Doug Buchanan
Email: Doug at DougBuchanan.com

18 July 2003

If there is any error or contradiction in the following, please assist the author's desire to correct it, but you might wisely first ask several questions of your conclusion, because the author did.


Mary Fairhurst, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court


The decision of State Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst, honorable individual I am certain, illuminates the contradictions she and her Supreme Court colleagues created and are currently attempting to sustain. Her colleagues are just as illogical, ignorant and intellectually incapacitated in their positions of public responsibility, if purely so and thus not intentionally dishonest and acting with criminal intent.

It is not possible for any person to be intellectually incapacitated because I or anyone else states the conclusion. It can only be so by their own actions, and only recognizable to you by your ability to recognize that attribute in their inability to resolve easily resolvable contradictions.

Because the case is currently before the Washington State Supreme Court, and it created such hilarious contradictions to the rule of written law, this page may assist the Supreme Court justices and observers in their analysis of the related laws. But your goal from the data herein remains with the process to learn how to promptly resolve increasingly complex contradictions, if you wish. First you must patiently learn how to resolve less complex contradictions. If you are as arrogant as adults who believe they already know such things, read no further, and enjoy the adult world's incessant blaming of the other guy for the countless ongoing social contradictions. Adults are so ignorant that they cannot comprehend that they are the other guy to the billions of other guys blaming the other guy, and thus define themselves as the source of the problems they are too stupid to learn how to solve.

Because the Washington State Supreme Court justices have apparently decided that their noses are too long to communicate with a mere peasant common citizen representing the property owner in this case, and that only licensed lawyers are allowed to speak or write to said judges so high on their illusionary pedestal, they formally cut off their access to the court case of record they are required by law to resolve, creating another amusing contradiction, much to the robust laughter of the observers of this case, with occasional residual snickering.

Mary and her intellectually absent Supreme Court colleagues apparently genuinely believe that if they decree that only a lawyer can talk to them, when the involved property owner cannot afford a lawyer and does not need a lawyer, contradictions in a court case therefore do not exist, and the property owner therefore holds no further recourse or any protection in the written law.

If you fool yourself into becoming so uppity, above mere humans, that you allow no one but lawyers to talk to you in the court you control, and not even the elected representatives of the public, while the public, not just the lawyers, pays taxes for your court and your salary, then the public will resolve the obvious contradiction you created, by talking to you in the court they control, such as this website and elsewhere. The uppity court sorts can ignore what the common people say, but that compounded evasion of a known legal duty defines the uppity court sorts among the public. That the American court judges have become useless to the public, and a waste of tax money, is proven by the method the public must use to talk to the court judges for court cases, and the reactions of those judges.

Well, so, ah, Mary, unplug your computer and hide further in your hole, if your decree that only lawyers may talk or write to you is to have effect. But your law school professors are reading this, and the public will recognize the abject failure of that law school, and the ignorance of those professors. Commonly intelligent people will always identify the process to resolve the contradictions fabricated by idiots, least idiots would be the most intelligent humans on the rock, and Court judges would therefore identify their own offspring as such, certainly suggesting their genetic contribution, if I am correct in that analysis.

I be one ah dos peasant common folk what aint no lawyer, an sowtinly got no dough to pay one off, an I may ascertain you oh da fac dat mo folks gonna read dis website about yoo findin on dis case, dan any folk ever gonna read yoo uder rulins, eh what.

An yo derfo gotta poifect chance to impress dem wid yoo tinkin smarts and respect fo da common folk, if such exists.

QUESTION: Mary, to illuminate your wisdom, intelligence and respect for your fellow common humans, if you hold those qualities, upon reviewing the entire case, precisely what would you recommend that the property owner do, that he can afford to do, that he knows how to do, other that writing this website and certain other lawful actions in the works, if you prefer an alternative to the normal process of meeting your duty to review the involved case, to assist the Washington State Supreme Court justices in reading what they accepted the paid benefit and duty to read but summarily decreed they would not read, evading that duty to resolve the glaring contradictions to the law illuminated in this case, and correct their unlawful denial of the protection of the law in this case, and still sufficiently flatter you or display any rightful respect that you prefer?

