Contra Cabal 101-10-00 - Nmesis - Contents and Abstracts

A tragic irony occurs when an Englishman has to go to jail to defend rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, especially when an American judge misuses harassment laws to suppress freedom of speech. Personal experiences of fascism and my role models still play an important part in my life. I resolved many years ago to neither accept fascist ideology nor brutalization of people belonging to minority groups.

The term “copyright” protects rights to the intellectual property that Paul Trummel (Nmesis) and other authors have created and published online in Contra Cabal. It includes text, photographs, cartoons, and illustrations. The term “moral rights” refers to attribution (bylines, credits). British law protects authors and artists from derogatory treatment of, or alterations to, original material in any way that prejudices them or their reputations.

Contra Cabal blossomed into an exposé of great size and force thanks to the Machiavellian Weasels and other Mustela rhetorica. They have now spawned and digitally nested within these pages. Accordingly, Nmesis dedicates the web launch of Contra Cabal to a magnificent duo. The idea of publishing essays about academic impropriety would not have developed without their unswerving moral turpitude, ethical ambivalence, and unlawful artfulness.

Paul Trummel uses the pseudonym Nmesis and openly declares personal or conflicting interests. Conflicts may relate to topics or to opinion especially when the content draws upon advocacy, experience, conclusion, or interpretation. An accredited journalist, he conforms with the code of conduct and ethics of the journalism profession, tested by courts in both Great Britain and the USA.

I describe much of the dysfunctional behavior that I have experienced with university administrators and state officials whom I name personally. I do not expect to change anything. Rensselaer and the University of Washington have colluded in the arbitrary removal of my computer access and expropriated all of my academic research and editorial databases. I believe that they did this in an attempt to silence me because I exposed their corruption.

More than five decades ago, Nmesis began a career in journalism and publishing as a Fleet Street contemporary of George Orwell. Today, the threat to intellectual freedom comes from university administrators who act as apologists for totalitarianism. The threat to personal freedom comes from state officials and attorneys general who show a complete disregard for law. These officials have negatively influenced the survival of freedom of expression. They have arbitrarily denied constitutional rights by insisting upon absolutist dogmas enforced through political correctness.

Designers do not have absolute control over the display of web sites because programming criteria and user preferences vary. Pages appear differently on a variety of platform monitors, for example, PC and Macintosh. However, the use of cascading style sheets has reduced the number of variables but may increase problems with older browsers. The web site will eventually contain all new and previously published work. The size and complexity of the overall project determines a practical need to publish in stages. Several hundred essays have reached copyediting, final investigation, validation, verification, or remain under investigation.

The judiciary and government officials connected with Seattle Jewish Mafia have caused a state of lawlessness and disorder by failure to comply with law. David C. Broom, formerly Seattle British Consul took advantage of extant anarchy to manipulate the Seattle political and judicial system to the detriment of a British subject whom he had sworn to assist and protect. During 2002, Judge James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court and Broom conspired to increase the coercion of a British journalist jailed without benefit of legal counsel by moving him to incommunicado solitary confinement among murderers and rapists in King County Jail, Seattle where prison guards tortured him. Now, a cover-up allows a powerful political and criminal element in Seattle to harass the journalist whenever he enters the US and unlawful restrictions still apply to his movements in Seattle despite a Washington Supreme court finding in his favor.

National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) formed a non-profit corporation then built and later refurbished Council House, 1501 17th Avenue, Seattle, Washington. The corporation rents independent-living apartments to senior citizens. The building does not classify as a nursing home and does not house vulnerable adults. Vulnerability rules do not generally apply to Council House tenants although administrators and their lawyers would have the public believe that they do. The people who legally live there possess all their faculties and have the ability to act independently. Tenants rent apartments in a block governed by landlord/tenant laws. The difference between Council House tenant and other landlord/tenant relationships lies only in economic disadvantage and age eligibility not physical or mental disability.

By unanimous decision, Washington Supreme Court, concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in restraining the author from contacting nonparties and in adding content restrictions to an antiharassment order. It also concluded that the trial court erred in multiple findings of contempt of court. It reversed draconian trial and appellate decisions which resulted in the author spending time in jail. All the contempt motions based upon alleged violations of an original flawed and unconstitutional anti-harassment order. The trial court denied the author the right to counsel and jailed him for 111 days (including 25 days in solitary confinement). Trial court had absolutely no justification to deny the right to counsel. In denying that right, the appellate court did not consider the draconian nature of the order against the author an accredited journalist - prior restraint, constructive eviction from his home, and jail time.

The case concerns a veteran British journalist sent to jail for publishing exposé, also political and satirical commentary, on a European web site. Washington Court of Appeals neglected to address abuse of judicial discretion by affirming trial court decisions. Washington Supreme Court tried to remedy a travesty of justice by Superior Court and refusal by Court of Appeals to hear the case. It unanimously remanded the case to Court of Appeals. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Court of Appeals affirmed Superior Court decisions now subject to another petition for Supreme Court review. The decisions provoked worldwide outrage among journalists and raised significant questions about state constitutional law in relation to First Amendment rights to free speech. Arguments challenge the improper use of antiharassment orders for prior restraint. State laws specifically exempt constitutionally protected activity as a basis for antiharassment orders. Pleadings also address repeated denial of the right to counsel.

Mary Kay Becker, Chief Judge Division 1, Court of Appeals, State of Washington, wrote an outrageous opinion then her sheep bleated: “We concur”. The court procrastinated and manipulated court rules for three years then waited another seven months after oral argument to make a decision - obvious attempts to delay then deny justice. It then buried its finding as an unpublished opinion which contained deliberately inaccurate statements, smacked of political expediency, and begs a challenge in a higher court. Lawyers for the appellant have filed a motion for reconsideration (05-Jul 04). Unfortunately, court rules allow the court to take as long as it wants to act on that motion. Will the court again drag its feet and take three years to publish another politically expedient and intellectually dishonest finding? The opinion affirmed the trial court decision. It effectively granted Council House directors impunity to continue their elder abuse and to cover up their complicity in alleged homicide. It also effectively declared another open season for violence by their thugs who have consistently used the court orders as a license to stalk, ambush, and violently assault a journalist. They have also sent several death threats to him and to other people connected with the case.

Mary Kay Becker, Chief Judge, Washington Court of Appeals, affirmed all the rants and rambles of James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court. She has become party to his “evidence” and his ad hominem. She has opened the door to rebuttal using similar rhetorical devices. She reveals her bias by selectively using documents filed with the trial court and by allowing the trial judge to suppress transcripts and other evidence. Powerful people get what they want by deception, distortion, and judicial compromise, they demonize their adversaries to achieve their goals. Becker has shown that she makes an admirable adjunct to the Council House board of directors as do superior court judges Wartnik, Doerty, and Hayden. She has become a real team-player in a team that draws its players from the same jurisprudential cesspool. Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct will have a lot of work to do in the not too distant future.

Becker: "A trial court issued an order restraining Paul Trummel from harassing his neighbors in a high rise apartment building for senior citizens, and then jailed him for contempt of court when he persistently posted their names and addresses on the Internet. Although Trummel vigorously puts forth the First Amendment as a shield, the trial court focused on Trummel's conduct rather than his speech. The court appropriately used the civil antiharassment statute to protect the residents from having to endure aggressive and hostile personal confrontations and surveillance while in the privacy of home; and appropriately concluded that the public posting of personal information violated the no-surveillance provision of the order. We affirm the trial court in all respects."

