CourtCorruption.com
YakimaCorruption.com
Doug Buchanan
Email: Doug at DougBuchanan.com
May 2004
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.
Your goal in reading this page is to easily learn the highly useful knowledge that the minds of US Supreme Court Justices may simply not be capable of learning.
Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice, United States Supreme Court
The reasoning presented on this page does NOT illuminate the intellectual ability or inability of the mind of US Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, yet.
It illuminates the intellectual inability of the involved Washington State Court judges, justices and other officers, the Yakima City Council members (named on other pages of this website), and lawyer Russell Gilbert of Lyon Law Office in Yakima Washington, in their official capacities, by their willing acquiescence, under the proofs presented elsewhere on this website, as are sustainable against any questioning.
This page presents what MAY BECOME the proof of Justice Sandra O'Connor's intellectual inability, if the federal circuit court officers in turn evade their related duties, and if she and her court colleagues manifest their decisions or actions in the manner predicted by the Washington State Court officers, Yakima City Council members, and lawyer Russell Gilbert.
This page is a small excerpt of the more thorough illumination of the fatal corruption of the American system of jurisprudence, demonstrating the certainty of its inherent demise, for your questioning, to thus advance your knowledge. That is, unless the contradictions created in the case presented on this website are flawlessly resolved by the American system of jurisprudence, in accordance to the requirements of prevailing law.
Power is a common phenomenon at play within many human minds. Verifiably stupid or intellectually void people are attracted to titles of power, such as that of lawyers and court judges, among many other institutional titles, routinely and easily acquired from those institutions predicated on perpetuating such titles, because power cannot exist in a human mind that holds sufficient intellectual ability to effectively question the controlling contradiction of power (its proverbial Achilles Heel), and thus the flaw of the institutions, and who do so to thus desire no such titles. Highly titled but intellectually absent people can successfully fool a lot of common people for a long time, by nature of titles and gullible, unquestioning people, but that is the inherent limit of titled people. That limit is absolute and inescapable, by design of the human mind. It identifies the demise of every power-based institution, at a predictable or manifestable time.
At a certain event-based time, precisely known and manifestable among those who simply learn what power is and how it functions within the human mind, power and institutions predicated on it, collapse, without possible escape, for a precise reason superficially described as the human inability to fool all of the people all of the time. To successfully fool or deceive all of the people all of the time would define the human mind (its design) as something other than a contradiction identification and resolution device, or as predicated on something other than the process of reasoning. If a person could manifest such a phenomenon (not possible by design), he or she would hold a brain that was biologically and functionally different from all other human brains, by design, and be dramatically inferior to the design of other brains because only a fool would predicate decisions or actions on an inherently untenable deception, or what is not, rather than what is. Therein you notice the contradiction between a verifiably inferior design fooling a verifiably superior design, again illuminating why all human minds cannot be fooled all of the time, describing an absolute limit. The demarcation is in fact the flawlessly describable phenomenon of power, not a different brain design.
Wisely remember in that regard, that an individual who can successfully fool several or more other people for a few years or more, must first thoroughly fool his own mind (damage its process), to thus sincerely believe his own words, least his words would not ring sufficiently true for the other several minds over time, for an elsewhere described reason. The Yakima City Council members and their lawyer Russell Gilbert, genuinely and sincerely believe that they can lawfully rule by legislative fiat (above all limiting law), and lawfully change the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules, just as they stated on record of this case, and then manifested in their untenable actions. They then more viciously attacked the property owner to entrench their belief and actions. Judge Robert Hackett's mind genuinely and sincerely believes that he can lawfully impose raw power of office to threaten torture to silence the respectful expression of the law, in a court of law, which he did, and then more viciously attacked the property owner, to entrench his belief and actions.
If their absolute belief in their words and actions were not genuine, events would too easily cause their minds to identify the contradictions, and let slip the admission to their own minds or others, that they criminally attacked, defrauded and damaged an innocent person, and cannot escape the consequences, including the new extent resultant from the lapse of time. An individual mind can fool itself for its entire life time. To manifest such a phenomenon within the biological brain, one must adopt the process of power above the process of reasoning within the mind. Once adopted, for an individual, the damage is permanent. It is a terminal affliction. Are the minds of Sandra O'Connor and her US Supreme Court colleagues afflicted by power? But if so, as an entirely separate concept, illuminating the consistent flaws of power, what is that power's reaction to the power of Judge Robert Hackett who functionally dismissed the power of Sandra, with expressed contempt for her power, to elevate his mind's perception of his power, as is the demand of power? Reasoning holds no enemies, because it is the controlling design of all human minds. Power defines all people and concepts, including itself, as enemies, least power could not exist as a concept.
One of the contradictions to prevailing law and logic created by the Washington State Court officers involved with this case, is their conclusion that the property owner cannot be allowed to present his case to the appellate courts because he is not a lawyer. The court demand that the property owner be a lawyer or hire a lawyer to access the right to speak or write to court judges, to thus use the peaceful and reasoning-based court system, rather than its predecessor system of violent confrontation, to resolve contradictions, was penned into existence by lawyers and judges, and purported to be law (inferior law of court rules), to force or deceive people into paying monetary tribute to lawyers, and to elevate the ego gratification of being a government licensed lawyer (thus also a court judge). The system is just common petty corruption of the nature found in every inherently corrupted, power or deception based system, illuminating a portion of the reason for the pending self-demise of the American system of jurisprudence.
Consider the question: Why is it impossible to sustain such amusing corruption, among a population of commonly intelligent humans?
The property owner is literate in the language of the involved laws and courts, that being English. The property owner is and was demonstrated as being capable of presenting verbal and written facts and reasoning, in a manner no less understandable than any other human in the bailiwick of the courts. The property owner can rationally represent his case, with no evidence contradicting that demonstrated ability. The property owner owns and controls the expression of his defense, because it is his defense, regardless of which person presents it to the courts.
The definitions of the words used for any such presentation are found in the common English dictionary, in the event that any words used are not familiar to the court judges.
The definitions of any words used for the presentation of a case, do not change just because they are spoken or written by a lawyer, instead of a common person. The holding of a government lawyer's license does not alter the definitions of words.
