grassrootswa

Many members of the Washington state legislature, along with their attorneys, argue that this effort is “dead in the water” because Bob Ferguson appealed the superior court case. They believe that since the appellate court found the plaintiff lacked standing, Ferguson’s judgment would also be dismissed.

This interpretation is incorrect. The appellate court’s dismissal of the plaintiff for lack of standing primarily concerned injunctive relief, which would have prevented Ferguson from having to pay damages. Appeals do not reverse judgments. Four Washington State Supreme Court cases, as well as their rulings, clearly affirm that appeals do not reverse convictions:

1. **State ex rel. Zempel v. Twitchell, 367 P. 2d 985 (Wash: Supreme Court, 1962)**

2. **State ex rel. Guthrie v. Chapman, 187 Wash. 327, 60 P. (2d) 245, 106 A.L.R. 640**

3. **State ex rel. Knabb v. Frater, 198 Wash. 675, 89 P. (2d) 1046**

4. 

These cases specifically establish that an office is vacated by a judgment and such forfeiture is not superseded by an appeal.

This action is distinct because it creates a situation where public officials must either rebut what is claimed—risking perjury—or remain silent, thereby tacitly admitting to the claims, which becomes legally binding under the maxim “Silence is acquiescence” (Maxim of Law 52a). If they fail to follow our derectives, we will proceed with affidavits.

Unrebutted affidavits under common law,  are legally binding when not contested. The maxim “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce” (Maxim of Law 51k) is central here. Unlike other efforts that may have been ignored, these affidavits and notices are backed by the self-executing provisions of the 14th Amendment and relevant RCWs, specifically RCW 9.92.120 and RCW 42.12.010, which mandate the automatic disqualification of public officials found guilty of malfeasance. 

No, the legislature does not need to vote on this for it to be successful. The self-executing nature of the 14th Amendment and relevant RCWs, such as RCW 9.92.120, dictates that once a public official is found guilty of malfeasance, their removal from office is automatic. The law itself enforces this, requiring no additional legislative action. The maxim “The law is not to be violated by those in government” (Jenk. Cent. 7) supports this position. Moreover, any interference with or failure to enforce these provisions could be considered a violation of the law, as outlined in RCW 42.20.030, which addresses the unlawful intrusion into public office.

While traditional legal perspectives may not see a clear path forward, this process is rooted in the self-executing provisions of the law, which operate independently of conventional legal processes. The maxim “What is done in court is as if done before the eyes of all” (Maxim of Law 53b) emphasizes that court judgments, such as the one against Bob Ferguson, are binding and enforceable. The effectiveness of this action lies in the mandatory enforcement of these lawful provisions, which do not require the subjective opinions of attorneys but are based on established constitutional mandates and the automatic nature of the law itself.

Yes, lawful notices have a proven track record of success. The notice process is grounded in the maxim “A matter must be expressed to be resolved” (Maxim of Law 18c), meaning that properly issued notices and affidavits that go unrebutted become legally binding. Wethepeople2.us has achieved a 90% success rate with this specific type of notice, including a significant victory in stopping HB 1333 in Washington, linked to Bob Ferguson. Additionally, the affidavit process used has resulted in 10,000 wins in corrupt courts, demonstrating its effectiveness. The principle “He who does not deny, admits” (Maxim of Law 51d) underscores the power of these notices—if not rebutted, they stand as the legal truth, leading to enforceable outcomes.