Motion for Reconsideration addresses the current Opinion which overlooks and misapprehends several important points of fact and law. RAP 12.4(c). Most importantly, however, the current Opinion neglects to decide several issues that require resolution, even if the Court's decision relative to the merits does not change. The current Opinion overlooks the fact that Trummel was found in contempt and spent four months in jail, not for listening at a door, but because of unconstitutional content-based restrictions on his web site.

Becker’s conduct echos and probably replicates Doerty’s judicial misconduct. Her opinion certainly ratifies his biased and draconian decisions. One lawyer called it "a travesty" and another said "the court should be ashamed". Yet another reacted with just one word: "fuck". Other comments support those contentions. Several Seattle attorneys who have appeared before Doerty have variously described him as "running amok", "out-of-control", "unstable", "vicious", and "evil" - that sounds reasonably accurate. Another Seattle lawyer, who claims to have appeared before Doerty many times, says: "He does not strike one as having both oars in the water". Yet Becker supports Doerty without reservation. A former legislator, she acts more like a sleazy politician than a judge. Give her the respect that her behavior deserves. Fear her tyrannical power. Ignore the fact that she tramples the constitutional rights of others. Remember, what your mother told you: "If you cannot say something nice then don't say anything at all”. That's the politically correct way and as basic as apple pie to real Americans. Then judges and politicians can do precisely what they want without accountability.

Contrary to judicial codes, Mary Kay Becker (Court of Appeals) condoned and affirmed ad hominem by Doerty and resorted to using it herself in court of appeals. She used Bimbo Bingo - random selection of evidence - to support her politically motivated opinion. Satire uses invective based upon reason to explore a proposition and state an opinion. Conversely, ad hominem consists of invective without logic that some people use to vent their spleen and to create a violent reaction - a genre proscribed by judicial codes that Doerty has used repeatedly. Ad hominem appeals to personal considerations instead of fact or reason required in judicial proceedings. Doerty and Becker merged definitions to persuade the public that irony incites violence. In a similar way, they commingled legal interpretation and construction to suit similar ends. Becker affirmed the findings of James A. Doerty (Superior Court) despite his constructive recusal when he became internationally notorious. The decisions now await review by Washington Supreme Court. Becker aspires to a seat on that court.

Mary Kay Becker (Court of Appeals) affirmed James A. Doerty (Superior Court) which exacerbated damage to victims of elder abuse by granting impunity to their oppressors. Those decisions have allowed abuse to continue unabated while Council House directors and managers evade prosecution. Becker now aspires to a seat on the Washington Supreme Court. These judges pander to powerful people and grant them impunity to get what they want by deception, distortion, and judicial compromise. In a consort, they demonize adversaries to achieve those goals. Like traditional bimbos they indulge wealthy and powerful people. Becker has shown that she makes an admirable adjunct to the Council House board of directors as do superior court judges Anthony P. Wartnik, James A. Doerty, and Michael C. Hayden. She plays for a team that draws its players from the Seattle jurisprudential cesspool.

Judge Mary Kay Becker, condoned elder abuse by affirming perjury entered into evidence by Judge James A. Doerty. She ignored moral and ethical standards by affirming misconduct and denial of due process of law. She effectively became an accessory after the fact by condoning perjury and a conspiracy to cover up crimes. She justified both lawyer and judicial misconduct despite canons that require her to take disciplinary action. She arbitrarily ratified unlawful decisions. By that, she committed judicial misconduct. Doerty handed down an indeterminate jail sentence with solitary confinement without benefit of legal counsel and abrogated court rules for discovery. He tried to cover up involvement in elder abuse and alleged homicide by Lynn, wife of Judge Anthony P. Wartnik, Washington Superior Court. Does the electorate really want or need Jingo Mary Kay Becker, Court of Appeals, to sit on Washington Supreme Court after her recent cover up of judicial misconduct by James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court, and elder abuse by directors and administrative staff at Council House, Seattle?

Council House directors and employees wrote hundreds of scurrilous letters during a three-year period. They sent them to the appellant, media, his professional associates, his friends and colleagues, also filed them with government agencies as false and misleading reports. Then, ex parte (communicating in secret with bias), they gave copies of undeclared statements and accusations to Judge Doerty who entered selected items, and copied part of what they posted on the Internet, into evidence without allowing cross-examination or a rebuttal. Princess Becky, must feel grateful for such staunch allies. She knowingly affirmed manufactured evidence then validated ad hominem and unfounded accusations. She even used some of it in court. Higher courts with a modicum of ethics will know how to sort the sheep from the goats then reverse the previous decisions. Unfortunately, that will not bring back the people who have died or rehabilitate the elderly people whom Council House managers and their thugs have abused. Any reasonable person can compare the declarations filed with the court with published Council House propaganda. That comparison will show how judges, directors, and administrators used perjury, subornation, and conspiracy in a planned campaign to pervert justice. During oral argument, Becker even mentioned “a campaign” which shows that She Knows you Know.

Princess Becky must by now have realized that she has courted the wrong frog. She kissed him expecting a prince, instead, she awakened the Marquis de Sade. These verbatim comments on the Court of Appeals opinion by the principal spokesman for Council House speak for themselves: "So here you are. Looking stupid. What a loser. And you are not alone. All you[r] admirers here at Council House look the same. You should see poor P---, she looks like a Bulgarian cow wondering about her bareness, intellectual and physical bareness that is. Like you, she has trouble hiding her Euro-trashness. Fakes like you and her, Euro-scum really, in the end are always exposed for what they truly are. Mental deficient morons from the old country. She looks so beaten, poor cow. About an [sic] half-hour ago I had the pleasure to celebrating [sic] your defeat on her face. She threatened me with mace and them called the police. It took all of two minutes for the cops to realize that she, like you, is insane. No they did not fill [sic] a report so don’t waist [sic] your time looking for one. As you can see your commedia buffone still goes on in this geriatric paradise. Ditto for G----, her fatness is weighting on her and as for you[r] Kaffir, he looks really down also. Poor guy, bet on the wrong horse. I understand that. Gambling is my thing."

Public prosecutors must by law follow up reports of elder abuse. Appropriate authorities will receive information upon publication of each case study. They must eventually take action to insure that no more incidents occur. Council House directors must accept responsibility for their dereliction and lack of response to complaints instead of consistently tying to kill the messenger. They have taken part in a Kafkaesque charade to cover up elder abuse that involves criminal liability. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and City of Seattle (CoS), the oversight authorities for Council House, regularly practice willful blindness. Michael J. Finkle (a judge wannabe and CoS attorney), in a consort with Jeaneen Watkins (apparently responsible for harassment and elder abuse complaints), has ignored Council House tenant complaints for several years. CoS attorneys have also denied due process of law to tenants affected by false and misleading reports filed about them by Stephen A. Mitchell as part of his vilification and blackmail campaign. Allegedly, as a result of Council House abuse and agency dereliction, two people have died.

Council House directors perjured themselves and forged documents to make an author take down his web site which exposed their criminal activities. Lynn C. Wartnik wrote one of those declarations. Superior Court Judge Anthony P. (Tony) Wartnik (Lynn's husband) then arranged his transfer to solitary confinement ex parte (secretly) with Judge Doerty. Doerty issued a sua sponte (on a whim without a hearing) order for solitary confinement. Lynn evidently acts upon the legal advice of her husband. He has committed judicial misconduct by insinuating himself into a case and interceding with a trial court judge in his wife's behalf. Council House directors falsely claimed that he had sent an anonymous communication to them while he languished in jail. They then had him, at age 68, transferred to solitary confinement with 23-hour lock down as a punishment. He spent 25 days among accused murderers and rapists as part of 111 days that he spent in jail as a result of a campaign to silence him. Twenty-one directors and managers organized the transfer campaign in a similar way to a campaign of character assassination they had mounted earlier.

