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.
Heather Van Nuys, Judge, Washington State Superior Court
Washington State Superior Court Judge Heather Van Nuys, honorable individual I am certain, with a delightfully pleasant court manner, at least for this case, befell the dubious honor of being selected to first administer the case in question.
If honest and having even minimal common sense, a judge could not ask for a more perfect court case to administer. The property owner arrived at the court having stated on record that he sought to obey the law and need only be informed of the law so he could know the law to obey the law. Whatever the law required, the property owner would promptly do so with no need for costly process beyond revealing and certifying the applicable law.
The City Council members had already evaded their tax paid duty to easily acquire the property without need for costly court process after the property was offered without such need. The City chaps then evaded their duty to reveal the law giving them authority for their needless demand under claim of authority in law. The job of the court judge would be easy.
Do court judges imply that they hold some knowledge of the law, to therefore promptly resolve such an easy case upon it entering court? What do you think is happening in those law schools?
Lawyers are not taught the law in law school. They are only taught process, endless, lucrative process, to bleed any citizen trapped by the web of law process. Law itself is left as a mystery in law schools, a device or instrument that lawyers are not allowed to identify or ask questions of, as their actions prove in contrast to their routine lies. Law schools in America stopped teaching the law about a century ago, because to learn law is to learn the controlling contradiction of the lucrative institution of lawyers. If the public is literate, and the law is written in their language, why would you need a lawyer? Well? Precisely why, for your written answer, do you think an entire nation of literate people purportedly ruled by written law, in which the common people must be able to understand the law to be able to obey the law, cannot understand the written law and cannot be certain that anything they are doing is lawful, without paying off an expensive lawyer to tell the people what the law says? Well? Is the result not obvious in society?
And then the lawyers and judges do not say what the written law says, the words that anyone can read, but instead give only their legal opinion, words other than the law and thus not the law. If law school trains your mind to state words other than the written law itself when asked what the law says, what will your mind do when you are asked what the law says? Adult lawyers and judges are literally too ignorant to write the easy answer to that question, found within the question. Write your answer, and you will again prove that you are more intelligent than Judge Heather Van Nuys and her pitiable ilk. It was easy for law school professors to make unquestioning lawyers into idiots who then, as time passed, became the idiot law professors with no knowledge of the law itself. They only know process. They even call it, process law.
Therefore the people surrendered the rule of written law, because they did not question the process by which lawyers and judges cheated the people out of the rule of written law. The people acquiesced to the rule of ignorant personalities with lawyer and judge jobs. If you do not learn how to ask a lawyer, judge or any other administrator of law to be shown the actual law, and have it certified under penalty of fraud as the highest law in the land for the action in question, uncontradicted by any higher law, you will end up as a typical American adult idiot under the rule of kings and queens with lawyer, judge, police or bureaucrat jobs, rather than under the rule of written law. Notice that the police, bureaucrats lawyers and judges also do not know the law, as your easy questions and this case prove. Nor do their offspring whom their parents therefore cheated out of their rights and protection under the law.
How is it that not even one lawyer or law school student in the entire nation is sufficiently honest or intelligent to blow the whistle on what is happening in law schools, not even one among such diverse people entering law schools? Their power-damaged minds literally cannot figure it out, as you will recognize from the actions of the mind of lawyer/judge Heather Van Nuys. If the law schools taught law, the students would recognize that there is no need for the institution of thousands of lawyers, and thus no need for all those ego-feeding law schools and highly paid law professors, because the laws are already written for any literate person to read without paying a greedy lawyer. So the law schools would have first taught power, to immediately erase the recognition of logic in the minds of law students, but they did not need to do so, and would not understand the reason why, because the power-damaged minds of law school professors cannot understand logic. No power based system can exist within the reasoning-based human species, without a mechanism in the human mind that precludes effective questioning of power within its system. The law students arrived at law school, like all other institutionally taught sorts, with minds already taught to not effectively question the concept of power over reasoning, or anything else. That concept may require more explanation available elsewhere if you do not ask effective questions on your own. Back to Heather, for an instructive moment.
The events of the first trial portion of this case indicate for your questioning and conclusion, that Heather is either so abjectly ignorant of the most fundamental precepts of the law, or is professionally dishonest to the core of her soul, or in sum of the aforementioned, her mind is simply damaged by petty power, as is the case, or I am in error. If you ask questions, you can ascertain which is the case, with a conclusion that will prevail against all questions.