The court judges claim to be literate, educated, and not impaired for the process or understanding expressed law and reasoning. They have accepted the benefits for the duty to know and apply the proper laws to the facts and reasoning of any case. Additionally, they have accepted high titles implying their superior abilities in that regard, thus negating any need or legitimate demand for assistance from less titled lawyers or others.
If US Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, by process of her acquiescence to sustaining the above referenced controlling contradiction (among others) of the Washington State Court officers, with her authority, therefore refuses to hear the case, if it reaches the Supreme Court because the US Circuit Court refuses to hear it or otherwise errs, or if Sandra and her colleagues do not flawlessly resolve that glaring contradiction (as well as the others), an action whose damaging results are not corrected by any of the traditional inferior law excuses, the following would define Sandra's intellectual inability, and its corollaries, without escape in sustainable reasoning.
Her mind would understand the meanings of words if the words are presented by a lawyer, but not understand the meanings of the same words if they are presented by a non-lawyer, to thus effect a purported reason for court justices to refuse to hear the case if the property owner could not afford to hire a lawyer, which he cannot. No common law exists except by its uncontradicted reasoning of court record.
The contradiction is so obvious that grade school children can immediately recognize it. Therefore, Sandra O'Connor's mind would be accurately and verifiably describable as stupid, intellectually void, power-damaged, corrupted, dishonest, idiot, dumb as mud, a Neanderthal knuckle-dragger throw-back, duct tape deficient, or any other such accurate descriptions created from useful words by commonly intelligent people.
If, to defend herself from such a description, Sandra stated that she or the lower court officers were sufficiently intelligent to understand plain English words, regardless of whether they were presented by a lawyer or non-lawyer, she would be stating the proof that the property owner was criminally defrauded of his right to have this contradiction-saturated case reviewed by an appellate level court, thus defining herself, or if done in the proper course of law, the lower court justices, as criminals. But besides therefore acknowledging the imperative of law to initiate due process of criminal law against any such justices, the criminal mind (a power-damaged mind), is inherently stupid, intellectually void, etceteras, because a crime constitutes an inherently untenable contradiction which therefore only a stupid person would attempt. The description of exercising an illogical action or expressing an illogical set of words my be ascribed to several summary words, such as criminal when a related law is violated, but remain as illogical or an act of stupidity since illogical actions and words are not sustainable. They defy logic.
For those who might suggest that apparently getting away with a crime, therefore in relation to specific persons and a specific time, means that a crime or contradiction is tenable or sustainable, simply ask a few more questions of your hasty conclusion. How much money or other gain is worth training your mind to be unable to identify and resolve contradictions, without creating the contradiction of damaging other people to thus prove the intellectual inability of your mind? Apparently, among other examples, a court judge's salary and ego gratification is sufficient for some people to trade away the otherwise priceless and vastly greater utility of their mind, thus defining themselves as stupid, like other criminals, and perhaps have trained their offspring to be equally impaired, just as this website will do for Sandra if she effects such a proof by her actions. He or she who believes that they can get away with a crime, or have done so, or can create and sustain any other contradiction, did not ask the next questions, to thus define their mind as above described.
If Sandra would therefore attempt a different excuse, another arrangement of words, to escape the consequences of the American appellate courts refusing to hear the case under the excuse being pandered by her lower court judicial colleagues, after that refusal has already damaged the property owner, such arrangement of words could only be a prevailing law because Sandra holds no authority to impose any demands or actions beyond the law itself, for a court case, besides the questions which would promptly reveal the contradiction and thus criminal intent of that excuse in itself, and it not being the prevailing law, the property owner had prior requested on record that each demand or action imposed upon him under claim of authority in law, be done so by law, and that the applied law be revealed and certified as prevailing, at the time, as is the primary legal duty of court officers, and as is the right of the person upon which the demands of the law are applied, so that the property owner could know the law to thus obey the law, the excuse would bring forward the question as to why it was not presented and certified as the prevailing law at the time of its application so that the damages of further process could be avoided. Therein Sandra again would illuminate proof of the crimes of herself if she attempted such for her own actions, or of the lower court officers if she did so under her lawful duty to ascertain if the lower court officers defrauded the property owner of its rights, time, money and property.
No human holds the ability to resolve a contradiction with another contradiction, and remain without both contradictions yet in need of resolution, plus the contradictions created by their sum, by design of the human mind. The concept of courts was wisely invented to resolve contradictions with reasoning process, the process of the human mind, more so among the appellate courts, to replace the primitive process of attempting to resolve contradictions by violent confrontation, the use of muscles and weapons, the creation of a greater contradiction. However, American court officers, for an intriguing reason which also created the repugnant and categorically contradicted institution of lawyers, have so thoroughly corrupted the concept of courts, that court officers are now the primary source of the most damaging social contradictions increasingly stifling the American society, illuminating the reason for its inescapable collapse as a reasoning-based society, that is, if Sandra and her colleagues do not sooner effect an extensive correction of the American system of jurisprudence.
The proof would be absolute and of substance. Any failure to resolve the contradiction (right of counsel of choice guaranteed in the prevailing US Constitution and common law for imperative in reasoning), after having accepted the benefits of the office, and thus the liabilities, to resolve such contradictions to law manifested by lower courts, would leave both the contradiction and its damages to the property owner as representing the intellectual inability of Sandra and the other officers of the courts of the American system of jurisprudence.
There is no possible excuse that Sandra would be able to present that would not identify a contradiction that could be promptly resolved to thus in turn reach the original contradiction to thus resolve it, by design of the (uncorrupted) human mind. All excuses fail by definition. Reasoning alone prevails, and any flaw in it is identifiable by effective questioning, the process of reasoning.
If you might suggest otherwise, bring forward your question, but wisely first ask and answer it in private, before you too hastily display your current level of ignorance in public. We are all at some level of ignorance, more dismal than most humans wish to admit, but the lowest levels are easily surpassed by simply asking and answering basic questions, so that your public questions demonstrate your prior reasonable effort.