Phil Sutcliffe, chair of a London Freelance Branch, National Union of Journalists (NUJ - UK and Ireland) committee formed to investigate the circumstances wrote to Council House director Donald G. Cohan asking for clemency: "Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, we would suggest that practically, the matter will not be resolved while he is in jail - quite simply, the website cannot be changed while [he] is confined. While there may not be an easy or immediate resolution of the issue between Council House and [him], it cannot be resolved unless there is a resumption of due process and/or negotiation between you." Cohan responded: "I am a past president of Council House and have been an attorney for over forty years. . . . You will find that he is not imprisoned for exercising his rights of free speech. He was held in contempt of court for repeatedly disobeying direct orders of the court. The problem he has is a direct result of his actions regarding court orders rather than issues of free speech." Cohan then evidently arranged with Judge Wartnik for a transfer to solitary confinement with 23-hour lockdown.

Bradley K. Spear, Director and Attorney, Council House, Seattle, falsely claimed that a writer sent an unpublished draft to him while he languished in jail. Spear, in a consort with others, then had him transferred to solitary confinement with 23-hour lock down as a punishment. He spent 25 days among accused murderers and rapists as part of total 111 days that he spent in jail. Twenty-one Council House directors and managers organized a campaign for transfer to solitary confinement in a similar way to which they originally organized character assassination. They perjured themselves and forged documents to try to force him take down his web site which exposed their criminal activities. They knew that the writing contained truthful statements and that they could not claim defamation or libel so they claimed harassment. They then had him incarcerated on trumped-up charges and used a vicious campaign to silence him by denying due process of law and constitutional rights.

In his letter to Vicki Richman, a journalist colleague, Mitchell trapped himself several times, in particular by admitting that: "[Doerty] denied his petition with prejudice and suggested that I should file a counter suit". By that, Mitchell confirms the appellantxs contentions that Doerty openly suggested from the bench that Council House prosecute against constitutionally protected speech. He then retained jurisdiction. Doerty committed gross judicial misconduct by giving advise from the bench. He then reinforced his position by admitting declarations into evidence unquestioned. In fact, he initiated the counterclaim. He has since withheld transcripts and hundreds of other documents from that hearing to cover his tracks.

Hon. Robert F. Utter, Retired Justice, Washington State Supreme Court wrote that: "The vibrancy of our Democracy depends upon our willingness to ensure that the fullest range of voices and interests is represented and heard. This is what the fight for equal justice is all about". Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses that quotation as a slogan but Washington judges pay little heed to it and repeatedly deny due process of law. Washington State Court Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) require lawyers to make a full disclosure of their interest. Yet Judge James A. Doerty issued an order that gives The Scab Family protection from exposure and allows them to act unlawfully in a similar way to their clients. By that, he placed a prior restraint upon an author. In effect, he granted The Scab Family a license to kill and sanctioned a conspiracy. The pseudonyms used in this essay differentiate and identify people without violating Doerty’s order. They have his specific authorization which he entered into the court record. This theater of the absurd emphasizes ludicrous folly. SCaB lawyers and captive judges employ disjointed, repetitious, and meaningless dialogue. They create purposeless and confusing situations then write scripts that lack any realistic or logical development.

Transcripts taken verbatim from court tape recordings form part of the public record. They must faithfully describe oral argument. A trial court judge censors attorneys' and directors' names from court transcripts when republished. Should journalists publish court transcripts verbatim and risk going to jail or alter the public record to comply with prior restraint? This transcript, taken verbatim from the court tape recording of the proceedings on 14 November 2003, forms part of the public record. It faithfully represents the oral argument during those proceedings. A competent lawyer proofread the document against the tape recording to insure accuracy. A dilemma arises from the trial court censorship. That prior restraint presents a serious ethical problem for a journalist. It illustrates the catch-22 that Judge James A. Doerty created in the trial court. He sent the author to jail for 111 days (25 days in solitary confinement) for publishing attorneys’ and directors’ names. Kafkaesque as this may seem, the author has tried to comply with an irrational trial court order until reversed by Court of Appeals. If that court orders deletion of the attorney’s name from its own verbatim transcript then the author will comply with that ruling.

National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) formed a non-profit corporation then built and later refurbished Council House, 1501 17th Avenue, Seattle, Washington. The corporation rents independent-living apartments to senior citizens. The building does not classify as a nursing home and does not house vulnerable adults. They obtained federal financial assistance through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the original construction and rehabilitation. Residents have amortized mortgages by paying rent over several decades while HUD continued to subsidize some rents and services. Then they appointed directors who employed administrators mandated to comply with HUD directives. Instead, successive administrators have introduced supremacist policies and enforced them contrary to federal law. They have also obtained restraining orders that banned communication with the directors so that they could not hear about the abuse perpetrated in their name.

Jonathan Swift claimed that people see a reflection of everybody’s face but their own in satirical portrayal - that writing offends only those who recognize themselves. However, writing satire in a politically correct society makes the writer vulnerable to abuse. Some writers fail to expose themselves from fear of retribution for publishing heterodox opinions. Political silence then allows absolute control by those who have power. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects reporters against prior restraint and prohibitions on genre or content. It should prevent other people from gagging them. The law determines that public officials and the judiciary, whose life and behavior result in public focus or interest, must remain accountable. They must not try to cover up their crimes by unlawfully silencing reporters. Satire and political cartoons also classify as protected speech under the First Amendment even if the targets do not appreciate the humor.

Five justices of Supreme Court of Washington granted motion for discretionary review. Unanimously accepted arguments in pleadings. Court remedied travesty of justice. Journalist prevented from publishing information then jailed for satirical commentary. Broached worldwide outrage in the journalism community. Significant questions of state and federal constitutional law. First Amendment rights to free speech. Improper use of anti-harassment orders for prior restraint. State law exempts constitutionally protected activity as a basis for anti-harassment orders.

The case arises from a dispute between appellant Paul Trummel, a retired freelance journalist, and respondent Stephen Mitchell, the administrator of Council House, Inc., a federally-subsidized housing project. Trummel classified Mitchell as a tyrant who abused his authority and violated various laws and regulations. He investigated various events at Council House then reported his findings and opinions in newsletters and on web sites. Mitchell may dispute the accuracy of allegations but not the right to conduct investigations and publish articles classified as protected speech under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, Mitchell persuaded the King County Superior Court that writing classified as actionable “harassment”. Judge James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court, held a hearing in which he ignored both First Amendment principles and the statutory elements of harassment. He also violated rights to counsel and to due process. He summarily denied that Trummel held press credentials and claimed he had no First Amendment rights then entered an order of anti-harassment against him. The trial court’s unconstitutional orders led, in rapid progression, to constructive eviction from Council House, to the imposition of punitive fines, and finally to incarceration (at age 68) in the King County Jail for almost four months. Trummel now asks the appellate Court to restore his constitutional rights by reversing virtually every aspect of the trial court’s rulings.

