278-1 SCOTUS Writ of Certiorari 06-05-2023

Case 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Document 278-1 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 42


No.

In the Supreme Court of the United States
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN,

Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
(DSHS), ET AL.,
Respondents
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

to the Washington State Supreme Court
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERIORARI
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

CANDIDCAROLYN®
PO Box 38097
Phoenix, Arizona 85069
(253) 588-8100
[email protected]
Petitioner self-represented
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to a case of which the

central concern is a violation of the constitutional right to due process beginning
with the lack of legal representation in a civil commitment hearing and leading to
the unlawful incarceration and chemical lobotomy of a competent individual to
ensure that the individual has a fair opportunity to seek legal redress for the
violations they endured and the resulting harm?
2. Would it be just, fair, and equitable to examine the application of the doctrine
of equitable tolling in a case where substantial evidence reveals perjury, bad faith,
gross negligence, deception, falsification of court and medical records, and fraud,
including Medicaid fraud, in order to decide whether equitable tolling should be
allowed to extend the statute of limitations?
3. Is it just and equitable to examine whether the State can use the statute of
limitations to prevent suit over the course of this case, the State has been allowed to
violate numerous United States Constitutional rights, Federal laws, and State laws,
especially given the presence of unconscious bias in prior rulings and the resulting
severe harm?
4. Should this Court consider the conflicting federal rulings in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (WAWD), where the
court allowed a defendant in a related case to remove a case from the superior court
to the federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331–which grants the federal district
courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, while
denying the same removal right to the plaintiff citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441–outlines the
provisions for the removal when the case involves federal jurisdiction, which is
claimed to only grant defendants the right to remove a case? Put in a different form.
Is it just to permit only defendants removal of civil actions to the original federal
court jurisdiction yet plaintiff's are not permitted the same removal rights.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions Presented .......................................................................i

Table of Authorities ......................................................................iii
Related Cases (appx P) .................................................................vi
List of Parties ……………………………………………………...…vii
Opinions Below ..............................................................................1
Jurisdiction ….................................................................................1
Constitutional & Statutory Provision Involved ...................2, 3, 4
Summary …….………….………………………………………….….5
Statement of the Case ...................................................................6
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ….………………………………….19
Reason for Granting the Writ of Certiorari ...............................19
Conflicting Decisions of Fed & State Courts to be Resolved….19
Justice for All ….……………………………………………….…….28
Conclusion ...................................................................................28
Appendix (Appx) .........................................................................30
PUBLIC RECORDS
1. Public Records, to include Court Records and other Court Filings, including Drug
violations; https://www.scribd.com/user/588285009/Carolyn ........8, 10,12, 14, 19
2. Western State Hospital Master Facilities Plan, SEPA
Checklist LU-20-00027 and LU 20-00030;
Dropbox - Public Comments received 7.27-8.5.2022 - Simplify your life ……19
3. Public Comment: Proposed Western Expansion Project Dropbox link
provided by the City of Lakewood regarding Western: Objections
Public Objection; Dropbox - 7.27. 2022 Public Hearing Western State Hospital
Master Facilities Plan Staff Report and Attachment - Simplify your life ......14
4. Rob Wipond: Investigative journalist exposing fraud; (460) How Psychiatric
Fraud Drives Forced Hospitalizations - YouTube ………………………………14
5. Nellie Bly went undercover to expose an insane asylum’s horrors.
How Nellie Bly went undercover to expose abuse of the mentally ill | PBS
NewsHour ……………………………………………………………………………18
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES page(s)
Addington v. Texas (1979)

441 U.S. 418, 426 ...................................................................................20, 21
Bennett ex rel. Estate of Bennett v. United States, (2006)
429 F.Supp.2d 270 (D.Mass.) ……………………………………………..……23
Bentzen v. Demmons, (1993)
842 P.2d 1015, 349 n.8 ………………………………………………….………16
Boyce v. West, (1963)
862 P.2d 592, 665 ………………………………………………………….…….15
Boyd v. State of Washington, Dept of Social and Health Services (2015)
Case No. 45174-3-II .....................................................................................18
Carolyn Sioux Green v. United States …………………………………………..……26
Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., (1990)
920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.) ………………………………………………….………13
Cobbs v. Grant(1972) ……………………………………………………………….…...16
Cooper v. Bell, (1980)
628 F.2d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir.) …………………………………………………22
Dearing v. United States, (1987)
835 F.2d 226 (9th Cir.) ………………………………………………...………..23
Douchette v. Bothell School District (1991)
117 Wn.2d 805, 812 fn.6, 818 P.2d 1362 ………………………………...21, 27
Durham v. Vinson, (2004)
360 S.C. 639, 650-51, 602 S.E.2d 760, 766 ………………………………..….16
Eleanor Riese v. St. Mary Hospital (1989) .............................................................16
Fadem v. United States, (1995)
52 F.3d 202, 205 (9th Cir.) ………………………………….………………….22
Franconia, 536 U. S., at 145 …………………………………………………...………24
Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, (1990)
498 U.S. 89, 112 L. Ed. 2d 435, 111 S. Ct. 453, 457 ……………………22–25
Korematsu v. United States, (1944)
(1944) 323 U.S. 214 …………………………………………….……………….25
(1984) 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal.) ………………………..………………...25
Kronisch v. United States, (1998)
150 F.3d 112 (2nd Cir.) ………………………………………………………….23
LaBellle, (1986)
107 Wn.2d at 196, 204-205, 209-210, 728 …………………….…………20, 21
Lessard v. Schmidt (1972),
349 F. Supp. 1078, 1086 (E.D. Wis.)..............................................................9
Millay v. Cam, (1998)
955 P.2d, 791, 797 …………………………………………………………..…….8
iv
Mills v. Rogers, (1982)

457 U.S. 291, n16, 102 S.Ct. 2442 ..............................................................15
Muth v. United States, (1993)
1 F.3d 246 (4th Cir.) ……………………………………………………….…….23
Naton v. Bank of California, (1981)
649 F.2d 691, 692 (9th Cir.) …………………………………………...………22
Nist v. Tudor, (1965)
407 P.2d 798, 331 ……………………………………………………...…….….15
O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975),
422 U.S. 573-576 ..........................................................................................9
Ohler v. Tacoma General Hospital (1979)
92. Wn.2d 507 ………………………………………………………………...…22
Otto v. National Institute of Health, (1987)
815 F.2d 985 (4th Cir.) …………………………………………………………23
The Body Keeps the Score, Brain, Mind, and Body in the
Healing of Trauma by Bessel Van Der Kolk, M.D ..............................11, 13
Scarborough, 541 U. S., at 420–422 …………………………………………………24
Skwira v. United States, (2003)
344 F.3d 64, 78 (1st Cir.) ………………………………………………………23
Spencer v. King County, (1984)
692 P.2d 874, 208 …………………………………………………………..….16
Stoll v. Runyon (1999)
165 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir.) ……………………………………………...…...25, 26
Strickland Test........................................................................................................11
State v. Ciskie, (1988)
110 Wn.2d 263, 284, 751 P. 2d 1165 ..........................................................11
State v. Duvall, (1997)
86 Wash.App 871, 874 940 P.2d 671 ……………………………………..…21
State v. Hendrickson, (1996)
129 Wn.2d 61, 77- 78, 917 P.2d 563 ...........................................................11
Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, (1995)
68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.) ………………………………………………….22
Swackhammer v. Widnall (1997)
No. 96-35587 (9th Cir.) …………………………………………………………27
United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, (1996)
91 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.) .....................................................................17
United States v. Cronic, (1984)
466 U.S. 648, 656, 104 S. Ct. 2045, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 ……………….........11
United States v. June (2015) ……………………………………………………..…..24
United States v. Polizzi, (1996)
801 F.2d 1543, 1553 (9th Cir.) ...................................................................17
Valdez ex rel. Donely v. United States, (2008)
518 F3d 173 (2d Cir.) …………………………………………………………...23
Vaughan v. First Union Nat’l Bank, (1999)