If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. If you (A) vote for a politician (B), and the politician (B) is openly verified as having lied without correcting his lie (C), then you (A) support lying (C). Lying creates a contradiction. A contradiction is not sustainable. Fools attempt to perpetuate contradictions. Fools vote for DemocanRepublicrats, who are openly verified as incessantly lying, as you have already acknowledged. No problem. Do not vote for them, so that you do not define yourself as such a fool. Therein your goal is to train your mind to recognize and resolve contradictions. Read that again. That skill is worth more than all the lying politicians can every produce in any value. Do not worry. There are plenty of fools willing to openly prove their stupidity by voting for RepublicratDemocans, professional liars, who inherently appoint intellectually void, dishonest people to court judge jobs because the minds of the politicians cannot recognize humans capable of reasoning, least DemocanRepublicrats would be utilizing sustainable reasoning instead of utilizing inherently doomed lies.
Time and the actions of the Washington State and US Ninth Circuit Court officers will determine if Sandra gets the normal opportunity to identify her mind's reasoning ability or inability in regard to each of the many contradictions created by the court and government officers involved with this case, if she does not first see this website, recognize the profound embarrassment inherent to the current level of corruption and intellectual void representing American jurisprudence, and promptly request the opportunity for the Supreme Court to directly take this case, and promptly resolve every contradiction identified within it, to sooner reclaim her professional integrity and save the institution of American jurisprudence.
The justices of the US Ninth Circuit Court may concurrently recognize that their intelligence is shortly to be tested and displayed, and react as their intelligence level affords them.
That opportunity, in either instance, would illuminate a greater extent of results than Sandra and her colleagues currently recognize. You will be amused, as well as derive useful knowledge.
The internet search engines, as well as other website links pages, started to pick up this website shortly after it was uploaded, and at certain events in the future, it will become a prominent internet search result for the name of US Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, internationally. It will define her legacy to American jurisprudence, more than all her institutionally ritualized processes, for a reason she cannot yet fully identify, including long after her image is lost among the dusty old pictures along the court house hallway, and her written words even more obscure. This currently obscure website is already informing certain international readers of the flaws of American propaganda.
The web page for US Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in relation to this case, is being prepared with another of the flawless proofs of his intellectual ability or inability, as he may have the opportunity to display, in addition to the other individual web pages for the other Supreme Court justices.
All the good that you do, cannot excuse a single wrong, least the bank robber could donate a few bucks to charities, to excuse his robbing the bank. All the purported wisdom and reasoning ability of a human mind does not and cannot prevail above a controlling contradiction left in place, by design of the human mind, which is why power-damaged minds and their results can be identified by the human mind. No titles, credentials, offices, or other such human-fabricated illusions and trappings, no matter how prestigious among institutional rituals and unquestioning minions, can prevail above a proof of an inability of a mind to recognized or resolve an identified contradiction.
How shall Sandra's actions, and those of her colleagues, in regard to this case, identify the mind of US Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor, under flawlessly verifiable reasoning, sustainable against every possible question available to human minds, on this website and certain others? They will.
The thoroughly corrupted lawyers and court judges of the American system of jurisprudence have functionally stolen the system of written law that was originally designed to protect the common people who could read the law written in the common language, and thus know the law to thus obey the law and thus be protected by it, more reliably than that of an unpredictable mind of a king, emperor or dictator ruling by decree at each moment. The lawyers and judges simply wrote the laws in commonly undecipherable legalese, such as Latin and invented jargon with obscured case law definitions of words expanding, limiting and defying dictionary definitions, complexified sentences, labyrinths of coded cross references in different books, a system of retaining inferior laws available to impose above superior laws at whim of judges, referenced case laws split with unreferenced prevailing and inferior clauses, inferior law demands of absolute loyalty to the orders of the presiding court officer (da judge) above obedience of written law, etceteras and etceteras. The laws in America therefore became functionally unknowable, and thus the whim of whatever police, lawyers, judges, idiot US Presidents and their minions verbally decree is the law, without regard for the resulting, expanding morass of contradictions inherently creating common disrespect and hatred for the law and the malicious swine administering it. Additionally, the government and court officers simply refuse to meet their known legal duty to certify any law as prevailing, under penalty of law, upon its application and upon the request of the person being attacked with color of law, inferior law and power of office. Even threats of torture, to silence the respectful citizen expression of law, in courts of law, are now a lawful power of court judges, by decree of court judges, currently upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court justices, inherent to the insatiable corruption of power.
The individual mind of an individual king, emperor or dictator as absolute ruler of the people, is vastly superior to the American system of law which has become the unknowable and unreliable rule of thousands of different minds ruling by personal power of office, extensively contradicting each other without functional limit in any written or accountable law, wielding threats and the guns of unquestioning police minions. The rule of Saddam Hussein and others of his ilk in other nations, is a verifiably superior system for governance, instead of the rule of what Sandra O'Connor and her colleagues have created in the United States of America, from what was previously the world's most advanced and brilliant system of governance, the common law. A rational person, such as an Iraqi citizen, need not know anything of American law, but only observe the glaring results of its illogicality and damaging contradictions, to know that only easily fooled fools would live under the American system of law as it is manifested. The Americans have imprisoned about two million of their people, more than any other nation. About half of them damaged no persons or public policy described in the common law. They therefore violated no prevailing law, and were thus unlawfully imprisoned at the pure whim of power-mad police, lawyers and judges. Many millions more were fraudulently issued inferior law citations, invoking fines, to unlawfully seize their money with the process of taxation by citation, under intimidation. The American system of law is the most corrupted such system in human history. It defies the meanings of the written words of law.
The American lawyers and court judges, including Justice Sandra O'Connor, turned the rule of unflawed written reasoning (the prevailing common law), into the rule of raw personal power wielded by a morass of personalities contradicting each other to advance their power and ego gratification, a result that the concept of power demands of any human mind it infects. Power serves only itself, and no humans, by design of power.
That is normal for those humans whose minds are infected with power, and sustainable for awhile among commonly gullible people who are yet too lazy or too cowardice to simply ask questions of the glaring contradictions created by power-damaged minds. Such gullible people were usually too cowed or too lazy, as young people, to ask decisive questions of their parents, school teachers, government officials and other institutional sorts, and thus trained their mind to believe whatever they were told, no matter how contradictory, instead of ask questions to simply resolve identified contradictions.