Trummel violated the peace and security of Council House residents and staff through verbal confrontation, unsolicited inflammatory writings, and express and implied threats. Trummel wrote offensive "newsletters" about Council House staff and residents and distributed these writings either by posting the newsletters or sliding them under the door of individual apartment units. Council House enacted a "house rule" prohibiting any person from attaching newsletters or any other written communication to the door of any resident's apartment. Trummel filed an anti-harassment petition against Council House administrator Stephen Mitchell, which was denied after a hearing by Judge James A. Doerty. Stephen Mitchell filed a petition for an anti-harassment order against Trummel. He supported the petition with declarations by forty-three residents who described harassing behavior and the emotional toll that it took on them. The court found engagement in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at specific persons within Council House detrimental to those people and served no legitimate or lawful purpose. Doerty entered an anti-harassment order which restrained Trummel from contacting Mitchell or Council House, from keeping Mitchell or Council House under surveillance, and from entering or coming within 500 feet of Council House. Further he restrained Trummel from contacting in person, by mail, electronically, by telephone, by writing, or through any third person any resident of Council House and any board member, staff, or employee of Council House at any location.

Mitchell could have brought eviction proceedings against Trummel but he chose a “speedy and inexpensive method of obtaining [a] civil anti-harassment protection order”. That resulted in a series of legal errors culminating in Trummel’s imprisonment for publication of constitutionally protected materials. Trummel was unrepresented during the hearing and was denied his right to have counsel to cross-examine declarants. Mitchell excuses this outrage against human rights on grounds that Trummel was rude to old people. This astonished national and international news media. Appellant urges the Court to review the declarations cited by Mitchell for evidentiary and legal sufficiency and to ignore emotional and conclusory statements. Careful and fair reading of the record leads inescapably to the conclusion that Mitchell’s allegations, even if true, do not establish that Trummel has actually harassed Mitchell or anyone else. Mitchell concedes that the trial court did not make the statutory findings required to ensure that anti-harassment statutes do not violate constitutional rights. He also concedes that an anti-harassment petition cannot be based on lawsuits or complaints to government departments also that content-based restrictions on web sites classify as unconstitutional. The publications did not rank as defamatory and the declarations submitted by Mitchell were not admissible in that he was not the target of any course of harassing conduct. Moreover, he concedes that he is not a “fiduciary” of tenants, that he does not have legal authority to bring an action on tenants’ behalf, and that the tenants are not parties to the action.

Mitchell brought a motion for contempt based on the content of a web site. The trial court found that content violated the "surveillance" provision of a court order, found Trummel in contempt, and imposed fines of $100 per day. The court then issued a new antiharassment order that explicitly required Trummel to remove "personal identifying information" from his web site. Mitchell brought a second motion for contempt based on the web site. Trummel appeared without an attorney at the motion. Despite the well-established constitutional right to assistance of counsel in a contempt proceeding, Judge Doerty failed to appoint counsel to represent him. Trummel argued, pro se, that the trial court had no jurisdiction over his web site and that his speech was protected in any event. The trial court disagreed, found Trummel in contempt, and jailed him indeterminately. His wrongful incarceration has captured the attention of the national and international media. After Trummel had been in jail for more than two months, the trial court, appointed an attorney to represent him in contempt proceedings. Judge Doerty launched a review hearing with invective then conditionally released Trummel pending a hearing to give him an opportunity to purge his contempt by removing "private information" from his publications. Strangely, the court also claimed that Trummel was "not ordered to quit writing or to quit publishing in any way," even though Trummel had just served three and a half months in jail - including several weeks in solitary confinement - for publishing the names of third parties who were not even petitioners. The trial court denied a motion to vacate the finding of contempt, declined to return him to jail, then entered a new antiharassment order with altered geographical restrictions to stay away from hundreds of people who never petitioned the court for relief, and from posting, on his web site, any "identifying information," including the names of any current, former or future staff member, tenant or attorney of Council House.

Subsequent to the entry of an anti-harassment order, Trummel continued to keep surveillance over the staff and residents at Council House. Instead of posting his newsletters to the residents' doors, he broadcast his defamatory publications on the world wide web. The publications alleged that Mitchell and Council House staff engaged in racial, political, and religious discrimination. Council House residents and staff reported that continued surveillance made them fear for their safety. Judge Doerty found that Trummel had violated the "surveillance" portion of an anti-harassment order and ordered him to remove all personal identifying information regarding Council House staff and residents from his web site. He found that the specific posting on the internet of names and home addresses coupled with inflammatory rhetoric violated the antiharassment order in that it caused the subjects to reasonably feel under surveillance. Another contempt motion was brought resulting in a finding that he had again violated the anti-harassment order entered against him. The trial court claimed that lesser sanctions had been insufficient to compel him to obey the authority of that court. Judge Doerty ordered Trummel to the King County jail to be detained until he fully complied with his order. At a compliance hearing the Court found that Trummel had appropriately purged his contempt and removed the personal identifying information from his web site and released him from jail. Based on supplemental declarations presented by Council House residents and staff, Judge Doerty again entered a modified anti-harassment order which designated a specific geographical area around Council House which Trummel could not enter and retained the restrictions on contacting Council House residents and posting personal identifying information to the internet.

One of the most serious errors committed by the trial court was the issuance of anti-harassment orders restricting Trummel's contact with dozens of tenants who were not parties, many of them his friends. This followed Mitchell's frivolous assertions that he had the legal authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of his tenants. The record and Mitchell's own arguments on appeal show that Mitchell never had the "representative capacity" upon which his petition was originally based. The only petitioner in the action was Mitchell himself. Even if Trummel's actions constituted harassment (they did not), the trial court had no jurisdiction to restrict contact with third parties. Mitchell argued that this "fiduciary" relationship gave him the authority to sue on the tenants' behalf. He never mentioned "real party in interest". Mitchell has changed his position 180 degrees and has abandoned his frivolous claims that the tenants are legally "disabled". He now argues that this is an issue of "real party in interest". If Mitchell had not falsely represented to the trial court that he had the "representative capacity" to sue on behalf of the tenants, many of the trial court's errors would never have occurred. The statute clearly states that a person claiming harassment must file a petition. The statute also clearly states that direction of a course of harassing conduct must apply only to the petitioner and not to third parties. The trial court did not have the discretion to determine what "surveillance" meant. No evidence - admissible or otherwise - showed that Trummel engaged in surveillance of Council House or its staff. The trial court relied on "feelings" rather than evidence that Trummel had actually violated the order. That determination had no legal or factual basis. As a threshold matter, there is some confusion as to whether the term "prior restraint" should be used to describe an unconstitutional post publication restriction on speech. But the issue is not whether the use of the term "prior restraint" to describe the trial court's unconstitutional restrictions on the web site is technically correct. Instead, the issue relates more to whether those patently unconstitutional restrictions on speech may be collaterally attacked.

Washington Court of Appeals questioned attorneys for both sides about the draconian and biased trial court decisions that caused a reporter to go to jail for an indeterminate period. The case attracted worldwide interest among journalists when they learned that a Seattle judge had jailed journalist Paul Trummel. He served 111 days (25 days in solitary confinement in the same section as Gary Ridgway, the Green River serial killer) for publishing constitutionally protected information. The appellant published details of senior citizen abuse and misappropriation of federal funds that occurred in a federally-assisted apartment block. He has since alleged homicide by abuse by administrators condoned by directors. He reported the facts to municipal, state, and federal authorities but they have neglected to do anything about the complaints.

Amicus curiae means, literally, “friend of the court”. The process caters to individuals or organizations with a strong interest in, or views about, the issues contained in the appeal. They do not rank as parties to the action. However, they may file a brief suggesting a rationale consistent with their own views and concerns. Amicus curiae briefs commonly address matters of broad public interest and establish the interests of third parties. Amici curiae use their own attorneys licensed in the State of Washington to express professional or ethical concerns based upon the appellate briefs filed with the court. Their briefs support the special interests of the person or organization filing and include supporting case law. The amicus curiae briefs give the appellate court notice of the extraordinary international concern about this case. They also demonstrate how the trial court decision would adversely affect journalists internationally if allowed to set a legal precedent and standard for citation in subsequent cases. These précis relate to amicus curiae briefs filed with Washington Court of Appeals (15 Oct 03) and link to full text briefs.

