Did the Washington Court err in finding that an infirmity in due process is cured by denial of a motion seeking to correct it and violate the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and contravene Armstrong v. Manzo (1965)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , I. Did the Washington Court err in finding that an infirmity in due process is cured by denial of a motion seeking to correct it and violate the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and contravene Armstrong v. Manzo (1965)? Il. Did the Washington Court err against public | policy by not recognizing a good faith and probable : cause exception to in terrorem clauses as adopted by , most jurisdictions, the Uniform Probate Code, and the Restatement to the forfeiture clause in this missing 2015 will? II. Does enforcing an in terrorem clause against . a beneficiary who is complaining of the misconduct, malfeasance, or mistake of a personal representative, without checking the claim’s validity simply because the clause is generally enforceable violate public policy, the Washington State Constitution, and the United States Constitutional due process provisions?