Say it or write it, and it shall be done if it can affordably be done and achieve the protection of the law under the highest law of the land for the protection of a citizen's full rights. The property owner has repeatedly stated and demonstrated that he seeks to obey the law, while the government and court officers have consistently and unlawfully denied him access to the protection of the law, identifying precisely why this website and other lawful actions will become well illuminated, and why American court judges have become as hated as lawyers, among the common people, and even among an increasing number of retired lawyers and judges whose minds are belatedly catching up with their prior actions.


Higher court judges accept the tax paid benefit (salary, institutional benefits of title, etcetera) of the therefore known legal duty to review lower court cases at request, and resolve identified contradictions to the law and application of the law within those cases. In these modern days the thoroughly corrupted judges of the higher appellate level courts, using raw power of office and color of law, routinely evade that duty by summarily refusing to hear or read such cases saturated with flagrant violations and contradictions to the law perpetrated by their crony judges in the lower courts, knowingly damaging citizens and denying them the protection of the law. The myriad of contradicted excuses do not prevail above the duty.


What is the resolution to the contradiction of higher court judges evading their known legal duty to review lower court cases that involve identified contradictions to the law?


Do not evade the duty in the first place, or perform the duty the moment that you are informed of your perhaps only negligent failure, or surrender the benefits of the duty and thus the liability of the duty, which is to say, quit the court judge job, or anticipate the inescapable consequences inherently beyond the control you surrendered by creating and attempting to sustain a contradiction that criminally damages other people. No human-caused contradiction is sustainable, by design. Consider the following.

The above referenced consequences are ascribed in the related laws. The consequences are also the choice of the damaged party or any other people who recognize the inordinate social danger of court officers who criminally evade their duties to the written law by imposing raw power of office instead. First by process of law, among the consequences are those inherent to perpetrating the crimes of evasion of a known legal duty, fraud, malfeasance, perjury to oath of office, and several other felony crimes, on each count of criminally damaging contradictions. Indictments for those crimes are instituted through the known legal duties of the yet higher court officers, the executive branch officers and/or legislative branch officers, the evasion of said duties constituting punishable crimes by those other officers. There is a reason that the government was designed with three branches effecting checks and balances among titled sorts whose egotistical minds can easily be pitted against each other, or otherwise proven and displayed as in the pocket of one of them, usually the most embarrassing dullard among them, then effecting the former. Further consequences include being rightfully and permanently displayed in public, with the proof of creating and attempting to sustain inherently untenable, damaging contradictions, as therefore an idiot, flat stupid, intellectually void, incapable of even grade school level thinking, perhaps genetically flawed and other verifiable conclusions. Such persons, perhaps in this case Washington State Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst, would be wisely impeached for criminal cause by certain RepublicratDemocans politically attached to them during elections, or would otherwise continue to define themselves and therefore pitiable people in Washington as of the same nature, for the laughter of the world. Further consequences can include the nearly limitless innovative nature of human minds encountering a damaging contradiction with incentive to resolve it against the contradicted and thus inherently doomed government use of Neanderthal type force and deception, within a species predicated on the inherently prevailing concept of the human mind's reasoning ability. Within but at an unnecessary extreme of such consequences, after all rational and affordable recourse is exhausted within the legal and non-damaging arena, and the proof becomes unequivocal that the current government and its courts have instituted a form of obviously corrupted government wherein the common people are allowed no access to the protection of the written law, and therefore rule of guns or other force prevails, less wise and less innovative people therein LAWFULLY acquire the authority to use raw force of armed revolution, not a crime, as US President Thomas Jefferson recommended, at any level as a rational resolution to the contradiction of being functionally denied protection of written law.

What did we say was LAWFUL for the Iraqi common people to do against their government, and what did we exercise in Iraq because Saddam's court judges and other thugs allowed his people no protection under properly constituted written law? Does the US government annually train thousands of young military people to use reasoning to resolve identified contradictions, or use force of arms? Do court judges in Washington allow the presentation of law-based reasoning in the courts, or threaten torture if citizens even breathe the principles of law that protect them in a court of law? Would the latter threat not identify a lawful action if the involved court judge was not criminally violating a law?