But the phenomenon therefore defines the minds of those who do not publicly identify themselves as not among such power-damaged or intellectually lazy people, including the offspring of the lawyers and court judges. Those offspring read websites such as this, and belatedly, if not already, start to ask the questions which reveal that their parents maliciously or negligently betrayed them, left them uneducated in the process of asking effective questions, leaving them as prey for dishonest people, at an increasing disadvantage within a competitive species predicated on its mind, its thinking ability, its ability to ask progressively more effective questions. Is there any more incompetent or repugnant parent? Who would not teach their offspring how to ask effective questions that defend the offspring from the legions of malicious government swine, and the fewer private enterprise criminals, who use power of office to defraud, damage and make fools of the offspring?
So far, the pitiable Washington State Court officers, Yakima City Council members and their amusing lawyer, have maliciously seized a paltry bit of rocky dirt around a sewer pipe, and a scant few thousand dollars, by corrupted court process, without any necessity for doing so. And in doing so, they have displayed to the world, including their offspring, and perhaps defining their offspring, their intellectual void and power-damaged minds, much to the howling laughter of observers. Is that not so? For how much rocky dirt around a sewer pipe would you trade away the value of your mind, or that of your offspring?
Do whatever you have to do to learn how to ask and answer the questions that resolve every contradiction you can identify, to demarcate your mind from the pitiable government and court sorts involved with this case, and from other such power-damage minds. The utility of your priceless mind is beyond your current comprehension. The involved court and government officers have traded away the utility of their minds, as proven by their actions of public record, for a pittance of no value. Is there any greater fool? What is the value of the human mind? What would you be without it or its utility?
We will see how Sandra represents the ability of her mind, if the other court evasions or failures afford her an opportunity in this case, or if she more wisely effects that opportunity sooner.
Lawyer Russell Gilbert and Judge Robert Hackett were emphatic in their expressed conclusions that Sandra and her US Supreme Court colleagues hold no authority to review the conclusions of Hackett, Gilbert and their lower court colleagues, and that Sandra would not dare do so in any case. The confidence they expressed in their prediction, is based upon their perception of cleverness in the highly corrupted, judicial institution process, and upon its pattern of successes against unquestioning, gullible or easily intimidated sorts. But it is not based on cleverness or any process of substantive thinking. It is based upon the tenets of power, fundamentally flawed thinking, a concept that power cannot allow the power-infected mind to understand. Power and all other institutions serve themselves at the cost of people outside the institutions, least institutions would hold no substance for existence. But a contradiction is therefore created. The individuals, and notably their offspring, also exist as individuals outside the institutions, by definition of individual existence. The human brain is physically isolated as an individual device.
All contradictions hold a resolution. There is an identifiable reason that the reasoning process of the human mind prevails, and power is the damage, rather than vice versa. Read those words as often as you wish, to recognize the value of the knowledge they indicate.
Power-damaged minds overtly assume the same damage in the minds of their identified ilk, a trait of power that is rarely disappointed, but is one of its controlling contradictions that is therefore untenable. Rarely, also means that it is not always the case. Power, a fool's quest, is vulnerable to superior power, especially when lesser power arrogantly challenges superior power on indelible public record. Judge Hackett's every laughable word and action represents the abysmal nadir of Sandra's mind, by process of her power of office above Hackett, for required review of his actions which contradict the US Constitution or common law, as long as record shows that her actions, under any negligence, laziness, evasion of duties or excuse of her choice, leaves his contradicted words and actions unresolved by her authority, if not first resolved by the Ninth Circuit Court officers. That concept of law is effected by certain prevailing laws instituted by superior reasoning, and as a common corollary, superior power of office, to preclude a successful challenge by inferior or contradicted reasoning, and as a common corollary, inferior power of office.
Worthy of consideration for an additional learning vehicle, is the result of competing, equal power of another institution, rarely effected in the thoroughly corrupted US system of government, but created within it by the writers of the US Constitution, for use. By circumstance elsewhere described in detail, the US Judicial Branch has won the inherent race to seize absolute power over the entire government. Power is insatiable, and cannot ultimately share power, by design. The laughable personnel of the United States Executive and Legislative Branches have been thoroughly confused and intimidated by the above mentioned tactics and results of lawyers seizing ownership and absolute control of the law, and therefore the government and the people because the US is under the rule of law. The therefore fools of the Executive and Legislative Branch personnel vaguely understand that they were supposed to hold a position of checks and balances on any Judicial Branch corruption, but have been fooled into intractably believing that everything they do must be done through their lawyers, while the lawyers inherently serve their own powerful institution of lawyers / judges above the Executive and Legislative institutions, and while lawyers made themselves officers of the court, therefore beholding to the court, which is the presiding officer of the court, da judge, above the law, by (inferior) law upon which a lawyer's license is predicated and can be revoked by judges, much to the howling laughter of the observers of the trap into which the gullible, unquestioning, intellectually lazy personnel of the Executive and Legislative Branches willfully placed the utility of their midget minds.
Only fools attempt to fool fools, and when fools with power-damaged minds belatedly discover that it is they who made themselves the fools, as an entire institution, in full public display, they become emotionally angry, to an extreme beyond your first recognition, by the design of power. If the American Executive Branch administrators of the law, and the Legislative Branch writers of the law, are so damn astonishingly stupid and intellectually void, dumb as a post, so clueless of the meaning of their own English language laws, that they can only function through lawyers controlled by the Judicial Branch, in full international view, only a fool would want to be a lawyer or judge when the Executive and Legislative institutions belatedly figure it out. When either the Executive or Legislative Branch personnel, or both, who increasingly express unmitigated contempt for lawyers, belatedly figure it out, you may wish to get out of the way.
Because power can never willingly surrender any portion of itself in the mind it infects, least power could not exist as a concept within a reasoning device (the human mind), upon being effectively faced with the questions that threaten to illuminate the controlling contradiction of power, to itself, the power-damaged mind most often reacts with the next level of more vicious attack.
A classic and minor example within this case is that of the Yakima City Council members, their amusing lawyer and Judge Robert Hackett, after seizing the involved property by unlawful and damaging court process, and facing the written record therefore being illuminated by the property owner, lashed out with further American judicial institution maliciousness, to attempt to intimidate the property owner and punish him for daring to present logical questions of the glaring contradictions in that process. They seized the money they were required to pay for the property, taking it back after identifying the amount to be paid, but before paying it, by using inferior law court process imposed under the rhetorical ruse that the property owner held no lawful reason to question the court's determinations made before the court convened, because Hackett and his childish colleagues denied the property owner his right to express that reason in court, and therefore no reason on the official court record existed. If you are thinking, you are laughing at those pitiably power-damaged minds when you read about such displays of their abject illogicality. Their minds, literally cannot identify the contradictions in their actions, the damage that even petty power does to the reasoning process of a human mind. Ostriches are comparatively brilliant. They eventually look around when curiosity overcomes their fear.