740 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA ……………………………………..…..17
Vitek v. Jones, (1980)
445 U.S. 480 ...............................................................................................14
Washington v. Harper (1990)
494, U.S. 210, 238, 244 ....................................................................4, 19, 20
Washington v. United States, (1985)
769 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir.) ………………………………………………….…….23
Wehrman v. United States, (1987)
830 F.2d 1480 (8th Cir.) ………………………………………………………..23
Youngberg v. Romeo, (1982) 457 U.S. 307, 321-22, 102 S. Ct. 2452 ………....….15
STATUTES & LAWS

28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8) ................................................................................7, 8
28 C.F.R Part 35 ...............................................................................................7
18 U.S.C. § 1621- Perjury ...................................................2, 5, 6, 8, 19, 32-34
28 U. S. C. § 1257 ..............................................................................................1
42 U.S.C. § 12132 ..............................................................................................7
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ................................................................................................7
American Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II ....................1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 19, 32, 33
Diagnostic Statistics Manual IV (DSM) (1994–2013) ….……………………12
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733) ...................................................17
HB 1618 (2023-24) .........................................................................................17
New York’s Adult Survivors Act ………………………………………….……..18
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) ……………………………………….…….2
Western State Administrative Policy No. 8.06 ...............................................2
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

First Amendment .......................................................................................3, 14
Second Amendment ....................................................................................3, 11
Sixth Amendment .............................................................................................3
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process ....................................................3, 5, 20
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 ........................................................3
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Article I § 1: Political Power .........................................................................4
Article I § 3: Personal Rights ........................................................................4
Article I § 5: Freedom of Speech ...................................................................4
Article I § 10: Administration of Justice ........................................................4
Article I § 11: Religious Freedom ...................................................................4
Article I § 14: Excessive Bail, Fines and Punishment ..................................4
Article I § 24: Rights of Crime Victims ..........................................................4
vi
RELATED CASES
1) See App P: Petitioner had Standing.

a) Washington State Supreme Court Case #100839-2, and 101455-4.
Washington State Supreme Court Case #100689-6 determined indigency.
b) COURT OF APPEALS Division-II Case No. 55790-8-II,
c) Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 20-2-07851-0 and 20-2-07852-8.
Petitioner, who is not an attorney, did not understand Western State
Hospital was run and owned by the state of Washington. Therefore, she filed
against the State of Washington in both cases listed. Petitioner filed against
the Department of Veterans Affairs, Pierce County, et al., and the State of
Washington in the 07852-8. The State 07851-0 remained in the superior court
while Pierce County removed 07852-8 to the federal courts. The State
accused Petitioner of “case splitting” in the case that was removed to the
federal court aka Case No. 3:20-cv-06112-BHS.
d) In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Petitioner
has an active motion (Dkt. #49 to reopen 06112-BHS) in the related open /
Active Case No. 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ. + Dept of Veterans drug violations.
2) In the NINTH CIRCUIT No. 22-35794 aka 2:21-01276-RAJ in the United
States District Court of Western Washington at Seattle (WAWD) is a related
case in-part involves the same transaction or event. Active.
On May 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to rule on the
reconsideration (Dkt #258) dated October 21, 2022. Active, + drug violations.
3) In the COURT OF APPEALS–II No. 57429–2–II (Providence) is the direct
causation and catalyst in the related case involving the same transaction or
event, same conduct. (ref: Dkt. #48 in 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ). Active / open.
4) In WAWD 2:21-01276-RAJ before the Court for reconsideration. Includes
unchallenged Joinder for Providence (ref. Dkt #48). Reopen related “case
spitting” case (ref: Dkt. #49) where all parties have perfected service.
Drug violations against the Dept of Veterans were timely filed.
vii
LIST OF THE PARTIES; PENDING
WAWD Dkt #49 pp. 4-5; 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Summons Perfected 3:20-cv-06112-

BHS aka Pierce County Superior Court 20-2-07852-8 aka 20-2-07851-0;
Dkt 54 State of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Dkt 91 Karen Calhoun refused and avoided service.
Dkt 93 Karen Calhoun.
Dkt 81 Mary Opgenorth.
Dkt 92 Stanford Opdyke refused service.
Dkt 96 & 101 Stanford Opdyke.
Dkt 97-1 Glenn Morrison refused and avoided service.
Dkt 97 Glenn Morrison.
Dkt 98 John Haroian.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE;
Dkt 105 Notice of Appearance Karen C. Calhoun.
Dkt 60 Notice of Appearance Mary Opgenorth and Mark Gelman.
Dkt 61 Notice of Appearance Mary Opgenorth and Mark Gelman.
Dkt 90 Notice of Appearance Standford E. Opdyke.
Dkt 66 Notice of Appearance Glenn C. Morrison.
Dkt 65 Notice of Appearance John M. Haroian.
Dkt 102 Pierce County Prosecutor.
Dkt 102 Pierce County Auditor/Authorized to Receive for Pierce County Prosecutor.
Summons Perfected for U.S. DEPT OF VETERANS:

Dkt 109 Kenric Hammond refused and avoided service.
Dkt 109 Kenric Hammond.
Nandan P. Kumar with perfected service not yet obtained.
Dkt 94 Christopher Hoey.
Dkt 95 Michael Tadych.
Dkt 99 April Gerlock.
Dkt 100 Kimberly VanGoda.
Dkt 103 U.S. Attorney for the United States.
Dkt 55 U.S. Attorney for the United States.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, SUBSTITUTION ;

Dkt 106 Notice of Substitution for Other Defendants by U.S. Dept of Veterans.
OPINIONS BELOW
1. Washington State Courts:
The opinion of the Washington State Supreme Court where a Petition for
Review was denied March 8, 2023 as well striking Petitioners motion for Friends of
the Court in Support of the Petition for Review, Reply to Answer with a cross
motion for American Disabilities Accommodations (ADA). In addition, a
reconsideration March 27, 2023. Copies of the decisions and documents appear in
Appx: A, B, B-1, D, D-1, E, F, G.
2. Court of Appeals Division-II:
The unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals Division-II of September 13,
2022 denied as well as the motion for reconsideration on October 13, 2022. A copy of
those decisions appears in Appx: I, J.
JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a):
“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a

decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of
certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn
in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question
on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the
United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up
or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any
commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.”
CONSTITUTION & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Statutory Provision
18 U.S.C. § 1621- Perjury: (1) “having taken an oath before a competent

tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify
truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him
subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted
under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any
material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall,
except as otherwise expressly provided by law . . .”
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): “The ADA is a civil rights law that
prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public
life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that
are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people
with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA
gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those
provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and
religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public
accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services,
and telecommunications. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate
to different areas of public life.”
Administrative Policy NO. 8.06 for the state of Washington Department of

Social and Health Services (DSHS)–Western asylum Effective Date March 1, 1991 –
March 1, 1999: page 2 under “Affected Clients” defined as “means a person who has
committed an offense(s) as defined below, and who is in custody or confined for
evaluation and/or treatment by the Department Social and Health Services (DSHS).
Petitioner did not meet any of the definitions. The closest letter yet fails to
meet the law requirements is C. However, the State fails to meet the legal
requirements stated in C) “A person who committed a sexual, kidnapping, violent,
stalking, unlawful imprisonment, offense but was found incompetent to stand trial
and civilly committed under Chapter 71.05 RCW, Mental illness.”
Revised Code of Washington (RCW): numerous grotesque violations.