The First Amendment protects people who publish unpopular political ideas. It also protects journalists who expose corruption from government censorship and judicial misconduct. Judges must not make decisions without due process of law and examination of evidence.

The investigative reporter exposed abuse of residents and misappropriation of public funds at Council House, a HUD financially-assisted residence for senior citizens in Seattle. The court ruling essentially punishes the reporter, precludes further investigation, and allows abuse and fraud to continue unabated.

You are not a bona fide journalist because you do not work full-time for a recognized publisher. Therefore, you have no protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Early seventeenth-century Calvinists tried to suppress political proselytization by their religious and political opponents in favor of their own doctrine. Three hundred and sixty years later, a Jewish constituency in Seattle has acted in a similar way. To support them, Judge James A. (Jiminy) Doerty, Superior Court, Washington State, resurrected the restrictions on freedom of the press imposed by the Press Licensing Order, London 1643. He then arbitrarily incorporated them into findings that bypass US and Washington State constitutions.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution grounds in the belief that individuals have the right to decide for themselves what they read, write, or hear. The US Supreme Court protects freedom of expression. That court defined it as the nucleus of an indispensable matrix that ensures democracy. State courts may not define speech outside federal case law. Judge James A. Doerty does not agree with either federal or state constitutions. He has handed down a draconian decision using disinformation to support it. Civilization has not seen the like since Britain's King George disliked Jonathan Swift's satire so much that he evicted him from his London home. Now Washington's King James behaves similarly. Things have evidently not changed much in three hundred years.

Pending appellate review, this reporter analyzes Trummel vs. Mitchell and Mitchell vs. Trummel, Washington Superior Court, 01-2-04698-5 SEA to help contributors to the legal fund understand what transpired. This article provides neither a legal opinion nor an interpretation of law.

Past Co-President Lynn W. (wife of Judge Anthony P. Wartnik) and other directors paid more than $20,000 in attorney fees to cover-up alleged crimes at Council House, Seattle. Inquiry into the draconian measures that Judge James A. Doerty imposed, and the broad jurisdiction that he claimed, revealed that Doerty holds court in the same courthouse as Wartnik.

Fourth Estate comes into play when the judiciary and legal profession fail to investigate their own people. Judge James A. Doerty must presently rank as the most unethical judge in Washington Superior Court system. Neither the judiciary nor Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) have apparently done anything to remedy or halt his rampage despite world wide media coverage about his judicial misconduct. WSBA has maintained a hypocritical silence and has issued no reprimand although alive to his misconduct for almost three years. An appellate court knowingly drags its feet on a case that documents blatant judicial misconduct. This gives the public a perception that they want to protect one of their own. It gives the impression that it has a vested interest in procrastination for a variety of reasons including reelection. This exacerbates the damage to victims of elder abuse instead of mitigating it. Meanwhile, the people responsible evade prosecution.

Judge James A. Doerty Washington Superior Court has placed the landlords of Council House and their special interests above the law. Doerty ruled against a journalist in a draconian harassment decision that disingenuously redefines the roles of reporter and perpetrator as harasser and victim.

This sequel to Shame Naming and Blaming provides a classic example of how eight months of anonymity, obtained by depriving one journalist of his right to freedom of expression, has allowed abuse of senior citizens at Council House to escalate. Council House managers have taken advantage of the relative immunity from prosecution and anonymity granted by the court order. They have increased their hold over residents using a neo-fascist ideology to the detriment of dissident residents. The majority live in fear of them.

Judge James A. Doerty Washington Superior Court denied a Motion for Reconsideration of a Restraining Order against Investigative Reporter Paul Trummel.

The man sitting next to a delegate at NWU 2001 DA told her: "I'll send a check. I honestly will." That gave the delegate the idea to launch an appeal. The man kept his promise by sending a check for $100.

The elder abuse section of this web site provides examples of how evil and anonymity backed by tyrannical policies and procedures endorsed by a superior court judge have adversely affected senior citizens living in a federal financially-assisted apartment block in Seattle. Administrators and directors have unlawfully manipulated tenant lifestyles and cruelly tried to impose their ideology upon elderly people then denied them recourse. The directors live in affluence and think that laws do not apply to them. Documents show that they organized a deliberate campaign of perjury to cover up alleged homicide and fraud. All-Jewish board of directors allows supremacists to continue behavior reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Authorities must stop them before others die as a result of gross neglect and homicide.

I started to interview and write profiles about Council House tenants during 1999. Their diversity indicated an interesting project covering personal backgrounds and experience among the approximately 150 tenants. This ranged from life in Adolph Hitler’s concentration camps to construction work under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. Council House, a federal financially-assisted facility for independent living does not classify as an adult family home, boarding home, or nursing home and must not rent apartments to vulnerable adults. However, administrators have granted leases to people in that category for personal and corporate gain then abused some of them. This resulted in alleged homicide by abuse and the appointment of other vulnerable adults as Kapos (thugs). The individual case studies result from research and investigation using government and other documents, resident interviews, and personal observations. What portended a pleasant project interviewing people between the ages of 62 and 102 to listen to their stories became a nightmare when administrators heard about it.

I started to interview and write profiles about Council House tenants during 1999. Their diversity indicated an interesting project covering personal backgroundsand experience among the approximately 150 tenants. Administrators have granted leases for personal and corporate gain then abused tenants and denied them their constitutional and civil rights. This has resulted in alleged homicide by abuse and the appointment of other vulnerable adults as Kapos (thugs). The individual case studies result from research and investigation using government and other documents, resident interviews, and personal observations.

Abuse of older people has become endemic - it manifests to a greater or lesser degree in people of a certain class or living in a particular location. Elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation has now reached substantial proportions. Although family members form a majority of abusers the problem crosses all geographic, socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups. Administrators frequently insinuate themselves as surrogate parents into the lifestyles of elders on the unwarranted assumption that they cannot look after themselves. Elder abuse includes: physical assault (force that results in physical pain or injury); humiliation (threats, harassment, and intimidation); neglect (confinement or restraint either intentionally or unintentionally); and, financial exploitation (misuse or withholding resources for personal advantage). The abuse very often bases upon financial exploitation although more than one type of abuse may occur in any given circumstance. Financial exploitation and emotional abuse rank as the most commonly reported.

Stephen A Mitchell is easy to understand if one looks at him as he sees himself - like a charismatic cult leader, above the law, on a mission from God and in charge of his parishioners, tenants of Council House who are incapable of living a happy life without his input and guidance. He now wants to extend his mission to the neighborhood, creating a response to the “drunks, addicts and homeless” to rid the neighborhood of the unwanted whom he feels have no right to exist in his world.

Several reporters and magazine writers began to rebel against the normal restrictions of journalism during the 1960s. Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson, and others started to narrate in a personal way by including themselves in their stories. They blended the objective voice with the subjective. They ceased to be hard-nosed reporters in the traditional sense and became famous for creative nonfiction. George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway explored similar genres and New Yorker magazine began a tradition of featuring creative nonfiction as opposed to newspaper reporting. Richard Roesler, Spokesman-Review, neither ranks as another George Orwell nor emulates any other famous writer. Instead, Roesler has joined Club JournoScum with other reporters who float in a media cesspool. They include Mike Roarke, formerly with Spokesman-Review and Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jayson Blair, New York Times, and other reporters. Several of them have recently received their just deserts for unethical behavior and comprise the core membership.