Therefore, it is predictable that Sandra and her court colleagues, at sight of this web page, will first lash out with yet more American judicial or other governmental viciousness, to attempt to intimidate and punish the perceived origin of this website, for daring to print easily verifiable truth in the face of the raw power of Sandra and her colleagues. But of course such actions only compound the inherently unsustainable contradictions, in this case uniquely prepared for by the interestingly diverse people who now recognize the imperative to soon correct the saturating corruption of the American system of jurisprudence.
For useful perspective, it is understandable that military personnel routinely charge into their otherwise easily predictable defeats, without first thinking, because the two sides are emotionally affronted by each other physically smacking each other with visually displayed damage that biologically induces strong chemical releases in the human brain. The identical biological mechanism, with its same effects in a slightly different format, is at play in the minds of Justice Sandra O'Connor and her colleagues, least the court case presented on this website, like hundreds of thousands of similar cases in recent American jurisprudence, could not exist. American court judges have been maliciously using law as a weapon to attack anyone who logically and rationally questions the malicious abuse of power by government officials and court judges, rather than using law as an instrument to protect the people from the inherent damages of individuals and institutions using corrupted power instead of human reasoning. A contradiction resolution format originally based on reasoning, the British / American court system, was inherently corrupted to produce a lawless, emotion-based system of institutionally corrupted judges viciously attacking common citizens who attempted to use prevailing law and reasoning that would defend them from such institutional corruption. Because the corruption represents an inherently unsustainable contradiction, the controlling question, like that of war, is how much damage can Sandra or her colleagues perpetrate, if they choose to continue to do so, before the damage becomes intolerable to the surrounding rational humans, and initiates the collapse of the institution perpetrating the damage.
On the morning that every power-based institution inherently collapses, the self-confused minds of its officers and minions cannot understand how such a consequence could have so suddenly happened. It was not sudden. Its advancing mechanism was fully recognized and repeatedly described by commonly intelligent, non-power-damaged minds, such as what you are reading. Is Justice Sandra O'Connor's mind sufficiently intelligent to ask and answer the questions that preclude such otherwise inherent consequences, already asked and answered by countless common citizens, by promptly resolving the related contradictions to also identify her intellectual ability?
Unlike war and such events in which two parties foolishly use various forms of force to thus create each other's opposing perceptions, and at the foundation of the existence of the concept of courts of written law and reasoning (the jurisdiction of the common law), the property owner in this case, right from the get-go, did not oppose the City Council members or Court officers, graciously attempted to assist them, and matched his actions to the highest laws, much to the rage of the power-damaged minds of the Yakima City Council members, their lawyer and their court judges who demanded absolute power above the law. The government and court officers are fighting only their own minds, an imperative of power-damaged minds, in full public display, much to the robust laughter of the observers. The property owner expressly sought to obey the prevailing laws required to be lawfully administered by the government and court officers, and thus earn the protection of the law, the latter half of that concept not within the understanding of power-damaged American court judge minds. The property owner graciously went to further effort to assist the government and court officers, despite their having already expressed on record their intent and process to change the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules, the elsewhere illuminated, defining tactic of the United States Supreme Court Justices, for their offspring and the world to again recognize and more thoroughly question.
Therein the Americans, as a society, have become idiots, with no comprehension of what law is and how it works, while stating that they are under the rule of law. Americans are the products of a thoroughly failed and laughable system of educating their young and thus themselves as time passes. They so thoroughly cannot comprehend the fatal flaw of changing the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules, that the leaders they selected can tell them on public record that the leaders are changing the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules, then do that, then entrench the process with their laughably corrupted court judges doing the same, and Americans just wave the flag and support those leaders, at the moment. Do not let your mind end up as flat stupid and useless as that of Americans and their leaders.
In this case, the most lawless and vicious government / court officials are attacking the most law obeying citizen, a person who repeatedly told the government and court officers that they are attacking a proverbial tar baby, a representation of themselves to which they are becoming increasingly stuck in open public view. The government and court chaps are that stupid and malicious. Their minds are that damaged by power. The observers, and the readers of these words who do not immediately identify the inescapable consequences of such ancient human actions, are offered another opportunity to belated learn who and which institutions will therefore be inherently most self-damaged, if not finally destroyed by the accumulation of such unresolved, damaging contradictions.
Judge Robert Hackett could not have been so confident in his expression that the property owner held no access to a review of Hackett's decisions and actions, by higher court justices, nor in the security of his expressed maliciousness and imposed damages, if Sandra and her colleagues in all the American appellate courts had not already entrenched their system of protecting their institutional colleagues from any consequences of violating the law, no matter how repugnant to the rule of law those violations become.
Your goal is to learn the line-item mechanism of how institutionally titled power in any human mind insatiably defies all reasoning and logic until it inherently destroys itself, so that you may assist it in sooner doing so, much to your amusement, without advancing its damages longer than necessary by foolishly attempting to fight power with any inherently flawed power that can only feed power more of precisely what it craves and needs to damage more people.
You are not going to stop corruption of power in the judiciary by identifying corrupted judges (they are all corrupted) who violate the law under color of law, and punishing them. The pitiable sops serve one purpose in your quest to understand the controlling source of the problem, so you can then learn how to promptly solve the problem. Once you understand the minds that define the institution, such as those of Gilbert, Hackett, Alexander, O'Connor et. al., they are of no more utility to you or other humans. They never held utility for humans, except to display the controlling flaw of power, and its pattern or consistency among all institutionally titled sorts. Your goal is to understand each part of the mental puzzle that changed common human minds when they were young, into something so self-contradictory, malicious and comical, and otherwise useless to humans.