FEDERAL LAWS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
SECOND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
SIXTH AMENDMENT: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel
for his defense.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS: In all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 1993: U.S. legislation

originally prohibited the federal government and the states from “substantially
burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless “application of the burden…is in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive
means of furthering that…interest.”
///
///
///
///
///
STATE LAWS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Article I § 1: Political Power,

"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect
and maintain individual rights."
Article I § 3: Personal Rights,

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.”
Article I § 5: Freedom of Speech,

"Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right."
Article I § 10: Administration of Justice,

"Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary
delay."
Article I § 11: Religious Freedom,

“Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief
and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be
molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the
liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse
acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and
safety of the state.”
Article I § 14: Excessive Bail, Fines and Punishment,

“Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
punishment inflicted.”
Article I § 24: Right to Bear Arms,

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the
state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as
authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an
armed body of men."
Washington State violated their own Constitution against a competent
individual. In Washington v. Harper 1) a competent individual’s right to refuse

psychotropic medication is a fundamental liberty interest requiring the highest
order of protection under the Fourteenth- Amendment.
SUMMARY / INTRODUCTION
This Petition for Writ of Certiorari exposes the State's failure to follow
procedures, commit perjury, falsify records, violate Constitutional rights, and
breach Federal and State laws. As a result, a competent and physically injured
individual was forced treated as if she had a mental illness, then left without
adequate medical care for her physical injury, and suffered severe harm.
This is the third leg of a distressing legal matter involving Western State
Hospital, revealing the unjust confinement and forced drugging of a competent
individual who was experiencing a physical injury. Against her will, she was
chemical lobotomized, followed by over 20 years of excessive polypharmacy
prescribed by the Dept of Veterans for a "mild" case of post-traumatic stress and a
severe physical injury mismanaged by the Military, and defendant(s). The
Petitioner was court ordered to spend 300-days behind locked psychiatric doors of
which she spent 50-days without her legal right to attend a hearing to be heard.
Refer to Appendix Table of Contents, Appx U, public records link.
To address the extravagant amount of relief sought. The process requires
petitioner to state a monetary value. I struggle to put a monetary value on over
2-decades of my life and all that encompasses, the losses, the gains. Had
defendants followed proper procedures and upheld due process, petitioner would
have had legal representation, a right to individualized adequate treatment and
care, with fairness.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
There are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, perjury, bad faith,
deception, gross negligence, and fraud. Justice requires equitable tolling and that
this matter be set for trial. Petitioner has Standing
I. Occurred 4th: Dept of Veterans2: (case #2:21-cv-01276-RAJ)
II. Occurred 3rd: WESTERN: (with an unopposed unchallenged motion
to reopen #3:20-cv-06112-BHS Dkt 49 in #2:21-cv-01276-RAJ)
III. Occurred 2nd: Dept of Veterans1: (case #2:21-cv-01276-RAJ)
IV. Occurred 1st: PROVIDENCE: One-minute groundless Ex parte hearing
(COA-II case #57429-II with an unopposed unchallenged motion to Joinder Dkt 48
in #2:21-v-01276-RAJ).
o ARGUMENT 1: Petition for Review was denied by the Court: See Appx B.
o ARGUMENT 2: Clerk filed to strike Reply to Answer: On December 29, 2022 the
clerk motioned to strike appellant’s Reply to Answer that the court granted. The
appellant was entitled to file a reply per the rules. Petitioner filed an Objection
in Opposition to the Clerk’s Motion to Strike the Reply to Answer and with a
Cross Motion for Reasonable Accommodations under the American Disabilities
Act (ADA). See Appx E Dkt #269-2 pp. 31-32), and Appx F, G.
The court failed to provide or consider reasonable accommodations under the
American Disabilities Act (ADA). The state actors presented in this case did not
follow American Disabilities Act. As a result of Respondents [....] actions, inactions,

misconduct, and omissions, violate Appellant’s legal rights under Title II ADA, 42
U.S.C. § 12132, et seq., the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity or be
subjected to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
The ADA’s regulations further provide that “[a] public entity shall not impose
or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a
disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally
enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be
necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.” 28
C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8). Pursuant to the ADA, public entities are required to provide
meaningful access to their programs, services and activities, and provide any
accommodations or modifications necessary for people with disabilities to access
those services. As a result of stigma deeply rooted in our society and culture, people
with mental illness and disabilities often suffer regulations promulgated thereunder
at 28 C.F.R Part 35, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as suffer far greater deprivations
of liberty, respect, and dignity than those convicted of crimes, thus unnecessarily
confining petitioner with illegal extensions in a psychiatric hospital facility.
ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason
of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services,
programs, or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by such
entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA’s regulations further provide that “[a] public
entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen
out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from
fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can
be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being
offered.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8). Stima is expressed in the creation of
unconstitutional and discriminatory laws and practices designed to segregate those
with disabilities from the rest of society.
o ARGUMENT 3: Friends of the Court in Support of Petition for Review was
denied by the Court: Petitioner filed a Motion for Permission to Accept Friends
of the Court in Support of the Petition for Review as instructed by the clerk via
email letter. The court denied this filing and review. See Appx D, D-1.
o ARGUMENT 4: Statute of Limitations: There are genuine issues of material
fact in dispute, perjury, bad faith, deception, gross negligence, and fraud. In
Millay v. Cam, 955 P.2d, 791, 797 (Wash. 1998) the doctrine of equitable tolling
allows a court to toll the statute of limitations when justice requires. Equitable
tolling is granted for extraordinary circumstances, going beyond what is usual,
regular, or customary, as a remedy to resuscitate untimely claims. Justice
requires equitable tolling. See public records link in table of contents.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury. The affidavits made by the Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney of Pierce Couty, Karen C. Calhoun (refused and avoided
service), Glenn S. Morrison (refused and avoided service), lied to the Superior Court
in Pierce County. Morrison was the only signature on the petition and affidavit
when the law requires two signatures, standard procedures and safeguards. The
Court Clerk, who initialed as the Court Clerk and the Filing Court Clerk and the
Deputy Court Clerk is considered fraud. The SAME PERSON initialed in three
different legal capacities. In addition to criminal impersonation in the first degree,
pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9A.60.040.
2. Constitutional depravations, Federal and State law violations. No due
process. No legal counsel. No right to refuse. No judicial determination for forced
drugging at any time, since the first leg Providence; second-leg Dept of Veterans1;
third-leg Western State; last-leg Dept of Veterans2 for a walking cane. Appx U.
In O’Connor v. Donaldson 422 U.S. 573-576 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that "A State cannot constitutionally confine a nondangerous individual
who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing
and responsible family members or friends...". See Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp.
1078, 1086 (E.D. Wis. 1972) It can be argued that no deprivation of liberty is
permissible under the due process clause without a prior hearing. It is obvious that
the commitment adjudication carries with it an enormous and devastating effect on
an individual's civil rights. In some respects, the civil deprivations which follow civil
commitment are more serious than the deprivations which accompany a criminal
conviction.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that part of the right to counsel is a
right to effective assistance of counsel.

