P.S. "sua sponte" means "of its own accord", the English cognate is "spontaneous" ... "sua sponte case law" does not make sense.

The court it self decided to entertain it's own case against the defendant, tis why it don't make any sense..the judge went way outside what he was allowed to do... he in fact actually usurp the legislature by doing what he did weez..not only that but, as it turns out, the declaration as a matter of law is a quid-pro-quo...because the judge forged new law into the statute from what he did in my case....declare the law as written, he can't rewrite it thru statutory construction as claim as a matter of law.

I specifically questioned the court if the states claim of criminal liability was under this here: (5) It is a class C felony to fraudulently produce any record purporting to be, or tamper with the content of any record for the purpose of having it accepted as, valid documentation under *RCW 69.51A.010(6)(a).

(Which is the only criminal liability "ANY" patient can be charged for..all charges must come under the act, not the csa. Form over substance.)

The whole chapter requires the lawful use and negates probable cause, not the requirements "clauses" as claimed in State v. Fry...form over substance.

The court replied for the state and then with a smile asked the state if they was charging me under this criminal liability law for all persons producing any document claiming validity.

The state replied, not at all.

Since the legislature did not carve out criminal liability for a 1 yr "expiration date" it is absurd to think I am guilty of any crime at all. If any thing, the liability is on the signing physician and the doc-in-the-box,"ONLY".

There you go..am I nuts still?