Since the concept of courts of law and reasoning was invented by humans, on a fundamentally flawed foundation described elsewhere, the net product, among countless such examples, at the moment, is the institutional centralization of the raw, unbridled, personal power in court judges, above all written law, to the extent that in the State of Washington, USA, as upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court (Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and his ilk), court judges have instituted their power to threaten to torture a person who attempts to respectfully express the principles of law in a court of law, to silence such expressions, without recourse in law by the person so threatened. No excuses prevail above the existent fact of record which remains in full force and effect as the highest law of the State of Washington relating to the raw personal power of court judges. Power is insatiable, much to the amusement of those who simply verify that fact and the mechanisms that power uses to fool any human mind which foolishly adopts power.
That therefore describes the net intellectual void within the institution of American courts whose officers foolishly attempt to sustain a controlling contradiction repugnant to the controlling concept of the human mind. Their effort is inherently futile, and will only serve to define them until and after their effort fails, at the howling laughter of observers.
Any individual court judge in America can suddenly correct the rampant corruption of his or her own institution of American courts, and become the most respected court judge in human history. The process is just easily learned knowledge. Not one court judge will do so. They are clueless of the process to do so. They fear and flee the questions that could convey the knowledge to their mind. Power cannot tolerate the knowledge of its controlling contradiction. You do not want our mind to end up that damaged by petty power, and thus useless to yourself and other humans.
Any other individual with the knowledge can also promptly effect that result, but there is currently not adequate incentive within the species, to do so, least it would have already been easily done. There is no incentive for a person outside the institution, to correct the ultimately fatal flaw of the institution, while so many people lavish the institutional idiots with rewards, and attack the thinking individuals, to produce a comedy of such brilliant design and superlative entertainment. But you want to learn the knowledge to therefore join those who can thoroughly enjoy the the brilliance of the human comedy, and are not frustrated by contradictions which only unquestioning people cannot resolve.
Your goal is to easily learn the knowledge that United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor and her colleagues are not sufficiently intelligent to learn, as they have already demonstrated, and may soon verify yet again. Their minds are not able to learn what law is, and how it works within the human mind, what its destructive counter-balance, power is, and how it functions within a human mind. If they could learn such knowledge, they would not create even one contradiction to law within law, and because they accepted the benefits of the duty to resolve existing contradictions applied by law within law, they would promptly and easily resolve all those damaging contradictions saturating the full spectrum and very foundation of law in the United States of America.
The knowledge is yours for the asking.
This website offers an obscure learning vehicle for those very few people who seek to learn the controlling concept and mechanisms of the human mind, the most valuable knowledge humans can learn. Sandra and her colleagues could read this website, and because they verifiably hold power-damaged minds, to the most amusing extent, they would still exercise every action and excuse necessary to insure that the new highest law of the State of Washington, wherein court judges granted themselves the power, as prevailing case law, to threaten torture to silence the respectful expression of law in courts of law, etceteras, becomes the highest law of the United States of America, to further elevate the raw power of all American court judges to trammel the rights of Americans who yet remain too cowardice and too intellectually lazy to question intellectually void court judges. The almost certain tactic that Sandra and her colleagues will use, will be that of the Washington State Appellate courts, the simple refusal to hear the case, perhaps on the Washington excuse that no lowly non-lawyer, or anyone too poor to afford to pay monetary tribute to a lawyer, is allowed to address the high kings and queens of the United States Supreme Court Aristocracy, not unlike those of France in a certain previous time. There are no neurons in Sandra's brain which are not biologically shunted against reasoning-based process relating to data transfer for the concept of power that her mind has adopted and must defend at any cost.
You might note the comparative wisdom and intelligence of armed bank robbers, holding less power than court judges and thus more apparent access to the reasoning process of their minds. Bank robbers try to not ascribe their actions to reviewable record. In contrast, Judge Robert Hackett, bold power-saturated mind that he represents, categorically confident that his power exceeds that of all appellate court judges, the officials of the other two government branches, and all the people of this nation, confidently stated his threat and other gross violations of the law, on reviewable court record. It is one thing for a bank robber to look at the security camera, and cringe, while another for him to look at the security camera, and flip it the finger. Before the officials of the other branches of government get their chance to exercise their instituted power over court judge jobs, funding and laws relating to impeachable corruption, we will see how Sandra and her colleagues react, most likely by admiring Hackett, and to feed their own feeling of insatiable power, and thus turn to the people of this nation, to flip them the finger, entrenching the power of judges to threaten citizens with torture, much to the amusement of the observers. This case could not otherwise exist after countless of its comparative nature already saturated court records, upheld by the higher courts, by their arrogantly evading their duty to review the cases. If all bank robbers were as immune to accountability for their actions, under law, as court judges have institutionally made themselves, the banks would be as empty as American law and the minds of American court officers.
For how much money in annual salary (dollar figure), and for what title deriving hollow displays of respect from gullible, unquestioning fools, would you trade away your mind's ability to publicly state that it is a crime to express the threat of torture to silence the respectful expression of law in a court of law, and trade away your ability to publicly state that it is a crime to use power of office to deny the respectful expression of harmless freedom of speech, without therefore stating the proof that you criminally violated laws to maliciously damage innocent people? Would it not be a wise person who would think enough to answer that question before they carelessly traded away that ability by accepting a seemingly desirable job or choosing a seemingly useful college degree program? Of course Washington State Superior Court Judge Robert Hackett has traded away that ability of his previously useful mind, for a worthless pittance of title and paper money. And Sandra O'Connor will again verify her own such foolish trade soon enough, if she does.
But such a trade does not come with such a little price. As only one of countless further examples, more Americans are criminally denied their Constitutionally described right to a trial by jury, by American court judges using raw power of office to pander inferior law arrangements of words as deception obscuring superior laws, with lawyer minions parroting the ruse to their gullible clients, than Americans are granted jury trials as what is now a deniable privilege from the American Judicial Aristocracy. That again proves that American military personnel are gullible fools fighting to destroy the rights of themselves, their families and other Americans, much to the laughter among knowledgeable foreign government leaders, especially the French. The inherent, progressing result of such insatiable power, is an increasing array of common truths that the minds of judges must fear stating among themselves and those around them. Among commonly thinking humans, whom American court judges have turned into a feared enemy, the judges cannot accurately speak of human rights without stating the proofs of the crimes of judges, and thus must speak with references only to inferior laws contradicted by superior laws that the judges can never mention. They train their minds to deny their minds useful access to an increasing array of factual data that other humans routinely utilize to advance their knowledge. The judges must progressively mire their minds more deeply within illogical self-deceptions, rhetorically fabricated contradictions, self-confusion, the intellectual void of titled idiots who fear questions and truth. Questions and truth are the foundation of knowledge. Humans are advanced only by knowledge.