Elder abuse manifests to a greater or lesser degree in people of a certain class or living in a particular location. Neglect, and exploitation has now reached substantial proportions. Typically, victims classify as widowed, white females over 62 years of age living on a limited income. They usually live with, or under the auspices of, the perpetrator. Elder victims often do not report the abuse. They fear retaliation by the abuser, personal shame for their situation, or worry about having to leave their home. Consequently, they do not make reports. Council House unlawfully inserted nebulous and unconstitutional clauses into lease addenda so that he could control the lifestyle of individual tenants and force them to comply with his own ideology. In particular, it used the ambiguous term “rude and abusive behavior” to threaten or evict a stream of tenants. Pola Doenyas (75) and Gilda Kabbani (70±) challenged the Zionist lines along which directors run Council House. Accordingly, they have decided to ask federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief. That relief will effectively enforce constitutional law at Council House which US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials have neglected to do, probably through political affiliation with Council House directors.

Seattle City Attorney Thomas A. Carr, has issued six criminal indictments against the author. He has attempted to intimidate, silence, and return the author to jail on trumped-up charges - charges similar to those used by Judge James A. Doerty to jail and place him in solitary confinement. Doerty’s decision now awaits review by Washington Supreme Court. Carr’s behavior, as an elected official, ranks as truly kafkaesque. Seen as another attempt to preempt a Supreme Court decision, Carr has evidently tried to pervert the course of justice. Conspiring with another to fabricate or dispose of evidence and threatening or intimidating witnesses is a criminal offense punishable by a jail sentence.

Five articles and a letter to the editor cover ongoing criminal activity and elder abuse by Council House directors. They describe the actions of corrupt judges and gross misconduct by their attorneys who have filed frivolous law suits against tenants. Council House directors have used more unlawful retaliatory measures to destroy the lives and reputations of people who testified in, or opined about, the case now under Supreme Court review. The articles describe that retaliation and the carnivals that have posed as legal proceedings. Washington Supreme Court presently considers challenges by the author to prior restraint and other issues that define journalism inquiry as surveillance and harassment. Despite those ongoing deliberations, Council House directors and attorneys continue to harass the author. They now file frivolous complaints to police and the public prosecutor in attempts to return him to jail before Supreme Court decides that First Amendment case.

This case provides one of many examples that show how anonymity, obtained by depriving one journalist of his right to freedom of expression, has allowed elder abuse at Council House to escalate. A manager took advantage of his relative immunity from prosecution and anonymity granted by a court order to increase his hold over tenants. He used a neo-fascist ideology to the detriment of dissidents. With the knowledge and complicity of his directors, and with help from corrupt lawyers and judges who denied due process of law, he obtained restraining orders. For that purpose he coerced or suborned declarations from a team of people willing to commit perjury to gain favor. He then terrorized the remaining tenants for his own benefit. The majority have lived in fear for at least five years. Six of the eight witnesses who filed declarations in Hawk previously filed perjured declarations against other Council House tenants. Directors and their thugs have consistently suborned a tenant elite since 2001. In addition, six directors committed perjury which they used to pervert justice. The manager also tampered with each of the tenant witnesses for the petitioner in the 2001 case. He either unlawfully evicted them, tried to bribe them, or had his Kapos seriously harass them.

For the first time in the history of Council House, a tenant will have the resource to impose her right to face and question her accusers. In a series of other constructive evictions, based upon perjury suborned or coerced by Mitchell and his thugs, tenants did not have the benefit of counsel who could conduct discovery. Discovery, a compulsory process, allows pretrial disclosure. It enables litigants to obtain information before trial through demands for documents, deposition of potential witnesses, and written interrogatories under oath. Attorney Elena Garella will subpoena principal witnesses for examination. Previously, Council House directors and their lawyers denied tenants due process of law and corrupt judges made unjust decisions. When tenants won their cases in more ethical courts, Council House obtained new trials using their tame judges or ignored court decisions and evicted tenants anyway.

I would like to thank all those working to stop my eviction for their diligence and caring. I think it is a huge victory to have Council House offer me $5,000 in that it shows how effective my defense counsel has been. However I have never been in this to gain for myself. Elena Luisa Garella has made it very clear that it would be to my personal advantage to take this offer but I am making a stand to help all the tenants at Council House. It came to my attention that this apartment complex was being mismanaged much to the detriment of the tenants and I had to reject the offer despite the arguments put forth by Elena Garella and Kaustuv Das. They are both eloquent and obviously care for my well-being but I am making a stand to benefit all tenants. No one has been able to stand up to Mitchell and his unfair policies and remain as a tenant. I do not think I should have to be forced to move because Mitchell feels threatened by anyone disagreeing with his policies and course of actions that are harmful to tenants causing much stress and disruption to many tenants’ lives.

In The Trial, Franz Kafka described how Joseph K. did not receive a fair trial and how his tormentors maintained their anonymity. Joseph K. ended up dead and his tormentors continued their abuse without restraint. Directors and administrators at Council House have followed a similar Kafkaesque scenario with their claims to anonymity and impunity with the help of three superior court and three court of appeals judges. Court findings enabled Council House directors to cover up homicide by abuse. Homicide ranks as a class A felony punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in a state correctional institution or by a fine of fifty thousand dollars or both. At least two vulnerable adults have died at Council House from neglect and abuse and the directors have had four other tenants incarcerated thereby putting their lives at risk. The directors have since covered up the deaths which effectively makes them accessories after the fact.

Washington Court of Appeals procrastinated for three years then waited another seven months after oral argument to make a decision. The court then buried its finding as an unpublished opinion. The opinion smacks of political expediency and begs challenging in a higher court. It echos the judicial misconduct of the trial court judge and ratifies his biased and draconian decisions. A lawyer called it a travesty. The appellant’s lawyers, disappointed with the ruling, will seek further review. The opinion affirmed the trial court decision. It effectively granted Council House directors impunity to continue their elder abuse and to cover up their complicity in alleged homicide. It also declares another open season of violence by their thugs upon the writer. It follows the maxim that powerful people get what they want by deception, distortion, and judicial compromise, and demonize their adversaries to achieve their goals. Elder abuse resumed at Council House within hours of the court posting its opinion on the state web site. It involved another violent assault against a dissenting tenant that required police intervention. She reportedly carries mace to protect herself after suffering many similar confrontations and now has a pro bono lawyer.

Judge George W. Holifield in Seattle Municipal Court, Washington (21 Apr 06) dismissed all six criminal charges brought by Thomas Aquinas Carr, Seattle City Attorney, against the author. Carr knew about an impending Washington Supreme Court decision following oral argument (02 June 05). Allegedly in an attempt to preempt that decision, Carr filed legally indefensible criminal charges. Holifield quashed the bench warrant and dismissed all the charges on a motion by City of Seattle. City of Seattle took advantage of a draconian and unlawful finding by Judge James A. Doerty based upon perjury. Carr filed a series of manufactured criminal complaints (28 Sep 05) for ambiguous violations of a “prior restraint” order (19 Apr 01), an order now reversed by Washington Supreme Court (30 Mar 06).

Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney, an elected official, and Kevin D. Kilpatrick, City Prosecutor, appear more as principal obstructionists in preventing due process of law than advocates. Neglect by them to address issues of harassment and elder abuse, also the withholding of public records associated with those abuses, has allowed Council House directors to pursue racism and elder abuse with impunity. That impunity stands as a contributory factor in at least two cases of alleged homicide by abuse and several cases of violent physical assault upon elderly people by administrators and thugs that they employ. City of Seattle and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials not only tried to cover up allegations but also tried to silence by unlawful means or obstruct tenants who tried to report elder abuse. Moreover, biased straw judges have obstructed lawyers who tried to obtain due process of law for victims of myriad elder abuse at Council House, Seattle.

Mary Selecky, Secretary, Washington Department of Health (DOH), received reports of the abuse and after considerable outside pressure, sent Donald Painter, an investigator, to interview Mitchell about elder abuse and fraudulent credentialing of staff. Selecky and other agencies had notice of that elder abuse prior to and following the deaths of Jackie Rose Nations (59†) and Naftali Nathan Vilensky (72†) yet did nothing. Painter conducted a self-serving and collusive investigation which ended in a finding of no probable cause. Mitchell then used that false premise to persuade US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to drop their ongoing investigation of Council House. Federal officials used the bogus Painter findings to evade their responsibilities which resulted in a monumental escalation of elder abuse at Council House. Federal, state, and municipal authorities hold a mandate to prosecute cases of elder abuse and neglect of disabled people. By law, they must work collaboratively with police, social service agencies, and medical professionals to improve referral, investigation, and, ultimately, prosecute cases of abuse and neglect of elderly people yet they fail to do so. Instead, they have granted impunity to Council House directors and managers.

Dereliction by Seattle Police Department Officer Adam Elias and other East Precinct officers complements the malignance of Stephen A. Mitchell, Audrey F. Dunbar, and Council House directors. Elias and several colleagues act as straw cops for directors and consort with Mitchell and Dunbar in filing false and misleading reports to cover up elder abuse. This syndicate has repeatedly tried to kill the messenger who reports elder abuse by misusing legal process and filing trumped-up criminal charges. Police officers indulged in monkey business - a dangerous real life portrayal of immature, inappropriate, and illegal behavior reminiscent of Keystone Kop farces. A recent trumped-up charge filed by Elias and Mitchell pertains to publication of a cartoon of a “monkey terrorist”. Their behavior would rank as hilarious if not intended to send the cartoonist back to jail. The cartoon classified as pure speech constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, a fact later confirmed by a Washington Supreme Court decision. It formed no part of any restraining order. In fact, an unlawful prior restraint that censored the author’s work for more than four years specifically permitted the use of pseudonyms and did not censor anthropomorphic cartoons.

Police stopped Jennifer K. Abelson for a traffic violation. Several days later she filed a complaint against the officer in which she said that he made a sexual advance. The officer (still anonymous) denied the accusation. On the recommendation of Sandra Kay Pailca, Director, Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), City Attorney Thomas A. Carr brought criminal charges against Abelson for filing a false and misleading report. City of Seattle prosecutors filed two charges for making a false statement to a public servant . If convicted on this gross misdemeanor, then Abelson could receive punishment of up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. Hector Castro, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, wrote (24 Jan 04) about a scheduled hearing (26 Jan 04) in Seattle Municipal Court. There the paper trail started and any coherence ended which arouses mistrust in the reporting by both the newspaper and OPA.

A reasonable person finds it hard to believe that forty-five elderly people have knowingly agreed to testify for Council House on complex constitutional issues in two legal hearings when they have no knowledge of the facts, constitutional law, or any background information. However, that becomes plausible when one considers the history. Mitchell and Council House directors have repeatedly lied, committed perjury, and suborned tenants (persuaded them to offer false testimony or sign perjured declarations) in order to deprive others of their civil and human rights. The names of 17 repeated perjurers appear among the 45 witnesses on the list. Those tenants and their guests previously filed perjured declarations or offered false testimony after directors suborned, coerced, or used them as straw men during a five-year period. They left a trail of lies and manufactured evidence instead of truth and facts. In Washington state, perjury by signing false or misleading declarations or offering false testimony classifies as a class B felony. That offense carries a maximum punishment of ten years in a correctional institution, and/or a $20,000 fine, on each count.

Investigations at Council House for more than five years show an extensive pattern or practice of elder abuse and denial of civil and human rights, also due process of law. "Pattern or practice" means an intentional violation of rights granted by the Civil Rights Act evidenced by more than an isolated instance, or by regular repeated conduct in violation of that Act. Legal action can occur under the Fair Housing Act when there is reason to believe that a person engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination against an individual or a group of people that raises an issue of "general public importance." Council House, Seattle, discriminates against both individuals and groups. Courts have found a "pattern or practice" when evidence establishes that the discriminatory actions relate to regular practice, rather than isolated instances. Six of the eight witnesses who filed declarations against in a recent case previously filed perjured declarations against other tenants. Directors and their thugs have consistently suborned a tenant elite. In addition, six directors committed perjury which they used to pervert justice. Corrupt judges have repeatedly disallowed discovery and cross-examination that would have exposed those crimes: instead, they granted impunity. In Washington state, perjury by signing false or misleading declarations classifies as a class B felony. That offense carries a maximum punishment of ten years in a correctional institution, and/or a $20,000 fine, on each count.

A unanimous decision by Washington Supreme Court has reversed trial court prior restraint findings by Judge James A. Doerty. It allows publication of the names of those Council House directors, staff, and tenants who allegedly suborned or filed perjured testimony. The prior restraint has existed for more than five years which has allowed many of the people listed, and others outside the ambit, to commit perjury and subornation on a grand scale. A plethora of law suits at Council House probably shows a pattern or practice of malicious criminal intent, ostensibly, to cover up crimes. Doerty granted impunity by frustrating legal representation and disallowing a discovery process also cross-examination of witnesses.

Council House directors rely upon censorship and propaganda to direct public attention away from dysfunctional behavior, resident abuse, and misappropriation of federal funds. Expression becomes meaningless without freedom to publish ideas and opinion. Directors silence dissenters with court orders for prior restraint then jail them. Judge projects his dysfunction and bias upon an elderly reporter. Unlawful withholding of documents subject to public disclosure laws. Systematic manipulation of symbols, aimed at promoting uniform behavior of a closed society (ghetto) congruent with the religious, racial, and nationalistic imperatives of directors. Creating media news coverage based upon disinformation and racial objectives. Using religious newspapers to pervert legal process and to disseminate false information.

Civil rights proponents have focused upon individual discrimination since the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Generally, they now deny that it exists and paper over that falsity with political correctness. More seriously, a recent US supreme court decision moved to repeal inadequate past reforms by adding an “intent to discriminate” provision to anti-discrimination law making it almost impossible to obtain relief. This provision evidences in a case now on appeal by Lauren Jeanne Hawk. If the directors of Council House, Seattle, with their stated exclusion of people of color at any meaningful level of employment or directorship, thoroughly investigated they would find infinitely more than exclusion. They would find solidified within their Jewish ghetto an anti-black attitude. This has occurred despite pious claims to the suffering of their own race and centuries of anti-Semitism. A tragic irony encompasses Council House directors. They all belong to the Jewish faith and several of them hold prominent positions in synagogues. In their arrogance and disregard for law, they have apparently abandoned Jewish religious morals in favor of a secular commitment to Zionism. That particularly affects people of color because it singles them out for surveillance and harassment based upon the color of their skin.

