Was it a collateral attack or a direct attack?

[Jimmy_and_Toni]

My jurisdiction is: Washington State

If an alleged deputy prosecutor files a charging document in the form of an 'information' and the accused Citizen timely challenges the jurisdiction of the court based upon the fact that the alleged deputy prosecutor has no standing to initiate or prosecute the matter because he has refused to accept his office by virtue of the fact that he has consistently and with knowledge, refused to take and file his oath, or to give bond, or to acquire and file a timely certificate of appointment, is this attack a direct attack upon the jurisdiction of the court, or is it somehow collateral in nature?

 

[Jimmy_and_Toni]

I'm new to this forum. 13 people have viewed my question and no one seems to know the answer, am I in the wrong place? Where are the legal experts?

 

[dee_dub]

An "attack" is an attack on the judgment of the court. A collateral attack is an attempt to avoid, defeat, evade, or deny the force and effect of a final order or judgment in an incidental proceeding other than by appeal, writ of error, certiorari, or motion for new trial: Nilsen v. Ports of Call Oil Company, 711 P.2d 98 (Okl. 1985). Note the "final order or judgment in an incidental proceeding" clause. Saying someone doesn't have standing in the proceeding at hand, while it has a "collateral" flavour, prevents the court from rendering judgment on the matter before it in the first place. Hence this was not an attack at all per se.

If the court had pronounced judgment on the information, and you had then attacked it based on the prosecutor's lack of standing, that might be a collateral attack.

 

[dee_dub]

It's a Sunday, and everybody here is a volunteer. Patience.

 

[Jimmy_and_Toni]

The court responded that this was a collateral attack, (in an effort to discredit the argument) that is why I'm asking the question, I don't understand how the court decided it was a collateral attack and the court gave no findings to support its contention

 

[dee_dub]

The court is using "collateral attack" in a different sense then. At any rate, the judge is saying that the prosecutor's alleged lack of standing does not prevent the court from dealing with the matter.