Pity the adults who stop reading material such as this because they notice that the author states that adults and court judges are idiots, ignorant and dishonest. Adults routinely conclude that peasants such as the author deserve no consideration because they show no respect. If two strangers came before you, one displaying a standard institutionalized ritual of respect for you, and the other calling you an idiot, an idiot would consider the words of the person displaying the phony respect that had not been personally proven to, and thus earned from, that stranger, and would discount the person indicating a contradiction that caused the suggestion of idiocy, while a wise person would discount the person who offered nothing more than a cheap ritual of respect, and be curious about resolving the expressed contradiction of an accusation of idiocy, that may otherwise prove the idiocy perhaps rightfully suggested from a real proof. The wise person would be wise because she advanced her knowledge by accountably resolving every identified contradiction. The idiot would be an idiot because he evaded questioning identified contradictions. If you are proven to be an idiot, because of something you did or said, the proof ascertained by questioning, and therefore the easy resolution with your knowledge of it leaves you at that moment no longer an idiot, while if the accusation of idiocy is otherwise proven and you evaded the proof and thus the knowledge to resolve the contradiction, you will remain as an unquestioning, self-deluded, typical adult idiot for others to observe. If the stranger's accusation of idiocy was verifiably in error, you would prove your wisdom by accountably resolving the contradiction that created the wrong conclusion, to thus advance the stranger's knowledge, and thus the knowledge of the people in society, who could therefore inherently benefit you and society with greater knowledge.
Fools are flattered by institutionally demanded flattery they call respect.
It is easy to be a wise person recognized as wise by common-sense people. Simply ask questions of identified contradictions, to the extent of resolving them, rather than indignantly huff away. If you are wise, just sufficiently curious to ask and accountably answer questions, you will be held in contempt by idiot adults, especially ignorant court judges, which is a verification of your wisdom.
Kings and the "court" demand certain ritualistic flattery described as "respect", under penalty of damaging punishment, which is otherwise just common sense communication without need for such court silliness, before respect is earned. But the artificial person of the "court" is in fact the natural person of the judge, the presiding officer, who must either personally earn respect or insure that the artificial person of the court never creates reason for public disrespect. The power-damaged minds of kings and court judges, such as Judge Heather, literally cannot comprehend the concept of respect being a two way street. You can be summarily jailed if you do not perform a petty ritual described as respect for the court, but for the same action, the judge cannot be functionally jailed, and court judges cannot identify a contradiction therein even if they read this sentence and you hand them a dictionary, to say nothing of comprehending the obvious resolution.
That the American courts and their judges have categorically destroyed all rational respect for the courts and judges among commonly intelligent people, is not successfully deniable. Fools alone respect American courts and judges. The proof, by only one of the countless reasons, can be found in the law itself. The US Constitution emphasizes your right to a trial by a jury of peers. The writers of the constitution described the jury trial as the most effective device to preclude governmental tyranny. Yet the American courts and their judges do not respect or obey that supreme law which they swear to obey and are required by law to obey. Jury trials are now routinely denied under color of inferior law, power of office and the usual rhetorical flimflam of malicious court judges. Therein the tyranny of ignorant court judges who trammel the rights of even their own offspring, is not deniable, as this case further proves. The words of the constitution hold their meaning, and the constitution has not been amended to deny the right to a jury trial for any new sector of people or of actions before a court. The court is therein and elsewhere proven to not respect the people or the law, and thus has earned no respect in return. The judges dismally failed to protect the reason that commonly intelligent people would respect the court. The judges do not indict the judges who criminally violate the law under claimed court authority by routinely denying the right to jury trials. Therefore, for a court judge to demand respect for herself or the court proves their stupidity. Do not end up like such stupid adults.
To respect that which is repugnant to the law, such as the courts which now routinely deny the people their rights, is to define oneself as a criminal mind, a fool, and intellectually void. No intelligent person can possibly respect the courts or their judges in this nation.
The fact that judges and their inferior laws demand that respect under penalty of punishment, and thus demand an impossibility, again proves the intellectual void of court judges. And the court judges not only refuse to start earning respect, but do not know how. That is how horribly petty power will damage your mind's reasoning ability.