10
The State gives the appearance it provided a “public defender” yet the
documents are clear that the petitioner had no effective legal counsel whatsoever.
The court appointed attorneys, Mary Opgenorth, Stanford Opdyke (refused service),
in name only not providing any legal counsel who Obtained my Signature by
Deception in violation pursuant to NEW SECTION. Sec. 9A.60.030.(1) A person is
guilty of obtaining a signature by deception or duress if by deception or duress and
with intent to defraud or deprive he causes another person to sign or execute a
written instrument. See public record link.
In furtherance, there is no justification to sign a document while saturated on
force administration of excessive drugs. Proof of how this is unreasonable for the
Court to consider that the Petitioner would ever consent or sign such a document
while being abused with chemical restraints in an asylum. Appx U.
As an active-duty service member of the armed forces who was physically
injured, and prescribed inappropriate drugs for that physical injury: On at least two
occasion Petitioner refused to sign a biased one-sided administrative remark
reprimanding me, as well as being denied a second opinion for my physical injury.
Appx D-1, Dkt #124-1 pp. 100, 102, 174).(docs seen also in Dkt #269-1).
The standard of review for effective assistance of counsel is whether, after
examining the whole record, the court can conclude that defendant received
effective representation and a fair trial. When defense counsel's conduct deprives a
defendant [petitioner now] of his constitutional right to testify, is that deprivation
subject to an analysis of harm or prejudice, and if so, what standard should be

11
used? We hold that this type of claim is properly characterized as one of
ineffective assistance of counsel and that the usual analysis of prejudice under
Strickland v. Washington 1 applies. 1 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d
674 (1984); State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77- 78, 917 P.2d 563 (1996). The
right to effective assistance of counsel is the right “to require the prosecution’s case
to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic,
466 U.S. 648, 656, 104 S. Ct. 2045, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984).
State v. Ciskie, 110 Wn.2d 263, 284, 751 P. 2d 1165 (1988). A presumption of
counsel's competence can be overcome by showing counsel failed to conduct
appropriate investigations, adequately prepare for trial, or subpoena necessary
witnesses. Id.
4. Resolving the violent trauma of what happened to me in 2001, in 2018,
I discovered my Second Amendment rights were infringed upon. I have been in
contempt of Court more than once not knowing that my right to bear arms was
infringed upon. On August 14, 2019, I filed for Restoration of Rights in Thurston
County Superior Court. Rights Restored 11/01/2019 for Washington State only.
5. In “The Body Keeps the Score, Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of
Trauma,” the author states that individuals with complex trauma have
complications in what’s known as Broca’s area which is of the speech center of the
brain. When damaged, individuals cannot put their thoughts and feelings into
words. “Trauma by nature drives individuals to the edge of comprehension, cutting
us off from language based on common experience or an imaginable past.” The

12
excessive drugs Dept of Veterans prescribed to Plaintiff during the period at issue
impaired her functioning creating more delay. Appx U. See public record link.
“Drugs cannot ‘cure’ trauma; they only dampen the expressions of a disturbed
physiology.” Complex trauma is linked with more severe cognitive impairment and
compartmentalization. Compartmentalization is a coping mechanism to adapt.
(emphasized).
For the reasons stated above, equitable tolling applies in this case. Medical
evidence and Plaintiff’s cognitive impairment functioning delays are proven
throughout the Court records and filings. It is medically established that unresolved
trauma is activated around certain triggers. An individual can do fine in areas not
activated. As stated in the DSM IV (1994–2013): There is a “persistent avoidance of
stimuli associated with trauma...” Defendant’s like to use that I went to college
against me. College was a safe place that helped restore cognitive function delays
and processing, having a tutor in most all classes. Going to college in no way means
I was capable of processing violent trauma and filing a lawsuit. In 2023, I have still
been receiving effective medical treatments for the harm caused by these drugs and
being maimed in my lower extremities.
People engage in “efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse
recollections of the trauma.” “Avoidance of or efforts to avoid people, conversations,
or interpersonal situations that arouse recollections of traumatic event(s).” Trauma
can be physiological and/or psychological. Thus, it is not uncommon for trauma to
impair an individual’s functionality. In this situation, crippling drug effects also

13
masked physical injuries and made it difficult to regain other areas of functioning in
life. Trauma impaired Petitioners ability to comprehend a cause of action. See also
Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990).
Following this further, as recorded in the COA–II ruling 09/13/2022,
“[Appellant] did not substantively respond to the State’s motion to dismiss. Instead,
she filed a motion for summary judgment,” still not understanding the process.
When petitioner motioned for ADA (01/12/2022 shown as Dkt.#50-9 p. 3, pp.
66-74). Petitioner’s brain health by Dr. Andrew Iverson, Dr. I The Herbal Guy, a
well-respected medical professional, naturopathic physician with over 25 years of
clinical experience;
“Carolyn Green 11 /7 /21 I put a lot of time into this testing today because the
pattern was elusive ... and then after much exclusion it pointed almost entirely at
brain health. The energetic pattern represented is one seen in stroke where there is
a component of vascular and brain involvement. . . the brain and need for iodine as
well as magnesium.” ... “All I can say is the testing is spot on. when you were tested
you had 4 vials of medications indicated- I put "multiple chemicals". So now I can
say without a doubt- you must find someone to reduce your medications and ... must
detoxify from them ....” ...”so that must have been a huge assault to the system to
still be resonating strongly after 4 years” of being off liquid-morphine. (emphasis).
This was Petitioners brain health four years after self-discontinuance of
Morphine from 13 years of chronic opioid therapy in the overall 20+ years of
excessive prescribed drugs by Dept of Veterans. Medical experts have testified,
published articles in peer reviewed literature, and produced sworn affidavits on the
harmful effects of these drugs. Brain function is impaired. Neuropathways are
disrupted making them inoperative. These drugs create dysfunctions affecting the
frontal lobe, temporal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe, cerebellum, brain stem, as
14
well as other functions. Affidavits of Medical Experts with testimonies were filed in
Court of Appeals Div-II on 03/17/2022 @ 4:10 PM pp. 177-220 from the following:
Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, Dr. Grace E. Jackson, Robert Whitaker, and Dr. Peter
Breggin’s expert testimony. Other well-educated professionals that have extensive
knowledge; Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, Jim Gottstein, Rob Wipond, Ann Blake-Tracy,
and Mad in America. The Body Keeps Score the Score” by Bessel Van Der Kolk,
M.D.; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM); and scientific research concur
with these findings of altering and creating brain dysfunctions. As well as those
with lived experience. These drugs damage and cripple individuals. Appx U, W, see
public record link.
6. Forced drugging is a violation to the First Amendment of Free Speech
as these drugs interfere with personality, thoughts, speech, creates blunted
emotions, alters expressions and how a human being communicates. Petitioner
hand wrote her decision, “no prescription drugs please …” Prior to court, the State
overrode my documented and legal right to refuse.
Assaulted. And, assault in the first-degree for force injecting 2 mg of Ativan
into a competent individual for not wanting to be covered with a blanket. Violent
and abusive. Chemical restraints were used as a form of punishment. The U.S.
Supreme Court decided in Vitek v. Jones, that due process required that the nature
of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the
individual is committed. (Jones v. United States, supra at 368). “...even if his
continued confinement were constitutionally permissible, keeping him against his

