Paramjit B.

68 · Washington · Stafford Creek Corrections Center · 7 views

(This profile was written by a family member.) Our family belongs to the Sikh religion and came to the United States…

(This profile was written by a family member.) Our family belongs to the Sikh religion and came to the United States from Punjab, India, in January 2006 as legal permanent residents. Unfortunately, in July 2009, our family was caught in a tragedy caused by a chemical imbalance in my father’s brain. Our family then became a victim of Washington State’s tyranny when my father was unlawfully and arbitrarily charged, prosecuted, and convicted of TWO separate counts of murder for ONE victim under the Second Amended Information (see Sub #131 and 157–158, Case No. 09-1-05492-1 KNT). We believe this violated his fundamental constitutional rights to PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY and to a FAIR TRIAL. Legal references cited: - Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 65–66 n.19 and 20, 57 L.Ed.2d 43, 98 S.Ct. 2170 (1978), citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1), which provides that “it may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means.” - State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 800, 802 P.2d 116 (1990), citing State v. Scott, 64 Wn.2d 992, 993, 395 P.2d 377 (1964) After the double jeopardy violation appeared on the face of the record, and after his defense counsel refused to act, my father filed a letter/motion titled “Dismissal Under CrR 8.3(b)” (Sub #177) with the trial court on April 20, 2012 (his sentencing day), to explain the circumstances warranting dismissal, consistent with State v. Sonneland, 80 Wn.2d 343, 347 (1972) (“It is the only practicable way by which trial courts can be informed of circumstances warranting dismissal”). The superior court judge disregarded the court’s constitutional duty to rule on the merits of the motion within 90 days (see RCW 2.08.240; Wash. Const. art. 4 §20; art. 1 §10: “Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay”). The trial court effectively buried his CrR 8.3(b) motion and left him without a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy (see In re Bennett, No. 52503-4-I (Div. I 2004): a writ of mandamus is proper where an error committed by an inferior court is not correctable through an appeal). Further, the trial court imposed the sentence without jurisdiction (see Roberts v. Lockett, 2009 WL 2998148; 2:09-cv-1012 (2009), quoting Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62–63 (1975): a very narrow exception exists where the court was “without jurisdiction to impose any sentence,” as where a petitioner’s protection against double jeopardy is violated). After an unsuccessful direct appeal and numerous personal restraint petitions, and with the help of another inmate, he filed a motion for a nunc pro tunc order (Sub #304–305, dated 7/29/25), asking the superior court to rule on the CrR 8.3(b) motion he filed on 4/20/2012. On 08/08/25, the superior court entered an order transferring that motion to the Court of Appeals as a CrR 7.8 motion (Sub #307). I’m reaching out to the world for legal help and support in fighting the justice system. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (206) 779-4338 or missrai1987@gmail.com.

Please review our community guidelines before writing — and never send money or gift cards to someone you haven't independently verified.