What fools would so stagnate and regress their minds and the utility of their lives, if not American court judges and other power-damaged minds, laughable comics of the human phenomenon? But the damage they inflict is not just on themselves. They victimize their offspring in an environment where truth and effective questions are avoided and discouraged, least Sandra and her ilk would let slip the truths that prove the malicious crimes of Sandra and her ilk upon recognition of common events in society. Their offspring are rendered comparatively stupid among the common society not so fearful of questions and truth. The proofs are readily ascertainable. Simply ask the offspring of judges and lawyers common questions of the rampant contradictions to prevailing laws created by judges and their unquestioning lawyer minions. After a trial by jury is guaranteed to non-military citizens, in four separate articles of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the law for which no law may lawfully contradict, with no functional exceptions or authority of the government to otherwise convict a person of a crime or seize his property, after the writers of the Constitution emphatically described the jury trial as the only process invented by humans, which can effectively stop tyranny with impartial human reasoning, what action, other than criminal action imposed under color of law and power of office, describes court judges who routinely deny jury trials, and describes lawyers who willfully acquiesce to such criminal actions denying the rights of their clients, after having expressed on public record an oath to uphold the US Constitution? Well? Which parent or grandparent of which offspring of judges and lawyers are recognized by those offspring as the most repugnant of malicious criminals that humans can produce? Who is sufficiently intelligent to identify verifiable truths from unlimited questioning?
The example is only one of many, among an increasing number created by the absolute corruption of the law-making American judiciary. It is now a crime in the State of Washington, under the prevailing common law, the highest law of the State of Washington, for a citizen to state that it is possible for a court judge to make a mistake in applying the law. Washington State Court judges have now formally claimed in law, the power of God, the inability to make a mistake. Any mention to the contrary is now a crime, by law invoked by Judge Robert Hackett, and confirmed by the Washington State Appellate and Supreme Courts. Any objection to those sentences, by any judge or lawyer, perhaps a parent, grand parent, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend or mentor, can bring forward the questions to prove the truth of those sentences, or to prove the crimes of the Washington State Superior, Appellate and Supreme Court judges, and their accomplice court officers, for having instituted that prevailing case law, and applied it to criminally damage the property owner in this case. The property owner expressly reserved his rights under the jurisdiction of the common law, lawfully available to him, and thus the protection of said law, expressly did not acquiesce to any inferior law, requested a court under the jurisdiction of the common law, as is his right, was expressly told by Hackett that the property owner was not being denied said jurisdiction for the trial, for a case initiated by the Yakima City Council members expressly invoking the common law. Freedom of speech is therefore a fool's illusion. That new highest law of the State of Washington is soon enough to be entrenched as the highest law of the United States of America, by Sandra O'Connor and her US Supreme Court colleagues, if they do so, most likely by the same process.
Who, but intellectually void persons such as the involved court judges, would trap themselves with such a glaring and embarrassing contradiction, claiming a power available only to God, and laughably not possible among humans, as the prevailing law, especially after the Appellate and Supreme Court judges were repeatedly told on record that was the openly displayed trap, created by Judge Robert Hackett, into which they were placing themselves if they arrogantly imposed their raw personal power of office above the rule of prior written common law. Do whatever you have to do to not allow your mind to become as embarrassing and useless to you, as have Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and his embarrassing colleagues, and Sandra if she follows suit. Ask the questions that verify the contradiction, and then ask the questions that easily resolve it, a simple process that Gerry's power-damaged mind is not capable of performing, as proven.
The laws written by elected lawmakers are a fool's illusion, and rightfully so because the power-mad legislators are just plain too flat functionally illiterate and stupid to write laws not saturated with so many contradictions and ambiguities that they are useless for any demand under the meaning of the word, law. Court judges use and impose case laws approximately one hundred percent of the time, and because case laws are the decisions of power-driven judges first serving the power of their own judge/lawyer institution, with maybe a scrap bare bone tossed to the illusion of justice and less of logic, as a privilege, not a protection of law, the rampantly contradicting case laws are used as weapons to maliciously attack anyone outside the judge/lawyer institution, by demand of power. There is no functioning instrument within a power-based institution, that effectively counters the advance of power. Besides denying jury trials, court judges quickly learned how to instruct typically unquestioning American jurors in a fashion that dictates the verdict, to methodically advance the power of judges first, and then the power of government, among a series of other judicial institution tactics that leave the jurors ignorant of about half the evidence in any particular case, mostly the half not supporting the judges, lawyers and government. The instrument that can stop the advance of inherently damaging power, is your individual mind, and its ability to learn the fatal flaw of power, its proverbial Achilles Heel. Learn it. A power-damaged mind cannot learn it, and is thus laughably vulnerable.
The case laws created by the case discussed on this website are the highest laws of the State of Washington, the common law, and soon likely of the United States, creating as such a series of new powers for court judges, available to be ambiguously referenced and specifically imposed, because the property owner asked certain questions and made certain statements for record of this case, for a certain purpose. The power-damaged minds of the court judges predictably evaded their required responses and actions in relation to the statements and questions, to thus leave them and their effects as process-affirmed conclusions and findings of law. Any denials by judges would create the proofs of the crimes by the involved judges. They would only consider denying those new powers upon seeing or hearing statements such as you are reading. The judges would attempt lies and rhetorical deceptions as usual. They would not otherwise deny those powers, and never affirmatively correct them on public record because such would prove their crimes and the abject stupidity and criminal maliciousness of the American judicial institution. You will be told about the case laws that protect your rights when they are not before the courts, and then you will not be told about those case laws or the applied case laws that deny your rights when they are before the courts. You will be left ignorant of the process and instruments used to deny your rights and maliciously damage you, by the power-damaged minds of court officers. You will be easy prey and a victim because you did not prior learn how to ask effective questions. Your rights are secured by your mind's ability to recognize and describe those rights, and ask the questions that leave the mind of the person attacking your rights, with a contradiction that will either cause that mind to honor your rights, or if a power-damaged mind, such as that of Saddam Hussein, George Bush or American court judges, to ultimately destroy everything that mind attempts after having maliciously denied your rights in defiance of revealed reasoning. You can learn to hasten the latter result.