But because of the entrenched maliciousness of court judges who hold the law in contempt and will jail you at whim, and equally ignorant, armed court security thugs who will obey unlawful orders from a judge as robotically as did the Nazi Gestapo, you may wish to humor their petty rituals in the same fashion that intelligent people humored the kings. In court I therefore expressly hold the greatest respect for the court (a court room, made by respectable carpenters), and rise on command when the silly sap in the black robe struts in or out of the room, poor sad self-deluded sorts dependent upon their fragile ego. You may wish to do the same.
Write your answer to the following question, if you wish. It is a question that no court judge can accurately answer, but you can. Are you yet so incapable of synthesizing data in your mind that you believe that having people rise on command when you enter and leave a room, even once, and especially many times each week, would not alter your mind's perceptions? Well, what is your written answer?
What caused the minds of the nobility of old Europe to believe that their minds were somehow of some superior design and ability above fellow equal humans with the inherently identical design of minds, and thus caused the writers of the US Constitution to expressly forbid titles of nobility in the government? What mechanism trains a human mind to express verifiably illogical conclusions? Even if you easily answer these questions that adults literally cannot answer, you still hold a mind of the same design as everyone else. You will just know different knowledge. But would you not enjoy knowledge beyond what the idiot adults can learn? If you do not, you will end up like them.
Do whatever it takes to never fall victim to the belief that people should rise on command just because you walk into or out of the room. Leprosy is a less damaging affliction. Except for war and its related concepts, the belief that humans should rise on command just because a fellow human walks into the room, as was the demand of kings, is the most conclusive proof that humans are still mired deep in the intellectual dark ages, clueless of how to identify and resolve glaring contradictions in defiance of their mind's design predicated on that ability. Do not end up a clueless of the ability of your mind as did Judge Van Nuys and other adults.
The adults are so flat stupid that they cannot figure out even why the rule of kings was replaced with the rule of written law . The written law is words on paper. They are impartial to all human foibles, from the worst to the best. The written law cannot exhibit an emotion-based reaction, and thus cannot create the common emotion-based mistakes of humans. The written law cannot demand respect, because respect is within the mind and therefore cannot be verified. The written law cannot react to the knowledge that you are a Jew or a Western Infidel Satanist, unless those exact words are written in the law for some effect of law. In contrast, the king first demanded respect, and when he was rewarded with rituals of respect for his stupid and damaging demands inherent to a power-damaged mind, his wrongs inherently increased, as is the case for all wrongs that are rewarded, by design of the human mind. So he next demanded that the peasants show their respect by prostrating themselves before the king, to more dramatically display their acquiescence to the "higher" king. That spiraling process continued until kings killed whomever they wished, and waged wars at whim, to prove their superiority over mere humans. And kings are thus no more. The people belatedly recognized that the process of kings demanding the reward of respect for stupidity was not in harmony with the reasoning-design of the human mind. The emotionless written law, pieces of paper with no need to demand progressively corrupting displays of respect, was devised as a better ruler.
But American lawyers and court judges first subverted what they claim is the law, into a legalistically scribbled morass, undecipherable to the common college educated citizenry, then judges needlessly placed their seats on an elevated portion of the court room, and demanded to be needlessly called, "The Honorable", and demanded that people in the court room needlessly rise whenever the royal judge entered or left the room, and then refused to be allowed to be questioned, and much more inherent to that specific process, on schedule for their petty power-damaged minds. They can read these words, and will devise all manner of ludicrous excuses for the imperative of the citizens to do what high kings of old demanded of the low citizenry.
Judge Van Nuys can read these words, and her mind would recognize no contradiction in demanding illogical displays of so called respect, by color of law and under threats of punishment, before earning respect by her actions. She fooled her intellectually absent mind into sincerely believing that because she easily acquired the title of queen, or, ah, judge, her fellow equal humans must display to her under threat of punishment, what she need not display to them. Does the judge refer to the citizen as, The Honorable? Can Heather be summarily jailed if a citizen states that she is in contempt? Pity such a midget mind so easily fooled by the rhetorical illusion of a title.
Adults are so easily fooled that they functionally beg to have their human rights trammeled by idiots with any title that can be arranged from letters of the alphabet. Adults never learned how to ask effective questions of such glaring contradictions. Do not let that happen to your priceless mind, or you will soon enough make a fool of yourself by groveling before someone who easily scammed a judge job, or make a greater fool of yourself by becoming a judge and demanding that other equal humans grovel before you, just as the Neanderthals institutionalized for lack of any greater utility for their minds.