15
will in a mental institution is improper absent a determination in civil commitment
proceedings of current mental illness and dangerousness.” Forced administration of
antipsychotic medication may not be used as a form of punishment.
In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22, 102 S. Ct. 2452 (1982), the
Supreme Court stated “Persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled
to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” See Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291,
n16, 102 S.Ct. 2442 (1982). See Appx E, Dkt #269-2 p. 33-37, 39-41, 43.
7. Gross negligence is defined as: “the failure to exercise slight care. It is
negligence that is substantially greater than ordinary negligence. Failure to
exercise slight care does not mean the total absence of care but care substantially
less than ordinary care.” Washington Pattern Instruction [WPI] 10.07. The
Washington Supreme Court defines gross negligence as, “gross or great negligence,
that is, negligence substantially and appreciably greater than ordinary negligence.
Its correlative, failure to exercise slight care, means not the total absence of care
but care substantially or appreciably less than the quantum of care inherent in
ordinary negligence.” Nist v. Tudor, 407 P.2d 798, 331 (1965), see also Boyce v.
West, 862 P.2d 592, 665 (1993) (gross negligence is “...negligent acts [that fall]
greatly below the standard established by law for the protection of others against
unreasonable risk of harm...”). Thus, there is no-immunity from ordinary medical
tort liability when the provider’s conduct in gross negligence. Bad faith is defined
16
as: “actual or constructive fraud, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty…by
some interested or sinister motive.” Bentzen v. Demmons, 842 P.2d 1015, 349 n.8
(1993), see Spencer v. King County, 692 P.2d 874, 208 (1984) (bad faith implies
acting with tainted, fraudulent or ill will motives).
It is undeniable that forcibly administering powerful neuroleptic drugs to a
competent individual without their consent, and subsequently disregarding their
well-documented physical injury by attributing it to a false mental condition
constitutes gross negligence. The repeated violations of petitioner’s individual right
to make decisions about her own care is deeply concerning and must be addressed.
“A physician commits malpractice by not exercising that degree of skill and learning
that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the profession in good
standing acting in the same or similar circumstances.” Durham v. Vinson, 360 S.C.
639, 650-51, 602 S.E.2d 760, 766 (2004). It’s gross negligence and medical
malpractice to treat a physical injury with sedation, benzodiazepines, tranquilizers,
“mood stabilizers and antidepressants”, antipsychotic drugs for an alleged marketed
mental disorder that Carolyn never had then since or prior.
See Eleanor Riese v. St. Mary Hospital (1989).
Petitioner enforced her legal right to refuse. No consent given, neither was
Petitioner informed. State overrode Petitioners legal right to refuse. See Cobbs v.
Grant [Supreme Court of California. October 27, 1972] “Informed consent.”
Western State bypassed judicial determination for unlawful imprisonment
(legal definition is kidnapping) and forced drugging in a psychiatric institution.

17
There is no justifiable legal reason for the illegal mandatory forced drugging,
confinement extensions, and with only a one provider as the petitioner and
affidavit. The State removed safeguards. Furthermore, the State permitted the
SAME PERSON to initial in three different legal capacities is illegal.
8. A false statement or record in connection with a claim may be said to be
material if it has a natural tendency to influence the government's decision to pay
the claim." See United States v. Polizzi, 801 F.2d 1543, 1553 (9th Cir. 1986),
"Falsification of official records is a serious crime, as it strikes at the integrity of the
governmental process." “A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to injure a
plaintiff in his or her trade or profession, or otherwise subject the plaintiff to public
contempt, ridicule, or disgrace." See United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d
1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1996). See False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.
9. Standing, “Any litigant must demonstrate that he or she has standing to
invoke the power of the court to determine the merits of an issue.” See Vaughan v.
First Union Nat’l Bank, 740 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See Appx E, Dkt
#269-2 p. 9.
10. “Competent”. Innocent, physically injured, not-gravely disabled, not a
danger. To then be forced drugged illegally on top of being confined in a psychiatric
asylum is beyond traumatizing. Especially when physically injured and treated as a
subhuman having my Constitutional rights, Federal and State laws in place to
protect me were grotesquely violated. Forced drugged and left physically injured.
Petitioner was only able to write her name in very small letters. Reduced to coloring
18
in two o’s from a 13-page orientation manual. She had to ask Dept of Veterans for a
walking cane. Please let that sink in. Barbaric treatment is a soft term. It takes
about 20 years to recover from being chemically lobotomized as well as saturated
with excessive drugs by the Dept of Veterans for over two-decades.
11. Recently passed is New York’s Adult Survivors Act[1] (“ASA” or “the
Act”) (S.66A/A.648A) that became effective on November 24, 2022. The Act provides
a one-year lookback window for people to seek civil remedies for sexual abuse they
experienced after they turned 18, regardless of what year the abuse occurred.
Recognizing the long-lasting impact and trauma caused by violent and abusive
events, Washington State is in committee for HB 1618 2023-24, aimed at modifying
the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse. This signifies a growing
understanding and research surrounding the need for legal reforms in order to
support survivors.
The same type of Act for Survivors of Forced Incarceration often with illegal
mandatory forced injections or forced to ingest drugs often sold to the courts as
involuntary commitment is worthy of equitable tolling. Chemical restraints abuse
used to punish innocent competent citizens chemically lobotomizing [petitioner] is
barbaric. To be physically injured, ignored, then having my lower extremities
maimed, then abused is traumatizing, as well as illegal in the United States of
America.
12. Even in 2022, Western State continues to be a corrosive culture that is
still plagued with violence. In addition, see Boyd v. State of Washington (2015). This
19
institutional corruption creates disabilities with negative life-altering devastating
consequences, Western State, as does Providence St. Peter Hospital, and the Dept of
Veterans create unsafe destructive medical environments. Criminal activity,
criminal mistreatment, abuse with chemical restraints, and fraud do not serve as
an asset in society. The violations of the ADA, and the excessive force drugging,
should alert the Supreme Court of the United States of the long-infected bias and
mistreatment against people with disabilities. Appx V, see public record link.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgments of
the Washington State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals Division-II.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
To prevent ongoing deprivations of due process, infringements on the right to
legal counsel, and the pervasive issues of fraud and perjury, it is crucial for the
Supreme Court to grant this writ of certiorari. By doing so, the Court can effectively
put a stop to the State's abuse of power, safeguarding the fundamental rights of the
people and ensuring a fair and just legal system. Furthermore, by addressing this
petition, the Court has the opportunity to establish and enforce vital precedents
that protect individual liberties, uphold the principles of justice and equality,
promote uniformity in federal law, and minimize violations of Constitutional rights.
CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF
FEDERAL & STATE COURTS MUST BE RESOLVED
Washington State violated their own Supreme Court ruling. Washington v.
Harper (1990); “No rigorous standards or procedure met to force psychotropic