Some of those innovative techniques by common people have efficiently caused the ridiculing-out-of-office and similar results of a variety of government officials, great and lesser, throughout history, who were therefore abandoned from further mention except for ridicule. The author of this website, as you might suspect of a person who methodically thinks through complex contradictions, and who asks questions of people who foolishly believe that their silly titles of office somehow make them superior to inherently equal other humans, and who use power of office to maliciously damage fellow humans, has orchestrated a number of those innovative and entertaining processes suddenly plunging government officials out of public, legal and political favor.

The fools of government suggest that they can fool all of the people all of the time and thus perceive they are immune to the consequences of their actions among the inherently volatile human species which has proven that it craves freedom more than it respects life. Every military soldier in human history fought and openly risked his life, many died, for what he (foolishly) perceived was freedom from the force of the other guy. The courts of written law in America, originally designed to institute wisdom and reasoning above force, have sunk to intentionally excluding the process of reasoning, as the example of this case illuminates, and instead rely on the use of raw force of police guns (and the guns under the robes of most court judges these days), and in this case, threats of torture. The court officers have created the traditional result for which common people traditionally organize to fight against that result with arms or other force. The federal building in Oklahoma City, the Trade Towers in New York City, and every such retaliatory attack in human history occurred for the sole reason that access to effective forums of human reasoning (courts of written law) were denied to the common people by idiot, ignorant, egotistical, petty court judges whose noses were too long to talk to mere common people after gross contradictions to the rule of written law, damaging the common people, were identified on record.

When you unlawfully use power of office and color of law to cut the people off from the protection of the written law, robbing them of the protection of the law, therein creating a fundamental contradiction repugnant to the rule of law, the people will inherently resolve the contradiction beyond your control. The protection of the written law is imperative if you wish your society to not turn to the protection of their guns. Would you be so foolish as to suggest that the common people of your society, including your offspring and other relatives, should not do so?

No human-caused contradiction is sustainable. Create one, to thus identify your intellectual limitation, and the resolution is promptly out of your control, under the control of any more intelligent or capable person. Your option is to not create damaging contradictions, or immediately correct them upon identification. Any attempt to maliciously sustain contradictions by force, including by power of office or color of law, or retaliate for the contradiction being resolved by common people after you surrender your duty to do so, only creates greater damages and thus more profound consequences to you and your institution, by design of the human mind.

The Washington State Supreme Court justices purport to be the highest intellectual capability relating to law in the State of Washington, least they would respectfully resign if they valued the rule of law for their offspring. The DemocanRepublicrats who put those judges in their positions have not corrected the obvious contradiction, defining themselves. The following is what therefore defines the highest intellectual capability relating to law in the State of Washington, and their political colleagues, and perhaps accurately represents the people of Washington, at an obvious nadir of human reasoning ability.

The case, the details of which are not needed for the illumination and resolution of the contradictions discussed on this individual web page, made its way to the Washington State Supreme Court. To serve their raw personal power and vulnerable egos, as power dictates in the minds of its victims, the lower court officers willfully compounded a grand array of hilarious contradictions to the written law, on record, invoking the duty of the higher courts, at the request of record, to resolve those now many criminal contradictions to the law.

Anything less than resolving a contradiction in the law or in the application of law, on court record, would leave two case laws contradicting each other for an action of record. The rule of written law cannot exist above the rule of personalities with government jobs administering law, who would therefore be kings, if two laws contradict each other for the same human action, and no written law resolves the contradiction. If administrators of law can lawfully pick one law for an identified action, to protect their personal friends, and pick another law for the same action, to damage their personal enemies, the rule of written law has been surrendered to the rule of personalities (kings with judge, prosecutor or police jobs). Who but an idiot or common American adult cannot understand that fundamental precept of law, logic and human reasoning?