Even if you did not know the law, but were paid money to administer it and had learned how to use the law library readily available to you, if someone was brought to your court, who stated that they sought to obey the law if you revealed it to them, what would you do?
Heather did not. She would still be clueless of what to do if you showed her the above question.
Granted, the property owner requested that the prevailing written law itself be revealed, not just some lawyer's or judge's self-serving opinion of what might be the law, but that is why the law library has a law encyclopedia and a Sheppard Catalog. Anyone can learn how to use those in an hour, especially if they are paid a judge's salary. After learning the library process, finding the prevailing law is easy, especially if it is a daily duty for which you are paid.
A number of contradictions in Judge Van Nuy's court tactics, common to her ilk, will be revealed on other pages of this website, but the following are a few for your utility in learning how to resolve contradictions.
At the beginning of the case, after reading the obvious contradictions in the record before her, Judge Heather need only have turned to the City Council lawyer and asked if the City met its tax paid, legally required administrative duty to respond to the property owner's agreement to sell the property to the City for the City's offered price if the City Council members merely agreed to obey the law for the involved property.
Because the City's lawyer could offer no such response of record or otherwise, because no response was given, if he were honest, and that issue will be illuminated on his web page, in addition to there provably being no honest lawyer in this nation, he would simply state the truth. No, the City did not respond.
Judge Van Nuys would have then logically and lawfully told the City to perform its known legal administrative duty, and pay for all the property owner's costs in preparing for and attending the wrongfully imposed court idiot-drill, and never again use the court in such an abusive fashion. Concurrently, she would have logically and lawfully ordered the City to pay the State for the costs of such a fraudulent court process. If the City asked the court to reveal the law for her ruling, that would be easily done from the laws related to malicious or negligent use of court process.
The judge then had multiple opportunities to obey the next applicable law, after her violation of each law. But a power-damaged mind, inherently violating the laws that limit its power, cannot start obeying the law after violating it, without collapsing its power. To obey the prevailing law constitutes the same reasoning process which created the reasoning-based law. Reasoning and power are mutually exclusive concepts in the human mind. Power cannot tolerate reasoning. Reasoning needs no power.
If she continued the case in court despite the City and her violating the law by creating an abusive court process, as she did, she could have easily asked the City lawyer to reveal and certify as prevailing, the law which the City was using to claim authority to seize the property. He who makes the demand under claim of authority in law is liable to identify and certify the law.
Oops. Power-damaged minds will always contradict themselves, by definition, much to the amusement of commonly intelligent people watching them. The City had rhetorically claimed authority in the law that required the City to show necessity for the seizure of the property, for public use. Public use was not an issue since the property owner acknowledged that. But the City had repeatedly stated that the property was not necessary for the use, and explained why it was not necessary, as was otherwise openly observable. The City even explained why the property would probably be more costly than the readily available alternatives. The City had provided the unequivocal proof that the seizure of the property under force of that law was unlawful. And then the City chap who was in charge of building and using the wastewater lift station stated in court that the property was not necessary.
If you claim that something is necessary, and claim related authority in a law requiring it to be necessary, and imposed a damaging, costly court process predicated on your claims, you would be an idiot to then state that it is not necessary. Is that not so? Do not let your mind end up like the six Yakima City Council members and their lawyer named on the index page of this website. They can read these words and their minds would still be clueless.
In law, words hold their meaning, and must hold their meaning if the rule of written law exists. If words do not hold their dictionary-defined meaning, then the rule of written law is useless to you, and you just as well revert to the rule of armed military thugs led by kings. If your words match the words in the law, and do not contradict any action at question, the law applies to your words and actions. If the accurately used words do not match the law, that law does not apply. Your mind can understand that grade school level of reasoning. Judge Van Nuys and her colleagues cannot understand that concept, as proven by her and their actions. Their titles replaced their need to think, and so they stopped thinking.
Upon the illumination of that contradiction, a law requiring necessity for property that the City stated was not necessary, confirmed by simply asking the City's lawyer, or by ascertaining that fact from the evidence, court record or City officials, Judge Van Nuys could have logically and lawfully thrown the case out after ordering the City to pay the property owner for all the court costs of a court case that the City openly contradicted from the outset. Concurrently, she would logically order the City to pay the State for such a fraudulent court case.
