SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON,

COUNTY OF SPOKANE NO. 11-2-03051-7

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

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS; REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL ON QUESTION OF FACT

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO THE REPLY The Police/City Response should be denied. The Response to the Petition by the Police/City was filed four days late. As per RCW 7.16.190(2010) the Police/City had a minimum of ten days to respond; Petitioners allowed 20 days. Thus, the Response was due Monday, August 15th, 20 days after July 25th, but was not submitted until August 19th.Washington State Court Rules: Superior Court Civil Rules, CR 6. We ask that the Court deny the Police/City Response and apply sanctions for responding late. We are aware that the Writ cannot be granted by default.RCW 7.16.190(2010) REPLY The following is our REPLY to the POLICE/CITY RESPONSE, quoted here, before each reply. I PARAGRAPH I RELIEF REQUESTED BY PETITIONERS In response to paragraph I, Relief Requested by Petitioners, these allegations are legal conclusions and/or political opinions to which no response is required, and are therefore denied. REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 1.
Petitioners: Cronin, Hanson, Walters and Turner, 6716 E. Big Meadows Rd., Chattaroy, WA 9900

The Police/City do not offer any evidence or logical argument as to why these allegations are legal conclusions and/or political opinions. They do not specify the allegations. Response to: political opinions: Our Petition is based on these words, We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.Roe v. Wade. With these words the Supreme Court decided not to decide who human beings or persons are. This case ranks first in our history as: 1) a legal decision which is not a legal decision at all-- based on these very words, as the Justices did not judge, or, 2) a legal decision which was legally irrational. The Roe Court goes on to justify its decision using an argument related to viability and trimesters as relates to pregnancy. Subsequent legal decisions, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart have refuted these arguments, showing them to have no basis in rational thought or legal argument. The Supreme Court Justices themselves acknowledge this in their opinions in these cases. The case is irrational because: 1) the Court stated they could not decide, then did; or, 2) because its logic for deciding was irrational as proven in later cases. The Petition discusses all of these points. If, as a result of the Supreme Courts decision and manner of deciding in Roe v Wade, the topic has taken on a political aspect, this is due to the Supreme Courts actions, not the Petitioners actions. If it is political, no case or argument can be made without it also becoming political. This is not a legally justifiable reason to deny the hearing of this Petition. The Petitioners hold no political opinions that they are arguing in the Petition and none are presented. Response to: legal conclusions: As there is no court decision and no law defining when life begins, we state in the Petition that human beings and persons legally begin at conception and their lives continue until death. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee all human beings these and other rights unless limited by law or court decisions. They have not been so limited, therefore all individuals from conception have an equal right to life, as per the Fourteenth Amendment. The Petition makes a cogent argument regarding this based on the Constitution, these Amendments and Supreme Court cases. II PARAGRAPH II STATEMENT OF FACTS/STATEMENT OF GROUNDS BY PETITIONERS In response to paragraph II, Statement of Facts/Statement of Grounds by Petitioners, these respondents admit that petitioners requested SPD officers to enforce the homicide laws against the practice of lawful abortion at Planned Parenthood, and that officers explained that abortion is lawful and therefore they would not initiate an investigation into an allegation of unlawful homicide. These respondents further assert that the remainder of the allegations in said paragraph are legal conclusions and/or political opinions to which no response is required, and that these respondents are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in said paragraph. REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 2.

We refer to our arguments in number I above. In addition, as the Supreme Court has not decided when human life begins, or who human beings or persons are, the Police do not have a legal right to decide this. We argue that abortion is homicide. We argue this in the Petition as no law or court decision exists which prevents this conclusion. The Police do not have the right to chose to enforce one law over another. They do have a clear duty to act on the side of human life as per the laws and their own policies. We present this legal argument in the Petition. The Respondents mention truth in their last sentence. What is Truth? The Petitioners case is an attempt to seek and define the truth. However, we recognize that when a Supreme Court case is, in and of itself, not a legal decision or an irrational one, it is difficult to know the truth. We are arguing our points rationally, logically and legally so that the truth may be known. We are doing this via this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. This Petition for a Writ of Mandamus involves a question of fact, as opposed to the law, i.e., legal conclusions---as the Respondents state in three of their responses. The laws on homicide, including manslaughter and the laws on abortion are unclear and inconsistent, as we have argued in this Petition. Neither set of laws define who human beings or persons are. We ask the Court to try the question before a jury as to the matter of this fact: who is a human being and who is a person, as this fact has not been determined by the courts or by the legislature. This fact is the core element of our case, affects our rights and establishes the truth upon which this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is based. We ask the Court to postpone the argument until such trial can be had and a verdict rendered on this matter of fact. RCW 7.16.210-7.16.240(2010) The Police/City have not enumerated remainder of the allegations in said paragraph, so we do not know what they may be referring to. III PARAGRAPH III STATEMENT OF ISSUES/ARGUMENT In response to paragraph III, Statement of Issues/Argument (pages 3-33 of the Petition), these respondents assert that all of the allegations are legal conclusions and/or political opinions to which no response is required and are therefore denied. We refer to our arguments in numbers I and II above. The Police/City attempts to dismiss over 30 pages of substantive legal argument, with the terms legal conclusions and/or political opinions, without identifying or specifying the actual legal conclusions or the alleged political opinions. What the respondents assert needs to be specified---so that we can discuss in this Court. REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 3.