That this website must inform Washington State Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst of that fundamental maxim of law and logic, understandable to grade school kids, is proven by the attempts of Mary and her court colleagues to defy that concept and to maliciously damage a person under color of law.

The rule of written law was instituted to protect the people from the inherently corrupting power of government which is heavily armed and needs no further power to exercise its decrees. When written law is subverted to become just another weapon for the government's court thugs to attack the people, the law becomes a useless waste of tax money under a government that can already rule with its decrees and guns.


Two written laws contradict each other for the same human action, one defining the action as lawful, and another defining the action as unlawful, a common event in a government bloated with budget-desperate, power-craving officials and agencies writing self-serving laws as fast as they can slash the forests for the pulp to make paper for their public law books, regulation books, ordinance books, statute books, civil code books, court rule books, park rule books, mandatory policy books, law library books, ad infinitum, ad funding excusium, ad power cravium, much to the amusement of observers.


What is the resolution to the contradiction created by two written laws contradicting each other for the same human action, one defining the action as lawful, and another as unlawful?


Do not create the contradiction in the first place, or suggest to the writers of the laws that they immediately correct the obvious contradiction the moment that you identify their error to them, or if those chaps are recalcitrant, bring the laws before a court of written law, ascertain the lawful law from the process of reasoning, therein easily questioning every identified contradiction until no question is unanswered, and erase the contradicting inferior law from the law books and write it into the history books of intellectually absent government dolts writing idiot laws, along with the name of the idiot who wrote the self-serving inferior law, then fire him and perhaps throw him in jail a few months so the next government idiot might not be so quick to grab power with his tax paid pen.

You can easily understand that. Is that not so? Mary and other adults literally cannot identify the contradiction or comprehend the above resolution, as their actions prove above their sputterings at reading those words. Upon seeing those words, they claim to know the concept. Moments later their power-damaged minds will revert to what their ongoing actions of record prove, the opposite of their worthless words as the court case of this website proves. That is how horribly, petty power will damage your reasoning ability if you fail to learn how to resolve contradictions before adulthood.

A controlling concept of the process that the institution of lawyers and judges have used to subvert the rule of law, would normally be presented here, in relation to the above, but will be presented on another page. Look for it. It is knowledge that explains most of your frustrations with the pitiable lawyers and their ilk. It is a separate contradiction, the zenith of dishonesty and perfidy by American lawyers and judges, that would enrage the minds of those who are too easily angered by dishonesty, and will cause wise people to laugh themselves to tears and never believe another word out of the mouth of any government or court official, especially government licensed lawyers.

Decades ago law school professors taught freshman law students the above maxim of law and logic. They no longer do so, or even understand that fundamental process to resolve contradictions in law, as proven by the actions of their graduates constituting the list of court officers on this website. Nearly all court judges now routinely deny the citizens protection of the written law, by picking the contradicting inferior laws of their choice to benefit their friends, to also mutually advance the power of their colleagues in government, and apply different laws to attack their enemies for the same action protected for their friends. Their addled minds genuinely believe they are administering law rather than raw power, as power dictates to their power-addled minds. The cases saturate modern court records, without any of the judges ever being indicted, tried, convicted or imprisoned for those glaring crimes known to all American court judges and lawyers. The law school students who graduated while still ignorant of the law, for a reason explained elsewhere, then became the professors teaching the ignorance they learned. The entire institution can no longer identify or resolve even grade school level contradictions in written law. They all sincerely believe that the law is whatever some government dolt or judge dolt says is the law, at their whim, as their actions on record prove despite their sputterings at seeing these words.

The first example of the now thousands of people routinely denied jury trials every year, in violation of the unamended words of the US Constitution in that regard, to say nothing of the countless other court created contradictions to law, without that first judge or any subsequent judge being imprisoned for the crime of denying a citizen his superior law right to a trial by jury, doomed the American system of jurisprudence, and proves the intellectual void of court judges. The entire institution of lawyers, judges, law schools, congressmen and every other government sector cannot save it, for a reason infinitely beyond their understanding, much to the howling laughter of observers. Any contradiction left in place dooms everything built upon it, and no mere human will ever escape that plain old grade school level science class law of nature infinitely above the power of Supreme Court judges.