Stephen (Stefan) A. Mitchell, Council House, Seattle, refers to himself as the “music minister” and uses freedom of expression for that self-portrayal. His spiritual hypocrisy supports neo-fascism in his role as a landlord. Besieged by federal and state lawsuits connected with his elder abuse and racism he responded to them in the only way that he knows how - with lies and deceit. He has for seven years distributed false and misleading information about tenants to cover up elder abuse. Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney and Jeaneen Watkins, Harassment Advocate have covered up Council House crimes for several years. Instead of prosecuting directors and employees, Carr has maliciously prosecuted their victims. Malicious prosecution classifies as a felony. Any person without probable cause who fabricates reasons to arrest innocent people and attempts to prosecute them commits a class C felony punishable upon conviction with imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years.

Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle, Washington, claims that a primary challenge of diversity relates to an ongoing struggle to create a community that values all people regardless of background. He claims that his administration will seek to increase economic opportunity, education, civic engagement, health, and criminal justice relevant to Seattle's diverse populations. After examination of practices rampant in several city departments, in particular, Seattle City Attorney's Office, and, by association, Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR), a reasonable person can only conclude that Nickel’s claims amount to nothing more than disingenuousness. Nickels has known about the situation at Council House, Seattle, for the whole of his term. Although that situation involves multiple elder abuse, and at least two cases of alleged homicide by abuse, he has done nothing to investigate it. Neither has he done anything to alleviate the racial discrimination and elder abuse that runs rampant in that government financially-assisted apartment block.

Seattle Jewish Mafia (SJM) has destroyed Contra Cabal web site three times in attempts to silence the author and to cover up elder abuse by Council House directors. SJM has shown a pattern of racketeering. A RICO pattern means two or more organized criminal acts which indicate ensuant activity. Those acts include conspiracy to commit crimes of coercion by wrongful use of force or fear. Mobsters want the author back in jail to stop him writing. Destruction of Contra Cabal web site forms part of that strategy. City of Seattle officials and police have colluded with them in unlawful activity to protect their political allies from prosecution. The electorate should consider impeachment of City Attorney Thomas Aquinas Carr (reelected unopposed 2005) as more devil incarnate than saint.

Council House directors and spouses suborned perjury and two judges committed judicial misconduct in a conspiracy to organize the railroading of a journalist. Other directors and judges supported them in these unlawful acts. Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed rulings by Washington Superior Court (Doerty) and Washington Court of Appeals (Becker) that relate to Council House. Seattle Municipal Court dismissed frivolous criminal charges filed by Seattle City Attorney Thomas A. Carr. Both findings vindicated the author of the newsletters.

Council House Directors conspired with judges to place the author in solitary confinement without due process of law or legal counsel. Their unlawful acts caused several near-death experiences which resulted from arbitrary incarceration and solitary confinement as a political detainee. By that, they contravened most of the articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then they retroactively filed perjured testimony to cover up their unlawful acts. Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed rulings by Washington Superior Court (Doerty) and Washington Court of Appeals (Becker) that relate to Council House. Seattle Municipal Court dismissed frivolous criminal charges filed by Seattle City Attorney Thomas A. Carr. Both findings vindicated the author.

Council House, Seattle, directors rely upon impunity and anonymity to completely disregard law. They feel secure with six judges in their pocket and an unlimited straw-man resource at their disposal. Morally wrong in principle or practice, they use straw men (straws) as a front to cover their questionable activities. Straw judges grant them anonymity and impunity; straw lawyers help them evade their responsibilities and the law through deception, misrepresentation, and arrest or incarceration of innocent people; straw witnesses provide perjured testimony. They all know that evil people wish to remain anonymous and work to achieve that goal. The directors rely upon censorship and propaganda to direct public attention away from dysfunctional behavior, elder abuse, and misappropriation of federal funds. They know that expression becomes meaningless without freedom to publish ideas and opinion. Consequently, they silence dissenters and reporters with court orders for prior restraint, or jail them.

After more than five years of harassment and denial of constitutional rights by their landlord Stephen A. Mitchell (40), Pola Doenyas (75) and Gilda Kabbani (70±) decided to bring his persecution to an end. They filed in US District Court, Western District of Washington, for injunctive relief. Doenyas has now withdrawn as a plaintiff in the action. Doenyas wrote: "I am sorry that I cannot be strong enough to participate in anything. I am worried a lot. I feel my life is coming to an end. I have been suffering from headaches [over court actions] . . . all [this] is ruining my health physically and emotionally. I received numerous calls from people that read about me on the Internet; they reprimand me and I cannot deal with life". Gretchen H-rb-son, Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB), Seattle, a lawyer acting for Mitchell and Council House, has filed a duplicitous response to a motion set for hearing (30 Sep 05). In a parallel Council House case, Herbison transmitted confidential information to Mitchell who immediately tampered with some witnesses and intimidated others. Those witnesses included Doenyas and Kabbani. Pseudonyms comply with a gag order issued by Judge James A. Doerty that grants Council House attorneys anonymity contrary to Washington State Bar Association Rules for Professional Conduct.

Clients have a right to know about unethical conduct by law firm employees. The article features and exposes alleged criminal activity and professional misconduct by Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB) lawyers. Instead of addressing the issues contained in a previous article through a continuing dialog between lawyers, BHB decided to try to kill the messenger. The firm tried to close down the Contra Cabal web site using a denial-of-service attack. Although warned about violation of federal laws, BHB has apparently repeated the misconduct by changing the proxy to a foreign country. Violations now exceed the minimum amount set by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for financial damage. This allows FBI agents to proceed with a full investigation and indictment.

Publication of the original edition of Tell it to the Judge, by Jiminy! (28 Sep 05), which featured and exposed alleged criminal and professional misconduct by a Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB) lawyer, has evidently caused the firm to violate Internet Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Instead of addressing the issues contained in the article through a continuing dialog between lawyers, BHB decided to try to kill the messenger. The firm has effectively tried to close down Contra Cabal web site using a denial-of-service attack. Having achieved worldwide infamy, BHB has hit the news again by "flooding" the Internet, thereby preventing legitimate traffic to flow. Such attacks can disable a web site and by extension an organization. Generally, denial-of-service attacks attempt to prevent legitimate users from accessing specific web sites. Contra Cabal published a cartoon (28 Sep 05) depicting how a harassed plaintiff had withdrawn from a federal case after intimidation by a BHB lawyer and others. Instead of assuaging racism and elder abuse, that lawyer helped ratchet up coercion to a point where the seventy-five year old witness withdrew from the case in distress.

Lying to get someone else into trouble, or to embarrass them, ranks as despicable and morally indefensible. Lying to get someone jailed for offenses they did not commit ranks as legally indefensible. Lying in a judicial proceeding ranks as criminal. Suborning perjury by procuring others to lie under an oath with the sole intent of jailing someone else, ranks even more grievously. Writing in a satirical genre requires the writer to become completely vulnerable. Jonathan Swift claimed that people see a reflection of everybody’s face but their own in satirical portrayal - that writing offends only those who recognize themselves. Many writers cannot expose themselves through insecurity and fear of retribution if they use their First Amendment rights to state their opinion publicly. Political silence then allows absolute control by those who have power over those who have none.

Interfering in the lifestyles of senior citizens by terrorizing them has become endemic and a common practice in many nursing homes. This ranks even more seriously when neo-fascist landlords classify tenants living in independent-living apartment blocks as vulnerable adults then terrorize them to control them politically. Council House (Seattle) tenants do not require supervision and live independently as do tenants in any apartment block. The only difference relates to age and government subsidy. In effect, the law protects that category of people more than others from landlord abuse. Yet, the directors and their representatives wilfully abuse tenants by misusing supervisory rules that apply only to residents of nurs