IV AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The petitioners do not have standing. The Police/City makes no legal argument to justify their contention that we do not have standing. We discuss this in the Petition, page 2, #3 and elsewhere. They have not disputed this argument. We are citizens and taxpayers of Spokane City and County. We support the Police Department. We have a right to request that the homicide laws be enforced equally at all geographical locations within the jurisdiction of the Spokane Police Department, as do all other citizens and individuals. We so requested and were denied our request. As a result this agency action has prejudiced each of the Petitioners. Our asserted interests as discussed in the Petition are the protection of human life, via the enforcement of the homicide laws, the foundation of all of our laws, which the agency was required to consider when it engaged in the agency action challenged. Standing:RCW 34.05.530(2010) We have standing in that: 1) the Police denied our request, which we have a legal right to make, compared to similar requests; and, 2) the Police are not protecting our individual rights to Public Safety compared to all other members of the community by denying our request; and, 3) there is no internal policy that specifically prevents the Police from investigating these deaths as homicide, as the Police policies agree with these human beings and persons Constitutional rights on this issue, as argued in the Petition. By denying our request the Police are not uphold(ing) the dignity, human rights, and constitutional rights of all persons., as stated in their own policies. Spokane Police Department, Policy Manual, Standard 1.6. We have been prejudiced in all three instances thereby. The rights of the Petitioners have been individually violated as per our discussion on page 2, #3 of the Petition. In Spokane, since 1973, over 40,000 individuals have been eliminated from each of the Petitioners lives, which represents over 10% of the population. These individuals would have affected each of the Petitioners lives in some way, as politicians, police officers, priests, doctors, friends, or individuals who would have made a life-changing comment to us in the park, or saved the life of someone we knew, or any number of other personal interactions or life-changing events. The homicide laws also protect our community as a whole. The homicide of one individual may not affect many individuals, but every homicide does affect the community. This Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is being sought in order to afford standing to legal human beings and persons in relation to a civil authority. REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 4.

2. Mandamus is not available as a basis to challenge the constitutionality of governmental action or inaction. We find no language in the Mandamus Law nor argument by the Police/City to support this contention. RCW 7.16.150-7.16.280(2010) All laws follow the Constitution and its Amendments, the supreme laws of our land. When certain laws of our land are not consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution must be followed. The Mandamus Law is one of many that seeks to assure that the Constitution is adhered to by government agencies and their actions. 3. There is no clear duty to act under the law to enforce criminal homicide laws against the lawful practice of abortion. We do not argue that the criminal homicide laws be enforced against the lawful practice of abortion. We argue in the Petition that there is a clear duty to enforce the homicide laws, based on the fact that abortion is homicide; and that if this is in doubt, there is a clear duty under the Manslaughter section of the Homicide Laws; and that the Police do not have the right to decide which laws they may enforce even if they conflict with one another. As these laws are clear and the Police actions in enforcing them are clear in all other instances, they must be followed in the instances we are discussing: all human beings and persons are legally such from conception until death. This is argued forcefully in the Petition. We apply our reply to PARAGRAPH I, to this response also. 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. We argue as in 3. above. Human beings and persons exist from conception until death. There is no discretion required by the Police in enforcing the homicide laws everywhere and equally with all human beings and persons, as we argue in the Petition. 5. Mandamus may not lie to compel a general course of official conduct, as it is impossible for a court to oversee the performance of such duties. There is no argument in the Petition to compel a general course of official conduct and the Police/City do not provide any evidence of this in the Petition. The Petition does not seek the court to oversee the performance of any duties. 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 REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 5.

involved differing from that pertaining to the general public. Mandamus does lie at the instance of compel(ling) the performance of an act(homicide laws) which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or stationRCW 7.16.160(2010). The rights of the Petitioners specifically have been individually violated. The Police denied our requests as documented in the Petition because they occurred at a building known as Planned Parenthood; our requests would have been allowed as reported by any other individuals, if the homicides had occurred at any other site in Spokane. We also apply our argument in number 1, as our reply to this question. 7. Courts are not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to order a state officer to adhere to the Constitution. We find no language in the Writ of Mandamus Law that would limit the Court from doing so as a Writ is issued to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. Although our Petition does not ask the court to order state officers to adhere to the Constitution, we believe we could do so as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As citizens of the United States we are all required to abide by the laws of our land--the Police included-- all of which are based on the Constitution. Additionally, the Spokane Police Departments policies state that their primary responsibility as individual members is the protection of the people within the jurisdiction of the United States through upholding of their laws, the most important of which are the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution and the laws derived therefrom. Standard 1.1. This is discussed in the Petition. We see nothing here that we are in conflict with in Mandamus Law. Summary: We do not believe that the arguments stated by the Police/City of Spokane provide a legal basis with which to deny us the right to have our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus heard in Superior Court. This Petition involves the very first right---the right to be legally recognized as a human being, a person--and to be protected under the laws of our land. As no court or law has decided who a human being or person is, we request a jury trial, in order to decide the fact of who WE the people are. This discussion belongs in a court of law, where we believe it should have taken place. As Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision, no legislative action can resolve this question of who a person or human being is. It must be resolved in a court of law, where it began and was never rationally discussed or resolved. We make the statement that: human beings and persons exist legally from conception until death, as is the peoples right as provided us in the Constitution and the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is clearly and legally argued in the Petition. The Petitioners respectfully ask that their Petition for a Writ of Mandamus be heard in Superior Court, in Spokane, Washington in this year. REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 6.

Respectfully submitted and dated this _____day of September, 2011, ____________________ Lawrence Cronin ____________________ Virginia Cronin _________________ Richard Hanson

____________________ Michael Walters

____________________ Douglas Turner

REPLY TO RESPONSE, PAGE 7.