Learn the reason for the laughter, to enjoy it. You can do that as a young person if you learn how to resolve contradictions. No adult can learn the knowledge. They fear effective questions, least they would not have suggested the ego candy of any knowledge superior to children, within the institution of adults who no longer understand how to even effect a superior law jury trial against the whimsical inferior law decrees of therefore criminal judges. You can show them their rights printed in the supreme law of the US Constitution, and they are clueless of how to resolve the contradiction of court judges simply denying the rights by decree, while the adults continue to lavishly pay their colleague idiot adults sitting in the judge jobs.

The mind of Justice Mary Fairhust, stifled by law school and the illusions of her silly little title, literally cannot identify or comprehend a contradiction in picking one of the countless contradicted inferior laws of her whim, to deny the protection that the rule of written law was designed and publicly purported to provide the property owner in this case. She cannot identify it in her own damaging actions of record, or in those of the lower court officers within the record before her court, for the same reason those lower court products of the worthless American law schools and their law professors are too intellectually absent to identify or resolve in their own contradictions.

The government and its dutifully unquestioning public school teachers told the public that cases presented to an appellate court are decided by judges, or to satisfy their amusing demand for greater ego gratification above those mere rabble judges in the lower inferior courts, "justices". They are expensive, and they fluff up no small whirlwind of titles and credentials to fool fools into believing the tax paid worth of "justices". The court is presided over by justices. So who do you think really decides the cases presented to the appellate level courts, if government and its school teachers lie when their lips are moving, as usual?

What is your reasoning ability, identified in the following?

The courts have a court "commissioner", a bureaucrat lawyer. He decides if the case will even be heard by the justices, and thus is the controlling agent of the courts, above the justices, by definition of his power to deny them the opportunity to even see a case. It follows by nature of what contradictions are, that if he, a law school educated lawyer identical to the justices, holds the knowledge to decide if a case involves or does not involve contradictions, and because all contradictions in law are already resolved in the common law readily available in the law library, he holds the knowledge of which law prevails within each identified contradiction. Further, he has access to the same law library, the same law library skills, and a staff, as do the justices. And the commissioners, who are lawyers, will tell you they hold that basic knowledge purportedly learned in their freshman year at the same law schools that taught the judges. There are no separate judge schools or commissioner schools. They are all just a bunch of lawyers who are political hacks of the politicians who appointed them, separated only by the rhetorical illusion of their appointed titles.

The tax paid commissioners are cheaper than the justices. Why are the gullible Washington State adults paying taxes for expensive justices when all they are getting is cheap commissioners for the work, and getting expensive justices only for the ego and paper-shuffling of the therefore useless justices? Do not become as gullible as adult tax payers.

But the Supreme Court judges claim that the commissioner is inferior to them (a functional lie), and therefore they create and accept the liability of their claim. No benefit can be accepted without accepting the liability, by law. Therefore, if the commissioner speaks, writes or acts for the Supreme Court which told the citizens that the justices are the presiding officers of the Supreme Court, then each word and action of the commissioner is the word and action of each Supreme Court justice, by law.

When the Washington State Supreme Court Commissioner writes, his words are those of Justice Mary Fairhurst, by law. Mary and her justice colleagues are responsible for, and legally liable for, the commissioner in his official capacity.

Amusingly, as usual for criminal minds, it is the formal policy of Mary Fairhurst, her colleagues and the Washington State Supreme Court Commissioner to keep the identification of the Commissioner a secret. His formal rulings representing Mary and her cohorts are illegibly signed without an identifying signature block. Criminal minds traditionally try to hide their identities. The absence of an identifying signature block for Washington State Supreme Court rulings, on Court paperwork otherwise replete with ego-feeding titles and names, at this late date of 2003, illuminates an entrenched Washington State Supreme Court policy and intent to dodge accountability for what are obviously criminal denials of people's rights. The written record is indelible.