20
medications on an individual.” 494, U.S. 210. “In order for involuntary medication
to be approved, it must be demonstrated that the inmate suffers from a mental
disorder and as a result of that disorder constitutes a likelihood of serious harm to
himself or others (494 US 210, 244) and/or is gravely disabled” Lodging, Book 9,
Policy 600.30, p. 1. In Washington v. Harper an individual has a “significant”
constitutionally protected “liberty interest” in avoiding the unwanted
administration of antipsychotic drugs (494 US @ 221, 108 L Ed 2d 178, 110 S. Ct
1028). That a competent individual’s right to refuse psychotropic medication is a
fundamental liberty interest requiring the highest order of protection under the
Fourteenth- Amendment, because most psychotropic drugs do induce lethargy,
drowsiness, and fatigue, e.g. Physicians’ Desk Reference 1126, 1236, 1640, 1788
[494 US 210, 249], this form of “medical treatment’ may reduce an inmates
dangerousness, not by improving his mental condition, but simply by sedating him
with a medication that is grossly excessive for that purpose. [Footnote 17]. “The
liberties of citizens to resist the administration of mind-altering drugs arise from
our nation’s most basic values.” (Stevens, J. dissenting).494, US 210, 238.
In Addington v. Texas requires “clear and convincing evidence” as a standard.
We held that the medical conditions for civil commitment must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. The purpose of this standard of proof, to reduce the
chances of inappropriate decisions, id., at 427, is no less meaningful when the
factfinders are professionals as when they are judges or jurors. 441 U.S. 418, (1979).
21
There was no clear and convincing evidence provided by the State. The State
failed to even provide an interview. Provided illegal confinement extensions at the
premeditated request of the Dept of Veterans, solidified three-times in the record.
No grave disability. Not supported by substantial evidence either. (See LaBellle,
107 Wn.2d at 196, 204-205, 209-210, 728 (1986)). W.G. Appellant COA 53660-9-II,
unpublished. The State saturated the Petitioner in excessive forced drugs.
In Addington v. Texas “the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil
commitment processing is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the
State to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance
of the evidence. In Addington (441 U.S. at 426) civil commitment “must require that
an individual be both mentally ill and dangerous for civil commitment to satisfy due
process”. Driving fails to meet the dangerous standard. 557 S.W. 2d 511 (1977),
vacated, 441 US 418 (1979).
Equitable Tolling Standard
According to the Court of Appeals of Washington in State v. Duvall, 86
Wash.App 871, 874 940 P.2d 671 (1997), “The doctrine of equitable tolling permits a
court to allow an action to proceed when justice requires it, even though a statutory
time period has nominally elapsed.”
In Douchette, 117 Wn.2d at 812 Courts have determined that equitable
tolling is appropriate when “consistent with both the purpose of the statute
providing the cause of action and the purpose of the statute of limitations.”
22
Equitable tolling is a defense to all federal statutes of limitations unless Congress
provides otherwise. Fadem v. United States, 52 F.3d 202, 205 (9th Cir. 1995); Irwin
v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 112 L. Ed. 2d 435, 111 S. Ct. 453, 457
(1990). Equitable tolling focuses on the plaintiff's excusable ignorance of the
limitations period. Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691, 692 (9th Cir. 1981);
Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995).
When a plaintiff alleges a set of facts which, if proven, would show her
ignorance of the event triggering the limitations period was excusable, her
complaint cannot be dismissed. Her filing is timely under the equitable tolling
doctrine if it is deemed possible for her to prove a set of facts which would serve to
toll the limitations period. Supermail Cargo, supra, 68 F.3d at 1208.
Failure to comply with filing deadlines in a discrimination case may be
excused if: (1) the plaintiff had neither official notice nor actual knowledge of the
filing period; or (2) if the plaintiff was unaware she was the object of discriminatory
conduct; or (3) equitable grounds exist. Cooper v. Bell, 628 F.2d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir.
1980). In, Ohler v. Tacoma General Hospital 92. Wn.2d 507 (1979), appellant’s claim
against Tacoma General did not accrue until she discovered or reasonably should
have discovered all of the essential elements of her possible cause of action, .i.e.,
duty, breach, causation, damages.
Equitable Tolling Claims May Be Allowed:
1). In Irwin v. Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990), the Supreme Court held
limitations included in waivers of sovereign immunity would be subject to equitable

23
tolling unless Congress specifically precluded such tolling; 2). Ignorance of the
injury and/or its cause because of a claimant’s lack of diligence does not delay
accrual of the claim; if the cause is unknowable despite the claimant’s diligence,
accrual may be delayed. Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 64, 78 (1st Cir. 2003);
Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2nd Cir. 1998); 3). Government physicians’
reassurances that medical complications experienced by the plaintiff are normal
may delay the plaintiff's knowledge of his injury and toll the statute of limitations.
Dearing v. United States, 835 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1987); 4). Government’s active or
fraudulent concealment of its role in the injury causing event may toll the statute of
limitations. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1993); Bennett ex rel. Estate
of Bennett v. United States, 429 F.Supp.2d 270 (D.Mass. 2006); Valdez ex rel. Donely
v. United States, 518 F3d 173 (2d Cir. 2008) (government misconduct or
concealment not necessary to invoke doctrine of equitable tolling);
5). Government’s continuing tortious conduct or continuous medical
treatment may delay accrual of the claim. Otto v. National Institute of Health, 815
F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1987) (“doctrine is based on a patient's right to place trust and
confidence in his physician” and “the patient is excused from challenging the quality
of care being rendered until the confidential relationship terminates”); Wehrman v.
United States, 830 F.2d 1480 (8th Cir. 1987); 6). If the government's negligence
caused the plaintiff’s mental incapacity to understand the significance of the
relevant facts, tolling may be allowed. Washington v. United States, 769 F.2d 1436
(9th Cir. 1985). Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990),