The court judges, lawyers, and their offspring, literally cannot speak or write the truth that the American court judges and lawyers are criminals or their criminal accomplices, among a vast array of other words of truth their minds are not able to state, yet minds which are not damaged by power can openly state such truths for public record. My name is Doug Buchanan. I live in Fairbanks Alaska. You can quote every word I write or speak. Please inform me if any are in error. American court judges are criminals, and government licensed lawyers are criminals, by definition of law, by a proof found in a series of questions relating to their oath of office and their known legal duties described in the prevailing laws. They have rendered the vast majority of their offspring as too ignorant to ask the questions that reveal said proof, and thus too ignorant to ask a type of questions that reveal a great array of critically valuable knowledge. They have horribly victimized their offspring within a competitive species predicated on knowledge as the avenue to the future and advancement of humans. That their offspring are not ashamed of their such parent or parents is a verification of the proof. The first concept that power must destroy within a human mind, is the recognition of shame, least power could not exist within the mind. Shame and power are mutually exclusive concepts, by proof of the results of power imposed above reasoning.
It does not stop with their victimized offspring. There is verifiable reason for the common knowledge that the people in Washington DC, each of the State capitols, City Halls, etceteras, are openly recognized and described as idiots. The actions of those social subcultures are saturated with ludicrous contradictions that are simply not manifested among the common people. The common people hold no incentive to defend titled power above common human reasoning of the common human mind. That reason is the same as why the offspring of judges and lawyers are so intellectually impaired. Extensive arrays of common truths cannot be expressed by the people in those subcultures, to defend the illusions of titled power above impartial reasoning, and therefore a lot of titled people fool a lot of people around them, for a long time, with incessantly expressed lies and contradictions, training each other's minds. Would you express respect for a proven, incessant liar who defrauds and damages people with the process of his lies? Of course not. But the people of the Washington DC subculture do, because they sold the utility of their minds for the salary and social status of their government jobs, and thus incessantly express respect for politicians and court judges who lie if their lips are moving. They thus train their minds. The cumulative effect is laughably noticeable to everyone except those who thus trained their minds. And they too victimize their offspring with such training that uses words in defiance of their meanings. Incessant liars are profusely referenced with terms of respect, such as, "The Honorable". People who tell the truth, such as those now called whistle-blowers, are fired and denigrated. There is no place for honest people in government, by countless obvious proofs. Government demands people who are loyal to power alone, as is the controlling demand of power itself, in defiance of truths, honesty, logic, reasoning and other concepts of the non-damaged human mind. If you place yourself within such social subcultures, or are so unfortunate as to be raised within them, your mind will soon be trained to not comprehend the otherwise laughably obvious contradictions. The result is inherent. Escape. Soon. Your mind is your only asset of genuine value.
If a Republican politician in Congress verifiably lies, without fully correcting his lie and its results upon open proof of the lie, and the Republican Party leadership does not therefore formally and properly remove him from party membership, to regain the integrity of the party, is every Republican party member and each person voting for Republicans, a person who supports lying, and thus a dishonest person? The answer is, Yes. It is not possible to accept the benefits of party membership or its elected officials, without accepting the liabilities. There are no one sided coins, and no such phenomenon in the universe. Your denials only prove your intellectual inability. That is why the individual mind can learn from its mistakes, while the institutional mind will still cling to the benefits of its institutionally created power, by demand of power, and fabricate every possible arrangement of words to evade the liabilities, to thus train itself to not learn from its mistakes, to thus perpetuate its mistakes (contradictions) and their increasing damages. The individual mind has no one else to blame. The institutional mind will always blame the other individuals inside or outside of the institution, but never itself, while clinging to the benefits of the institution. The institutional mind attempts to sustain a contradiction by pointing to the difference between the individual mind and the institution or its other members, when liabilities are illuminated, and claim no difference when benefits are at issue, an absolute and untenable contradiction, much to the amusement of those observing these humans. It is the power-damaged mind, such as Hackett and Sandra, who would squeal the loudest if their rights were denied by power of office, but will maliciously deny everyone else's rights, using raw power of office, and flee to the end of the earth to evade the simple arrangements of words accurately describing and questioning their actions as the crimes they are. That is how they trained their minds within the categorically corrupted American judicial institution. Power serves only itself, and never humans.
Do not let that happen to your otherwise priceless mind. Do not become so embarrassingly stupid as Judge Robert Hackett, Yakima City Council member Mary Place, Washington State Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander, lawyer Russell Gilbert, their colleagues and ilk. Ask and answer the questions that train your mind to recognize verifiable truths, regardless of the consequences of inherently inescapable truth, such as American court judges having become the most repugnant criminals written law can identify. The commission of crimes under color of law or power of office, such as willfully imposing an inferior law above a superior law, is the single most repugnant form of crime, because the deceiving illusion of the inferior law is used to protect the crime and the criminal. Therein, the law and its administrators must be openly disrespected by commonly thinking people, by definition of the ability of the human mind. The remaining people who retain respect for such a contradiction define themselves as intellectually absent or cowardice, and useless to the human phenomenon.
First, you train your mind, and then it controls your life. You will not escape that fundamental fact of the human mind's design. Yes, you may retrain it, or say that you are constantly training it, but your easy words do not effect their meaning. The processes to do so are identifiable, and very rarely learned. The definitive effects of your prior training can be flawlessly identified, regardless of your claims. The exponentially greater difficulty of retraining your mind after you trained it to exclude or divert certain arrays of data, are rarely overcome, and only with great effort. Do whatever you must to train your mind to ask and answer every question of every contradiction your mind can identify. Write those questions and answers. You may otherwise end up like Judge Gerry Alexander, whose mind is verifiably incapable of identifying and resolving fundamental contradictions that even grade school kids can identify and resolve. The concept of dishonesty cannot otherwise exist within the human mind.
May you learn the most knowledge, of the most concepts, most efficiently.
The other court sorts, to be added later.