Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR)

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.

SOCR claims to have launched a citywide effort to create a community where residents experience cultural and ethnic diversity as an asset. Officials evidently failed to understand the basic principle of cultural pluralism in a democracy.

Thomas A. Carr, Michael J. Finkle, and Robert W. Hood, all city attorneys, 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 anonymously to pursue racist policies with impunity. [Impunity]

An example of the hypocrisy rampant in the City Attorney’s office emanated from Carr at the announcement of the new Community Court in Seattle (28 Feb 05). Carr and Hood will prosecute the cases in that court.

Carr's statement embraces most of the processes that Carr, Finkle, and Hood, have neglected to address in the City Attorney's office. If their behavior in relation to Council House tenants gives any indication, then the defendants in Community Court will have a rough ride when it comes to due process of law.

The Complaint

Confined in a wheelchair, Hawk filed a formal complaint regarding racism which included use of the term "nigger" by another resident. Disingenuously, Mitchell told her to call Bremerton Housing Authority (BHA) with her complaint. He knew that BHA would do nothing because HUD officials support landlords against tenants using laissez faire policies.

The same day that Hawk complained to Mitchell about harassment, he served her with an eviction warning for "rude and abusive behavior". Two weeks later he sent her a final warning (23 Nov 04). That started a reaction that degenerated over six months and eventually involved other government agencies (05 May 05).

Hawk's complaint started a chain of unsupported accusations by Mitchell and his Kapos of "rude and abusive behavior", a catch-all phrase that he inserted unlawfully into leases several years ago. He has used the term repeatedly to trump up charges that have racist undertones but has never defined it. His accusations and evictions under that clause have predominantly related to constitutionally protected speech. He uses a team of elitist tenants whom he openly calls upon to manufacture evidence and commit perjury to support his contentions.

Mitchell posted a ten-day notice to quit on Hawk's door (04 Apr 05) as retaliation for her civil rights work "against his racist behavior". She said it contained terms "so erroneous that it would take pages to answer" and that she found it "distorted, abusive, and full of outright lies" - a believable statement considering his previous pattern of pathological lying. [Thespian Liar]

Mitchell enlisted one of his thugs, Michael Lewis Johnson, to harass Hawk (20 Apr 05). Mitchell uses a team of thugs to harass and inform on tenants. Johnson, an illegal resident by virtue of age, lives with his queer partner Glen Thompson and poses as a care giver in return for harassing other tenants whom Mitchell selects. He evidently holds a power of attorney over Thompson. Johnson has a five-year history of tenant physical assault which has involved police intervention. [Five Kapos] [Queer Connection]

Mitchell contradicted himself by signing a HUD Owner's/Tenant's Certification of Compliance with respect to Hawk (after pressure from City of Seattle, Human Services Department, Aging and Disability Services (28 Apr 05)). Four days later he contradicted himself again by serving Hawk with a notice of material non-compliance with her lease.

The case of a Council House tenant epitomizes one of many instances of City of Seattle dereliction and professional misconduct. City officials have not insured that Council House directors establish a safe environment for senior citizens free from elder abuse and racial discrimination as required by law although they have had notice of the problems for five years. They have colluded with federal authorities in suppression of information and complaints relating to racial discrimination and elder abuse at Council House.

Lauren Jean Hawk (65), a Council House tenant, had evidence and witnesses that Stephen A. Mitchell (40), the building manager had repeatedly discriminated racially against tenants. Mitchell then retaliated against her by trying to evict her for reporting racial discrimination to Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Those agencies ignored the immunity that protects whistle blowers and have colluded with Mitchell.

Hawk called SOCR to speak with an intake investigator to report racial discrimination, a civil rights issue. SOCR appointed Steven N. Zwerin (32), Arcala & Zwerin, Seattle, an attorney, to investigate. His mandated function included a responsibility to sort through facts and describe options open to Hawk under law and to explain the definition of the term “illegal discrimination”. SOCR claims that it maintains neutrality in all its dealings.

Hawk’s SOCR complaint has passed through two distinct phases. Both phases have allegedly denied her due process of law and involved professional misconduct by several lawyers and government officials.

Hawk wrote (05 Jun 05) that Zwerin had made a decision to close her civil rights complaint arbitrarily without interviewing her and to settle everything by putting another grab bar in her bathroom and by stopping eviction proceedings against her.

He evidently did not stop the eviction proceedings, evidenced by a preliminary hearing (30 Jun 05) (which imposed no-contact orders against Hawk) and a trial set for hearing in Washington Superior Court (02 Aug 05). Hawk said that Zwerin also dropped all the freedom of speech issues integral to her complaints.

Zwerin then contacted Hawk with another set of promises that he apparently did not keep. Evidently, that has resulted in Mitchell (a Council House director and administrator) using the same catch-22 that he has used several times before - refusal to accept rent then eviction for non-payment of rent.

Hawk says that Zwerin immediately formed a cozy relationship with Mitchell when she filed her formal civil rights complaint with SOCR - behavior that contravenes established procedures for investigation of complaints. She says that Mitchell retaliated for the filing by harassing her and placed her under surveillance with cameras and coerced other tenants to report her every move. Interviews with Council House sources verified what Hawk said with reference to surveillance, harassment, and ostracism.