Judge Heather could have turned to the City lawyer, who represented six clearly intellectually void Council members and his own similar mind, and graciously reminded them that no law or costly court process was necessary for the City to obtain the property, since the property owner already offered the property to the City for its first price and an agreement to obey the law. The agreement created no additional cost, and was nothing more than what the Judge had already agreed-to in her oath of office. She could have reminded the chaps that agreeing to obey the law is harmless for law-abiding people who have already agreed to obey the law.
But Judge Van Nuys refuses to obey the law, and fears mention of her sworn legal agreement and duty to do so. Therefore it was predictable that her power-damaged mind would find another process to further violate the law to exempt her friends on the City Council from accountability for their previous violations of the law and stated intent to further violate of the law.
The entire case was laboriously presented by both sides, including the witnesses called and the testimony recorded and the reams of evidence read, proving the aforementioned.
But because the case unequivocally proved the aforementioned, that the property was not necessary for the City's purpose, Judge Van Nuys pulled out of her, a, robe, a different law, one that required only "reasonable necessity" for the city to seize the property.
In law, words hold their meaning. Necessity is not reasonable necessity, by definition, least reasonable necessity would be easily written into the law. If you require necessity, instead of reasonable necessity, you must prove necessity instead of reasonable necessity. Words hold their meaning, and Judge Van Nuys could not recognize that maxim of law if you showed her the words and handed her a dictionary. Her defense could easily be that she was a product of the American public schools and an American law school whose teachers and professors could not identify the meaning of words if you handed them a dictionary, and thus taught her to be that flat stupid.
The tactic of the City sorts and their pocket judge was just plain old bait and switch, criminal fraud. They took the property owner to court with one law, and after the entire case was concluded, switched to another law to seize the property.
If you respect the law, courts and judges, you are as gullible and intellectually crippled as Judge Heather and other adults. The inferior laws in this nation are a con artist's scam. Court judges are the con artists, and no judge will hold is fellow con artists accountable for their criminal scam.
Reasonable anything in law defines executive, legislative or judicial fiat, the whim of the person holding the power of office, because reasonable holds no demarcation in the meaning of the word. Its demarcation is in the mind alone. It is legally similar to the word, love, because it cannot be quantified or qualified in itself. If the person holding the title of office responsible for defining what is reasonable, says his action is reasonable, it is reasonable because their is no possible disproof in law. The only effective contradiction to the claim can be a person with a higher office above the lower office, stating that the action was not reasonable. Therein is again identified the rule of personalities. If you were not a crony of the person in either said office, no intelligent person would enter a court process contesting reasonableness when the demanding dolts were obviously not reasonable in the first place, such as the aforementioned who stated on record that they changed the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules.
Had the City claimed their authority under the law requiring only reasonable necessity, and revealed the law itself, and certified it as prevailing, there would have been no costly court case to illuminate the City's own disproof of its claim. It was clear that the Yakima City Council members set out to funnel a lot of city tax money into the pocket of a crony lawyer of theirs, who was otherwise not on the city payroll, and to cost the State taxpayers a lot of money, and to maliciously damage the property owner by changing the rules to punish those who obeyed the rules.
And Judge Heather was their pocket judge for the job. Who else would switch laws after the case, to achieve their goal?
If you are not laughing at the adults, especially those with court jobs, you are missing the only show they are sufficiently intelligent to stage. Because that defines the adults, the accusation of being childish is a complement.
The action of Judge Van Nuys is among hundreds of millions of similar cases categorically proving that your parents, school teachers and government dolts are lying to you, as usual, if they say you live in a nation under the rule of written law. You live in a nation under the rule of personalities, mental midget kings and queens with absolute power, who easily scammed government jobs attracting the intellectually absent.
When under the rule of kings, wise parents taught their children to learn how the minds of kings functioned. Do that, not to therefore make a fool of yourself by mindlessly kowtowing to kings with government jobs, but to learn how to never befall what happened to the minds of kings.
Nothing known to humans more damages the reasoning ability of the human mind, than power.
So then the case was off to the next trial process, the determination of the value of the property, Act III, if we call the City's administrative process to run to the courts the first act of this amusing show.
You may enjoy Act III, the court of Judge Robert Hackett, the fine chap who defined the Washington State Courts as Cuban-styled Courts, by threatening torture if counsel for the property owner even breathed the principles of law that defended the property owner in Hackett's court.
Judge Robert Hackett
Justice Gerry Alexander
Justice Mary Fairhurst
Justice Barbara Madsen
Justice Sandra O'Connor
The other court sorts, to be added later.