in part: “. . .PROVIDED, THAT A MEMBER OF THE BAR IN GOOD STANDING IN ANY OTHER STATE OR JURISDICTION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPEAR IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE.” And;

It is undisputed that the 27 Federally Recognized Indian Tribes located within the geographical territory of Washington are specifically recognized as being “INDIAN COUNTRY” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1154, 1161, 25 U.S.C. 3631 and Washington law at RCW 26.25.010, RCW 26.26.011 (19), RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a) and RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a), RCW 26.27.021 (16) & RCW 26.27.041 therefore qualify as a foreign “jurisdiction” or “State” separate from the State of Washington as contemplated by RCW 2.48.170 & RCW 2.48.190.

See former RCW 2.48.190

Qualifications on

ission to practice which reads in part: “. . . That an attorney of another state may appear as counselor in a court of this state without ission, upon satisfying the court that his or her state grants the same right to attorneys of this state.

When former RCW 2.48.170 and former RCW 2.48.190 are construed and read together in “pari materia” to give each the force and effect of law they would read: “That a member of the Bar in good standing in any other State or Jurisdiction shall be entitled to appear in the courts of this state without ission upon satisfying the court that his or her state grants the same right to attorneys of this State.”

Note: Luis Ewing has already met this requirement and was allowed to represent a client twice in the King County Superior Court in Cause No.: 01 2 00172 5 by the Honorable Dale

Rammerman) Furthermore, for clarification we may look at the prior law which is controlling pursuant RCW 1.04.010 and to 1 Stat 122 and 2 Stat. 298. See the 1881 TERRITORIAL CODE OF WASHINGTON CHAPTER CCL. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW. SECTIONS 3275 & 3276.

See

Section 3275 to wit: SEC. 3275. The following persons are entitled to practice as attorneys and counselors in all the courts of this territory: (1.) All citizens of the United States who were duly itted as attorneys and counselors of the supreme or district courts, before the age of this chapter, and whose names are still on the rolls of attorneys of those courts; (2.) All citizens of the United States who present to any court of record [in the territory a license from any court of record] in any other state or territory, showing that the person presenting the same has been duly itted to practice in said court; (3.) All citizens of the United States who are over twenty-one years of age and who shall present to any court of record in this territory a diploma or certificate from a law college or law school, and are found upon examination under the direction of the court, to posses the requisite qualifications of learning and ability, and who shall be examined and itted as hereinafter provided. And; SEC. 3276. All citizens of the United States applying for ission to practice as attorneys and counselors in this territory, EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES OF THE FOREGOING SECTION, must apply to the supreme court or any district court of the territory, when in session, and must show: (1.) That they are of the age of twenty-one years, which proof may be made by their own affidavit; (2.) That they are persons of good moral character, which may be proved by certified or other evidence satisfactory to the court; (3.) That they have diligently studied the common law and the laws of this territory, for at least eighteen months previous to the date of their application, under the direction of some practicing attorney within the territory, and are well versed in said laws, the proof of which shall be the certificate of the attorney under whose direction the applicant has studied.

Section 3276 makes it clear that both Luis Ewing and Kurt Riggin falls in the “exceptions” of being required to apply to ission by your Washington State Supreme Court as listed in the “first, second and third clauses of the foregoing section.” SEC. 3275, supra. Furthermore, subsection (7) of the unlawful practice statute RCW 2.48.180 makes it clear that both Mr. Ewing and Mr. Riggin cannot be lawfully charged with violating the unlawful practice statute RCW 2.48.180 since the above cited Washington statutes allow them to practice “without ission” by the Washington Supreme Court. See RCW 2.48.180 at subsection (7) to wit: “RCW 2.48.180 . . . (7) In a proceeding under this section it is a defense if proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the offense, the conduct alleged was authorized by the rules of professional conduct or the ission to practice rules, or Washington business and professions licensing statutes or rules.”

It is clear that the Grant County Prosecutor’s have committed perjury by charging Ewing and Riggin with practicing law unlawfully as both a “legal provider” & “non-lawyer,” when they had prior knowledge they were NOT and have NEVER been of the WSBA.

Luis at Please send DONATIONS to Luis Ewing c/o General Delivery, (City of) Copalis Crossing, State of Washington [98636]