24
provides the framework for deciding “the applicability of equitable tolling in suits
against the Government.”
The Government’s response that § 2401(b)’s time limits are not subject to
tolling because they are jurisdictional restrictions. Though the courts govern
litigation against the Government, a court can toll them on equitable grounds. The
FTCA’s jurisdictional provision states that courts may hear suits “under
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the
claimant.” 28 U. S. C. §1346(b).
Court of Appeals opinion of the (9th Cir.) 558–559. “..it makes no difference
that a time bar conditions a waiver of sovereign immunity, even if Congress enacted
the measure when different interpretive conventions applied; that is the very point
of this Court’s decision to treat time bars in suits against the Government,
whenever passed, the same as in litigation between private parties.” See Irwin, 498
U. S., at 95–96; Scarborough, 541 U. S., at 420–422; Franconia, 536 U. S., at 145.
Accordingly, the Court held that the FTCA’s time bars are non-jurisdictional
are subject to equitable tolling. The Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) rejected the
Government’s argument and concluded that courts may toll both of the FTCA’s
limitations periods. United States v. June (2015).
In Irwin’s “general rule” that equitable tolling is available in suits against the
Government. 498 U. S., at 95. “The justification the Government offers for departing
from that principle fails: Section 2401(b) is not a jurisdictional require-ment. The
time limits in the FTCA are just time limits, nothing more.” The Court explained in
25
Irwin, that is not because the phrase itself “manifest[s] a . . . congressional intent
with respect to the availability of equitable tolling.” 498 U. S., at 95. “The words on
which the Government pins its hopes are just the words of a limitations statute of a
particular era. And nothing else supports the Government’s claim that Congress,
when enacting the FTCA, wanted to incorporate this Court’s view of the Tucker
Act’s time bar—much less that Congress expressed that purported intent with the
needed clear statement.” “All that matters is that such time limits function as
conditions on the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.”
The military expertise in the area of guarding against sabotage by agents of
our wartime enemy led the Supreme Court to defer to the judgment of military
officials that hundreds of thousands of persons of Japanese ancestry needed to be
incarcerated in relocation camps. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Years later it was revealed that the military's "expert" assessment that Japanese
Americans posed a security threat to the defense of the West Coast of the United
States was completely unsupported by any evidence. See Peter Irons, Justice at
War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases (1983). Moreover, it
was revealed that the military knew that it had no evidence of disloyalty and yet
that fact was fraudulently concealed from the Court. Because of the fraud, a writ of
coram nobis vacating the criminal conviction of Fred Korematsu was finally granted
forty years later. Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
As seen in Stoll v. Runyon the plaintiff, Stoll, was entitled to equitable tolling
after the extreme sexual assault and harassment she experienced at her job where
26
Stoll was left so traumatized that she could not participate or even directly
communicate with her lawyer for her EEOC proceedings without having panic
attacks. 165 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 1999). Stoll’s lawyer sent letters to her
psychologists’ office to communicate with her that were then read in her presence.
“According to Dr. Weber, Stoll had been unable to understand her legal rights and
act on them from the time he began treating her in December 1990. The ALJ for her
EEOC proceeding “found that Stoll, understandably, suffered severe psychological
damages as a result of her experiences,” Id. The ALJ’s findings were adopted by the
Post Office (Stoll’s employer) and the OFO.
Based on the information provided by Dr. Weber and the ALJ report, the
court found that “Stoll’s mental incapacity—and the effect it had upon her
relationship with her lawyer—is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ beyond her
control.” Id. at 1242. Stoll was unable to file on time because her attorney-client
relationship, like the rest of her relationships with men, was seriously damaged by
the egregious conduct that she seeks to redress in her lawsuit.” Id. at 1242. Stoll
was thus entitled to equitable tolling for her claims due to her mental incapacity.
Similarly, Carolyn Sioux Green v. United States Case No. 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ
in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (WAWD);
the Medical Officer, a Commander, and the Medical Administrator, a Chief Warrant
Officer, through a by direction initiated the retaliation and hostile medical
environment against the severely physically injured service member that was
further led up the chain of command to reinforce their personal attacks that were
27
approved by the Command. Five Military Officers were derelict in their duty and
failed to perform their duties to a physically injured active-duty service member
who was temporarily assigned to the land unit due to her physical injury.
In the Swackhammer v. Widnall No. 96-35587 (1997, 9th Cir.), the record
establishes the United States Air Force failed to post notice of the right to equal
employment opportunity and the deadlines for filing claims in the Renton recruiting
office in 1985 and 1986. Ms. Swackhammer had no notice of such filing deadlines.
Lynne Swackhammer was also unaware she was the object of discriminatory
conduct and that such conduct caused her current emotional and physical damages.
Thus, she asserted additional equitable grounds for tolling based on her
disassociative memory syndrome and the delayed onset of her damages. See also
Douchette v. Bothell School District, 117 Wn.2d 805, 812 fn.6, 818 P.2d 1362 (1991)
("We do not rule out the possibility for future cases that equitable grounds might
exist which justify a tolling of the statute of limitations in a discrimination case.").
Statute of limitations should be tolled. Petitioner was incapacitated to an
extent due to how [Defendants], (and other actors), were involved in these facts. The
drug damaging–medications had a life-changing negative impacted to every aspect
of Petitioner life. Examples of Petitioner cognitive dysfunctions with delayed
processing are identified in her writing from 2001, and in the court filings. Physical
evidence has been filed and logged showing the damaging effects done to petitioners
brain from forced psychotropic drugging during the unlawful imprisonments
followed by 20+ years of excessive drugs by the Department of Veterans.

28
JUSTICE FOR ALL
A fair and just positive ruling by this Court will prevent the undermining of
lower courts thus keeping uniformity of federal laws protecting its citizens.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing compelling reasons presented, it is evident that the
Supreme Court should grant this Petition for Writ of Certiorari and reverse the
decision of the Washington State Supreme Court. By doing so, the Court would
address the pressing issues at hand, protect fundamental rights, and ensure a fair
and just legal system. Thank you and sincerely for considering this case and the
importance it holds.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statement is made under
the laws of the United States of America and that the foregoing is true and correct,
and I am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein.
DATED this 5th day of June 2023,
Respectfully submitted,
CAROLYN sro X GREEN

CANDIDCAROLYN®
PO Box 38097, Phoenix, AZ 85069
[email protected]
(253) 588-8100
29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I declare under the penalty of perjury and under the Federal laws and 28
U.S.C. § 1746 that the above is true and correct. As required by Supreme Court
Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari contains 7765 words,
excluding the parts of the petition that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule
33.1(d), filed under Rule 33.2 for paper format with Veteran’s waiver Rule 40.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Carolyn Sioux Green, state and declare as follows: I am over the age of 18
years, and I am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein. On June 5,
2023, and that I served a true and correct copy of this PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT and this
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on the following parties to this action, as indicated:
Defendant’s Counsel:
Attorney Generals Offices
PO Box 40124
Olympia, WA 98504-0124
PDF Via Email: [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected].
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statement is made under
the laws of the United States of America and that the foregoing is true and correct,
and I am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein.
DATED this this 5th day of June 2023.
s/CANDIDCAROLYN®
s/Carolyn Sioux Green
[email protected]
(253) 588-8100, Petitioner self-represented
30
In the Supreme Court of the United States
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Washington State Supreme Court
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

CANDIDCAROLYN®
(ref: Dkt. #54 formally & AKA)
[email protected]
(253) 588-8100
APPENDIX A: WA STATE SUPREME COURT

03/27/2023 determination for reconsideration
APPENDIX B: Washington State Supreme Court:
03/08/2023 determination for review
APPENDIX B–1: Washington State Supreme Court:
03/08/2023 determined public funds
02/06/2023 appellants answer to supreme court clerk’s questions
01/11/2023 questions from court clerk to be answered by appellant
12/15/2022 error by supreme court claiming court of appeals waived
filing fee when in fact appellant paid fee of $290
Providence: direct causation to this case and a related case
31
APPENDIX C: WA STATE SUPREME COURT

