You're being deliberately opaque about the facts, but we can piece things together from your prior threads. After you were by all appearances served, apparently while in a different state (Hawaii), with a TRO obtained by your spouse in Washington, you called her.
After being served with the TRO, you participated by phone in a hearing where you tried to have it set aside:
You were charged with violating the TRO in Washington and, at trial, you objected to introduction of the Proof of Service from the person who served the TRO upon you as he wasn't available in court for you to cross-examine. Your defense in Washington was that you were not served with the order, and thus couldn't be prosecuted with its violation. An officer testified that he had heard a recording of the call, apparently that he recognized your voice from the recording, and presumably that it contained threats. The prosecutor offered as evidence of impeachment the proof of service documenting service upon you in Hawaii, and after some discussion the trial court permitted the introduction of the proof of service. You were subsequently convicted.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held that you should have been permitted to cross-examine the process server, and thus that the introduction of the proof of service violated your Sixth Amendment rights. They nonetheless found the introduction of the proof of service to be harmless error because you had appeared (by phone) at the hearing on the TRO and would not have known of that hearing had you not been served.
You attempted to argue on appeal that you might have learned about the Washington order and hearing by other means, such as by looking them up online, but apparently had not introduced any evidence to that effect at trial. The appellate court concluded that, as it could be reasonably inferred from the admissible facts and evidence that you had been served, the trial court's admission of the proof of service was harmless error (i.e., it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the introduction of the evidence would not have affected the outcome of your trial.)
Is that about right?Quoting State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 705 P. 2d 1182 (1985)

