(a) Court rules are established by the courts under statutory authority granted by the legislature to provide the procedural – forms of process, pleadings etc., so grievances are decided in a timely manner and on the merits.
(b) While the Supreme Court is the entity authorized to establish court rules, the Court has delegated rule making, suggested rules and modifications of rules, to the ‘enterprise.’ (offer of proof: emails with the Bar, Admin office of the courts)
(c) The ‘enterprise’ now with rule-making authority establishes “procedures” that are inadequate, frustrate justice, and leave no speedy remedy and delegate, unlawfully, the adjudication of “rule disputes” to the very entity which created the rules. See Wash. State Labor Council v. Reed 149 Wn.2d 48, 64 Apr. 2003 “To permit branches to measure their own authority would quickly subvert the principle that state governments, while governments of general powers, must govern by the consent of the people as expressed by the constitution.”
- WA constitution Article 2, Section 28 prohibits special privileges to “limit civil or criminal actions.” In utter defiance of the WA Constitution prohibition, Judges, contrary to law, RCW 4.56.120, have disregard the purpose and intent in establishing court rules, which is the speedy determination on the merits, and are using court rules, improperly and without consequence, to deny fundamental rights. In other words, judges routinely cite court rule authority to deny jury trials, to comment on facts, to interject unnecessary delay in forcing additional litigation, grievances and appeals by using court rules to terminate lawsuits.
- Judges, contrary to law, RCW 4.56.120, utilize court rules to obstruct a lawsuits from going to a jury and instead engage in a trial via “10- minute motions”. Dozens of cases are dismissed before plaintiffs ever present his/her evidence or allowed to cross examine parties attending the “motion” hearings.
- Often, judges ignore evidence or lie about the evidence to justify their use of court rule authority.
- This process of improperly deciding fundamental rights based in powers claimed by judges in the court rules these judges make is facially unlawful as it creates a conflict of interest that then requires the disqualification of the judge under RCW 2.28.030. This conflict in judges writing their rules, interpreting their rules, applying their rules with respect to the rights of citizens is clearly improper because it would require the judge to disqualify himself by law.