01/20/2023 clerk instruction for deadline filings
APPENDIX D: Washington State Supreme Court:
01/17/2023 letter from the court clerk
01/19/2023 appellant motion for permission to accept friends of
the court in support of petition for review: Dkt #269-1 pp. 1-66
APPENDIX D-1: appendix of friends of the court that include clerk’s designation
papers: Dkt #269-1 pp. 67-122
APPENDIX E: Washington State Supreme Court:
01/17/2023 objection by appellant to clerks' motion to strike
reply to answer
APPENDIX F: Washington State Supreme Court:
12/29/2022 clerk's motion to strike reply to answer
APPENDIX G: Washington State Supreme Court:
12/28/2022 reply to answer
APPENDIX H: COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION–II

04/12/2023 mandate
APPENDIX I: Court of Appeals Division–II:
10/13/2022 determination motion for reconsideration
APPENDIX J: Court of Appeals Division–II:
09/13/2022 unpublished opinion
APPENDIX K: Court of Appeals Division–II:
03/23/2022 determination for supplementing the record
03/03/2022 appellant’s motion to supplement the record
03/24/2022 appellant’s motion to modify the ruling
APPENDIX L: Court of Appeals Division–II:
03/21/2022 determination for consolidation the record
03/03/2022 motion to consolidate the record
(partial record due to file size/cost, summons perfected)
03/24/2022 motion to modify the ruling
APPENDIX M: Court of Appeals Division–II:
01/26/2022 determination for ADA, and court showing bias
01/12/2022 motion for American Disabilities Act (ADA)
(only partial record filed, due to file size/cost)
APPENDIX N: Court of Appeals Division–II:
01/11/2022 determination for supplement clerk’s papers
01/12/2022 motion to modify the ruling to supplement clerk’s papers
32
APPENDIX O: CONFLICTING FEDERAL RULINGS WAWD:

11/12/2020 conflicting ruling 3:20-cv-06112-BHS, defendant removal
05/05/2020 in further support of petitioner removal
04/14/2022 conflicting ruling 3:22-cv-05258-JCC
05/18/2022 petitioner objects to magistrate judge
05/18/2022 mag judge TLF assigned herself to 3:22-cv-05258-JCC
06/14/2022 petitioner paid filing fee of $402.00
06/08/2022 magistrate judge report and recommendation
APPENDIX P: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES:

12/08/2022: Dkt #262 list
05/03/2023: Dkt #276
03/31/2023: Dkt #273
02/07/2023: Dkt #269
01/23/2023: Dkt #267
08/26/2022: Dkt #226
APPENDIX Q: JOINDER DOE–1 Providence WAWD: 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ:

03/16/2022 motion to Joinder: Dkt #48
03/28/2022 affidavit proof of perfected service: Dkt # #146, 146-1
03/28/2022 in further support of joinder: Dkt #144
03/17/2022 certificate of perfected service: Dkt #143-1
03/31/2022 electronic agreement of 12/31/2020: Dkt #152-2
See Dkt # # 126, 126-1, Dkt #258 series
APPENDIX R: REOPEN “case splitting” case WAWD: 3:20-cv-06112-BHS:

03/16/2022 motion to reopen Dkt #49
04/01/2022 affidavits of perfected service: Dkt #158 (see appx S & T)
09/09 & 09/13 2021 court determination for voluntary dismissal due to
the state’s case splitting accusation: Dkt # # 119, 118
APPENDIX S: AFFIDAVITS of Perfected Service Dept of Veterans

APPENDIX T: AFFIDAVITS of Perfected Service Western State
APPENDIX U: FORCED DRUGGING a “Competent” individual:

20-2-07852-8 aka 3:20-cv-06112-BHS aka 20-2-07851-0 aka 557908
aka 101455-4 now here. Bypassing judicial determination chemically
lobotomizing a “Competent” individual; 18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury;
No Due Process; violations of the First Amendment; infringement of
the Second Amendment; violations of the Sixth Amendment; violations
of the Fourteenth Amendment, violations of the ADA.
And, 20+ Years of Excessive Drugs by the Dept of Veterans
See Dkt #258 series in 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ. Drug violations against
Dept of Veterans were timely filed.
33
APPENDIX V: REFERENCE LIST regarding the abuse, violence, deaths at

Western State Hospital, & Eastern State Hospital.
APPENDIX W: REFERENCE LIST as filed in #2:21-cv-01276-RAJ

Dkt #36-1 pp.175-179.

278-1 SCOTUS Writ of Certiorari 06-05-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

278-1 SCOTUS Writ of Certiorari 06-05-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

278-1 SCOTUS Writ of Certiorari 06-05-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Document 278-1 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 42

Case 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Document 278-1 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 42

In the Supreme Court of the United States

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN,

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERIORARI

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

1. Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to a case of which the

Questions Presented .......................................................................i

Addington v. Texas (1979)

Mills v. Rogers, (1982)

Vaughan v. First Union Nat’l Bank, (1999)

STATUTES & LAWS

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

1) See App P: Petitioner had Standing.

LIST OF THE PARTIES; PENDING

WAWD Dkt #49 pp. 4-5; 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Summons Perfected 3:20-cv-06112-

Summons Perfected for U.S. DEPT OF VETERANS:

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, SUBSTITUTION ;

motion for American Disabilities Accommodations (ADA). In addition, a

Appx: A, B, B-1, D, D-1, E, F, G.

2. Court of Appeals Division-II:

The unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals Division-II of September 13,

those decisions appears in Appx: I, J.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a):

“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a

CONSTITUTION & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

18 U.S.C. § 1621- Perjury: (1) “having taken an oath before a competent

Administrative Policy NO. 8.06 for the state of Washington Department of

Revised Code of Washington (RCW): numerous grotesque violations.

FEDERAL LAWS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED

FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law respecting an

SECOND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

SIXTH AMENDMENT: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS: In all criminal

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 1993: U.S. legislation

STATE LAWS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED

Article I § 1: Political Power,

Article I § 3: Personal Rights,

Article I § 5: Freedom of Speech,

Article I § 10: Administration of Justice,

Article I § 11: Religious Freedom,

Article I § 14: Excessive Bail, Fines and Punishment,

Article I § 24: Right to Bear Arms,

Washington State violated their own Constitution against a competent

individual. In Washington v. Harper 1) a competent individual’s right to refuse

psychotropic medication is a fundamental liberty interest requiring the highest

order of protection under the Fourteenth- Amendment.

procedures, commit perjury, falsify records, violate Constitutional rights, and

Hospital, revealing the unjust confinement and forced drugging of a competent

chemical lobotomized, followed by over 20 years of excessive polypharmacy

severe physical injury mismanaged by the Military, and defendant(s). The

Refer to Appendix Table of Contents, Appx U, public records link.

To address the extravagant amount of relief sought. The process requires

petitioner to state a monetary value. I struggle to put a monetary value on over

have had legal representation, a right to individualized adequate treatment and

care, with fairness.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

this matter be set for trial. Petitioner has Standing