Moreover, she claims that Mitchell ostracized her by retaliating against anyone with whom she spoke under a policy that he and his predecessor Mark T. Mullen have had in place for at least ten years. Mitchell commonly uses those methods when tenants file complaints under what he calls his "zero-tolerance" policy.

Hawk claimed that Mitchell constantly harassed her by humiliating her publicly with ad hominem remarks designed to provoke a "rude and abusive" response so that he could evict her. This tactic has allowed Mitchell to manufacture "evidence" for eviction proceedings for several years.

Mitchell also wrote a long letter to Hawk which condoned racism. He effectively justified use of the term "nigger" as free speech which he had previously banned as "rude and abusive behavior".

On another occasion, Hawk says Mitchell told her that he deserved the high salary that he received because tenants collected welfare in a subsidized building and he had no respect for them, especially Hawk whom he ranked as the lowest of the low.

Felippe Jacques (72±) and Michael L. Johnson (45±) (Council House Kapos (thugs)) played a prominent role with Stephen A. Mitchell (40) in harassing Lauren Jeanne Hawk (64), an activist born in San Mateo, California, now living at Council House.

Mitchell has constructively evicted several tenants for political and racist reasons without due process of law. He employees Jacques and several other thugs to coerce tenants to spy upon their neighbors, then sign declarations containing false allegations that Mitchell can use in court. [Five Kapos]

Mitchell retaliated against Hawk allegedly for “whistle blowing” by trying to evict her. Hawk filed a retaliation complaint. Instead of investigating that complaint, Zwerin conspired with Mitchell to change the case profile again to effectively favor Council House and covered up the retaliation.

The Investigation Process

On a formal complaint by Hawk, Zwerin began to investigate charges of discrimination that Hawk made against Stephen A. Mitchell and Council House. Hawk says she also filed complaints with Youngblood (HUD).

City of Seattle procedures for civil rights complaints seem quite clear. However, SOCR, along with several other departments that come under the auspices of Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney, ignore them, apparently for political reasons.

Under city rules, SOCR must determine whether a complaint qualifies, then, after receiving a formal complaint, call for a full investigation. If the case does not qualify, then SOCR must refer the complaint to another agency for action. Upon qualification, an investigator must contact the person charged and meet with the complainant before conducting interviews and gathering evidence.

If the investigator finds reasonable cause for the evidence to support the charge, then the search for a remedy begins. SOCR can only administratively close the case if they cannot complete an investigation or if the complainant chooses to settle in court.

In the case of facts calling for a full investigation, SOCR draws up an official charge for the complainant to sign. SOCR then contacts the respondent charged with discrimination and an investigator meets with the complainant to discuss details, then conducts interviews and gathers evidence and determines appropriate remedies for the effects of the discrimination.

SOCR must try to help the complainant and the respondent settle the case through facilitated resolution (mediation). If SOCR finds no reasonable cause, then the complainant can appeal the decision within 30 days to the Seattle Human Rights Commission. SOCR closes the case if it cannot complete the investigation or if the complainant chooses to file a lawsuit.

The complainant has a responsibility to gather as much evidence as possible to give to the investigator by recording in writing details of the discrimination. That information includes dates, times, people involved, and names of possible witnesses. [Paper Trails]

SOCR guarantees that while a case remains under investigation that it will release no information. If a case is closed, then it must release information through a written Public Disclosure Request. However, Zwerin released information to one party while restricting it from the other during the investigation which benefitted Council House and disadvantaged Hawk to the extent that Mitchell retaliated against her by trying to evict her.

If the respondent retaliates or harasses the complainant for filing a complaint, then the complainant can file another complaint. SOCR must investigate the second complaint regardless of the findings or outcome of the original complaint.

However, Zwerin allegedly used illegal discrimination with other government officials in his capacity as an intake investigator for SOCR and colluded with Glen Youngblood, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Seattle. Zwerin has shown a repeated pattern or practice of violating, or attempting to violate, the rules of conduct in his handling of a civil rights complaint that solely addressed racial discrimination at Council House, Seattle.

Instead of acting as a neutral intake investigator, Zwerin has acted more as an adjunct attorney for Council House. He did not depose witnesses for either side; instead he interviewed Council House tenants wishing to support Mitchell without Hawk’s knowledge. He then drafted an understanding of their statements based upon written notes that he had taken at those interviews.

Lawyers must not engage in conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. This relates especially when committed in connection with professional activities and racial discrimination prohibited by state and federal law.

Court Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) govern the conduct of lawyers in the State of Washington. Rule 8.4 specifically deals with misconduct - behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws and deliberate wrongdoing, especially by government officials. For the purposes of his work with SOCR, Zwerin classified as a government official.

Illegal discrimination relates to unequal treatment for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. The term applies more to civil rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, and the right to due process and equal treatment under the law. Particularly, those rights apply to housing and prescribe equal and fair treatment by state actors, law enforcement officials and courts.