Mary's secret commissioner summarily denied the right of the property owner to have his case reviewed by the State Supreme Court. An entertaining array of contradictions was therefore created, for your learning opportunity. A few will be discussed on this web page. Others will be discussed on other pages at this website, representing the thinking inability of Mary's colleagues for whom the secret commissioner also acted.

For his excuse to deny a right, he selected one of the usual inferior laws that court judges and their bureaucrats pull out of their, ah, rule book. Through him, Mary stated, in different words, that counsel for the property owner was not a lawyer, and only lawyers are allowed to talk to the kings of the Supreme Court.

To fool fools, thus the court judges, Justice Mary did not use those above words which might cause even her apparently crippled mind to recognize that something is wrong with her decisions. Mary had prior trained her mind to parrot a lawyer-crafted series of extending contradictions in phrases and sentences found in the millions of inferior laws such as inferior case laws and the inferior rules of the court. Through her secret commissioner, she stated that because the property was owned by a trust, it must be represented in court by a licensed lawyer. You should be able to immediately recognize the contradiction of a court judge limiting someone's choice of representation.

For perspective, the Nazi German judges stated in the court rules they wrote, that Jews could only be represented in court by a licensed lawyer, for the better protection by a professional, while another obscured law required lawyers to be a member of the Nazi Party. Then Adolf's court judges loudly told the world that Jews were allowed legal council in fair courts. Idiot adults believed those impressively titled German judges and their rhetorical illusions, WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS, identical to the idiot American adults believing American court judges and lawyers WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS. You can immediately identify the obvious contradiction in the Nazi German court process. But because the attempt to resolve a contradiction, such as denying a person the right to a court case review, with another contradiction, such as requiring its representative to be a member of the RepublicratDemocan Party, ah, I mean, a government licensed lawyer, a vast extent of contradictions are immediately created, easily beyond the power-damaged minds of Justice Mary and her ilk to resolve. Therefore Mary and her colleague judges literally cannot understand a contradiction in requiring a completely competent and literate person not needing an idiot lawyer, to be represented by someone he does not want to represent him, cannot afford, and what is identified in another obscured American court rule as an adverse or opposing counsel. The adults get that flat stupid. Do not let that happen to your mind.

You very seriously want to learn the knowledge of the step-by-step process lawyers and judges used to subvert and steal the law in this nation, and you can, if you learn how to resolve one contradiction at a time, while adults will die of old age, frustrated their entire lives with a myriad of illogical contradictions, before they simply ask the questions to learn such knowledge imperative for a thinking human. If you fail to do the work to train your mind in the skill of resolving contradictions, you will end up as dumb as Mary and other adults.

The property owner in this case is a trust, a common artificial person. You want to learn about trusts, especially what inherently dishonest and ignorant lawyers (all of them) will NOT tell you. Trusts, corporations, formal associations, companies, governments, agencies, courts, clubs and several other entities constitute artificial persons recognized in law. They are usually a few pieces of paper stating what they are, how they function, and which natural person or persons represent them. All artificial persons identify a natural person who is responsible for the artificial person. The law treats an artificial person just like a natural person except for certain attributes such as limited liability. For example, if a corporation goes broke because of bad management, the investors and creditors can claim the remaining assets of the corporation, but not the personal assets of the managers, investors and creditors. That concept facilitates the creation of beneficial new social and business activities that are financially risky at the start, such as the invention and production of telephones, cars, airplanes, eight track cassettes, computers, private space ships and non-profit public services. If you can lose your house instead of only your computer, who would try to invent and market something so hair-brained as computers? If you can lose your house because you taught a school student some wrong information, and a lawyer therefore sued you, there would be no school teachers. The school is an artificial person identified in its charter.

Without a natural person to represent the artificial person, the artificial person does not exist.

Mentally competent natural persons of legal age, and all artificial persons, hold the absolute right to select their own representation for all matters under law, by law. It can be no other way without law imposing an adverse counsel of the government's choice under color of an inferior law or rule, the equivalent of imposing a Nazi Party lawyer to represent a Jew in a Nazi court. Your mind can easily understand that. Mary's mind cannot, as her actions prove.

