Susan Chen v. Kate Halamay, et al.

The Courts “have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Obsergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (Roberts, J., joined by Scalia and Thomas, dissenting).In interpreting a statue, the courts must defer to “the intent of the legislature,” “until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ogden v. Sauders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827). Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. § 4.08.050 (“RCW 4.08.050”) is the statute at issue. RCW 4.08.050 mandates appointment of guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff, without time constraint or legal consequence for minors if no appointment is requested. Here, through a judicially added deadline requirement - which had been deliberately excluded by the Legislature, Washington courts imposed a dismissal with prejudice against a disabled minor, J.L. for the alleged untimely request for appointment of guardian ad litem by his pro se parent who speaks English as her second language. The dismissal with prejudice against minors contravenes Washington courts’ own precedents, and the decades-long practice of courts nationwide that the appointment of the guardian ad litem was “mandatory” and the court’s failure to make appointment is a “reversible error” and the erroneous judgment against him is “voidable at his option”; and that non-attorney representation is prohibited in both federal and state courts. See 28 U. S. C. § 1654; RCW 2.48.180; State v. Yishmael, 195 Wn.2d 155, 456 P.3d 1172 (2020). The judiciallytailored and result-driven “Smith loses” in the hypothetical pending case of Smith v. Jones had