Subject: Link to Marbury v Madison.

http://www.fu.gq.nu/6751supp.html is a link to the winning brief for Forrest Bishop. We quoted Marbury v Madison in his brief as follows.

The Supreme Court said that I don't have to give up one right to exercise another right.

Washington drunk driving statutes are unconstitutional.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection' it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." - Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, Quoting from Marbury v Madison (1803) which is found at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm Marbury holds that a void act is void ab initio.

This Implied consent statute defies logic. It is transparently oppressive. The supreme court ruled that such an irrebuttable presumption constitutes a denial of due process and is therefore unconstitutional. Authority: Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur (1974) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5877.html 414 US 632, 39 L Ed 2d 52, 94 S Ct 791. Also, nobody can take away my driver license without a hearing and other due process. Authority: Bell v Burson (1971) 402 US 535, 29 L Ed 2d 90, 91 S Ct 1586 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Burson.html .

The state gave me no opportunity to rebut prior to impoundment of my car and imposition of towing charges. I was not offered a prompt post-deprivation hearing, but I digress.