If case law, among millions of case laws created by judges who are lawyers, to benefit their lawyer cohorts, could force you to hire a costly lawyer to represent you as your only access to a court of law, the same process of judges penning court rules into existence (used by the Nazi court judges) could by used to force you to hire a DemocanRepublicrat Party member lawyer, or a government licensed Goofball, or anything else at the whim of Goofball judges. Written law exists to replace the power of personalities to rule by their personal decree.

What concept in prevailing law and logic secures your right to select your own representative?

Who shall decide who represents you or your company? Shall it be you or a Republicrat judge?

Who is legally liable for the decisions and actions made by YOU, YOUR company and YOUR representative?

What is the greatest reasoning ability of the wisest judges in the history of the common law nations, creating the highest law relating to your choice of representation in court or elsewhere?

If MARY makes the decision as to who must represent you, against your will, who is legally liable for the decisions, actions, mistakes and crimes of your representative who therefore represents YOUR decisions, actions, mistakes and crimes?

Who selected the representative against your will?

By record at this time, Justice Mary Fairhurst, representing the zenith of intellectual ability in the law arena of the State of Washington, obviously at a nadir, is literally too intellectually impaired to answer those simple questions of prevailing law and logic, for signed public record, while grade school children can accurately answer the questions. If she accurately answered them, she would ascribe to record the proof of her criminally defrauding the property owner of his rights in this case. Her power-damaged mind will not allow her to do that, for the same reason criminals routinely deny their crimes when asked if dey done it.

Among the undeniable proofs that you are more intelligent than, for example, Washington State Supreme Court Justices with their walls of framed law school degrees and credentials, is your ability to write the verifiably correct answers to fundamental social or legal questions, and sign your name to them, and openly distribute them, while Mary and her ilk literally cannot do so, as proven by this case among countless. A small number of such questions are indicators of your superior intelligence. As the number easily increases, because said judges have so extensively damaged their reasoning or thinking ability, you will recognize how intellectually impaired they and many other adults have made themselves, and how comparatively advanced your intellect has usefully become. The more you think and learn, by asking and answering more questions, the more you will exponentially learn from what you prior learned. If your mind refuses to answer a simple question that common-sense people around you accurately and openly answer to identify their reasoning ability, your therefore worthless mind will end up as laughably dumb as government adults whose minds also refuse to answer simple questions that prove their stupidity for using raw power above human reasoning.

If Mary uses power of office and color of law to force the property owner to be represented by a person of Mary's choice, for a court case, against the owner's will, who is legally liable for all results of Mary's choice? You can easily answer the question. Mary Fairhurst, a Washington State Supreme Court justice, is too flat ignorant of the law to answer that question, as her actions in this case prove. At your answer, you start out as more intelligent than Mary, and can rapidly advance further with every question you answer and she flees. Mary is doomed to fabricating endless contradicted excuses, all failing the controlling concept, as to why she can force adverse representation onto others, with power of office and color of law, and not be legally liable for her action.

Write the following, for practice: My name is (your name) of (your address). The answer to the question of who is and must always be legally liable for the decisions and actions of a representative forced onto a person against that person's will, is the person who forced that representative onto the person. Sign that statement. Send it to anyone beyond your control so that will first thoroughly question your words before you possibly otherwise embarrassed yourself in front of a more thinking person. That answer is correct. Any additional data one may contrive to create a different answer, is additional data that may create a different answer, but the aforementioned answer is correct for the question, and is a fundamental precept of responsibility for one's own actions. It will stand the test of questioning.


Consider that you cannot afford, and do not logically need, another person to simply present the written facts for a court case made astonishingly easy by your having stated, right from the get-go, that you seek to obey the law if the government will reveal the law you are required to obey, and certify it as the prevailing law rather than an inferior, contradicted law or some judge's worthless legal opinion, and that you are literate among court judges who claim to be literate, while Justice Mary states that she will not even listen to you in court if you do not pay-off an expensive representative from a (repugnant) social sector of her personal choice, who also represents an adverse counsel opposed to your interests under another obscured law, because Mary says that she has an unrevealed inferior pocket law which says you must be represented in court by a representative from a (repugnant) social sector of her personal choice.


What is the resolution to the contradiction of forcing someone against their will to be represented by someone adverse to their interests, and too expensive for them to afford?


Do not force the chap, against his will, to be represented by someone else in the first place, or give him a signed contract stating that you will be legally liable for all statements, actions, damages and consumption of time by your choice of representatives, accountable to the forced person or any subsequent representative of his choice, and pay for the representative you foisted onto the chap.

Notice that no damage is done by this or the other resolutions. To be sustainable, your resolutions must cause no damage and no new contradiction. If your resolution creates a contradiction, it is useless to you except to better illuminate the correct resolution.

Notice that Justice Mary cannot recognize the above obvious resolution, least she would recognize the criminal fraud in which she is engaged. She is using color of law and power of office to deny citizen rights. Her action is just like that of a uniformed police officer, whom you are not allowed to resist, physically assaulting you without cause in prevailing law. Her mind clearly perceives court process in the same manner as Nazi German court judges who held just as many pocket excuses penned by fellow judges and Adolf, to force adverse counsel on victims of the courts, against the will of the victims.

Do not ever put yourself in a position that you cannot say or write the words of a universal statement of basic human logic without therefore stating the proof of your having committed a crime. It is one thing to be unable to state that you robbed the bank, without admitting to a crime. It is far worse to be unable to state a basic human truism already known to all common sense people, such as not being able to state that if two written laws contradict each other, one must be identified in written law as prevailing over the other, if one lives under the rule of written law rather than the rule of personalities with the power to pick and choose which law to apply for a single action. It is not that Justice Mary cannot state those words because she would identify her criminal actions in this and many cases, it is that her power-damaged mind will not allow itself to state those words because they can destroy much of her judge institution's raw power over other humans and the written law. The court records are now saturated with judges having criminally cheated people out of many of their rights in court, by substituting inferior contradicted laws for superior prevailing laws, by raw power of office alone, of which the case of this website is superlative, and no judge will indict those criminally acting judges for their crimes. Power can never allow the mind it infects to ever willingly surrender any portion of power.

Learn how to ask adults effective written questions, or you will end up like them.

Consider that the court judges were told the following, in writing: Counsel for the property owner will graciously assist you and your colleagues in proving yourselves to be the wisest and most capable justices within the American system of jurisprudence. He will do so by accurately answering your every question, and advising you of the questions you should ask to resolve each identified contradiction in your decisions or actions, if you wish. Should you decline the offer and produce any contradictions to law or logic that damage the property owner, or deny him his full rights and protections under the prevailing law, he will offer the same to higher court justices, and perhaps officers of other branches of the government required by law to perform as a check and balance against unlawful actions of court officers. The property owner seeks to obey the common law.

Now consider if YOU had available to you a person who would accurately answer your every question, and verify his answer against your every question, and offer instructive questions you may not have considered, if you identify any contradiction, for your duties, to thus transfer the resulting knowledge to your mind, to thus result in your being the wisest and most capable person for your duties. And consider that you held before you indications of his ability to resolve many contradictions within your duties.

Between YOU and persons of high titles and walls full of credentials, who would be curious and accept the offer, and who would scoff at it and refuse to even speak to the person making the offer because he did not have a sufficient title? Why did the reign of kings fall, and why are lawyers/judges so universally despised that their reign is obviously doomed? Write your answer from the data of the question. Is your answer correct?

That is enough to better illuminate the intellectual inability of Washington State Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst and her colleagues, at the moment.

The contradictions of her colleagues will be discussed as time permits. The record is indelible.


Justice Barbara Madsen

Justice Sandra O'Connor

The Contradiction

The Results

Judge Heather Van Nuys

Judge Robert Hackett

The Jury

Justice Gerry Alexander



The other court sorts, to be added later.