Federal and state laws provide the right to protest discrimination or enforce rights to equal treatment. Federal, state, and municipal commissions investigate and enforce equal rights. SOCR acts as one of those commissions.

Private landlords participating in federal housing programs become state actors when they receive mortgage benefits and rent supplements from Federal Housing Authority (FHA). Restrictions imposed on the owner by FHA lease forms and regulatory agreements underscore the purpose to make private capital a tool of government housing policy.

Council House, nominally a private entity, becomes a state actor because government has a mandated say in its management for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment. Federal regulations govern all aspects of Council House landlord-tenant relationships. [First and Fourteenth]

As state actors, the directors intertwine with US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials. That interlacing precludes individual discretion by managers in defining terms that relate to changes in rent, modification of lease conditions, and termination of tenancy.

Council House then retained an attorney, Gretchen H-rb-s-n, Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB), Seattle, who re-interviewed those witnesses, edited their statements, obtained their signatures, and returned the amended and signed statements to Zwerin. He filed them as work product which points to the fact that he did not act as a neutral investigator.

Work product consists of writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with a client who has protection under attorney/client privilege - confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial. Similarly, documents, letters from third parties and other evidence that reflects the confidential strategy, tactics and theories to be employed by an attorney, classify as work product.

Although Zwerin practices at the bar, in this case SOCR designated him a neutral investigator. His reports or mediation documents do not therefore define as work product because the opposing party cannot subpoena them. In this instance, he appears to have worked in consort with H-rb-s-n as an adjunct attorney for Council House instead of intake investigator.

Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR)

One settlement that could serve the public interest in Hawk’s case could have resulted in a requirement for all management and employees to receive training, or require Council House board of directors to revise its policies and procedures to protect against racial discrimination.

If a respondent refuses to settle the case after a finding of reasonable cause, SOCR refers the case to the City Attorney’s office for possible legal action or the complainant can take private legal action at any time during the investigation. In this case, the City Attorney has conducted a cover up by condoning the filing of false documents that cover up malfeasance and silently withholding other documents that prove the opposite position. [Silent Withholding]

Retaliation

Historically, Council House directors and their lawyers have retaliated against “whistle blowers” and denied tenants due process of law by using straw judges to make unjust decisions. When tenants won their cases in more ethical courts, Council House obtained new trials with different straw judges or ignored court decisions and evicted tenants anyway. [Straw-Man Stratagem]

In Hawk, lawyers for Council House and government officials have colluded in a cover-up and extended the straw-man stratagem into two government agencies HUD and City of Seattle to deny due process of law. Through their misconduct they have convoluted two distinct and separate issues - racial discrimination and eviction - in an attempt to pervert justice through contrived contingency.

The arbitrary dismissal of charges against Mitchell and Council House, sparked a fact-checking inquiry with questions addressed to Zwerin. The request gave him a chance to respond to what seemed a negative or inadequate response to a request for action on a civil rights issue.

The request explained to him that the questions related to an article ready for publication about recent problems that tenants have had with Stephen A. Mitchell, his rental agent Audrey F. Dunbar (35), and Council House directors. It also explained that the article contained documented evidence of dereliction by City of Seattle generally, and employees of the City Attorney's office particularly, to address serious complaints over an extended period.

To evade complying with public disclosure laws, Zwerin then reopened the case within eight hours of receiving a media request for documents (06 Jun 05). That effectively returned all documents to work product status and avoided public scrutiny of dereliction by his office. He then contacted Hawk (06 Jun 05) to make an appointment which he did not keep (07 Jun 05).

Instead of responding to media inquiries, Zwerin instructed a SOCR flak to reply with evasive answers that did not address the issues. His silence tends to confirm the already validated facts. A prepublication request sent to him thirty days later gave him another chance to refute statements that could damage his reputation. He did not reply.

Documents show many violations of federal and state laws, also municipal ordinances that appear to violate Hawk's lease and her civil and human rights. Hawk has many physical disabilities that confine her to a wheelchair and she probably classifies as a vulnerable adult.

Interviews over several months showed that Hawk appeared to possess all her mental faculties and communicates in a moderately consistent manner. She has several serious illnesses which need constant medical attention and claims that constant harassment has worsened her physical condition.

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. The term “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.

Zwerin did not provide Hawk with a copy of Mitchell's answer to her complaint or give her an opportunity to reply to it and closed his investigation on her civil rights issues without making a written determination or report. He did not address her First Amendment issues and no investigation took place although he promised her that it would.

Zwerin did not interview Hawk personally and did not give her a copy of City of Seattle ordinances that explain her right to appeal his decisions or a copy of federal documents that explain her right to appeal under HUD regulations. Moreover, he did not give her copies of documents relating to her complaints and Mitchell's answers. Zwerin gave Hawk the bum's rush by arbitrarily closing the case in consideration of providing her with a grab bar and without due process (03 Jun 05).

Audrey F. Dunbar (35), Council House Rental Agent, immediately resumed her harassment of Hawk. A tenant heard her shouting at Hawk in a public place:

Civil Rights office withdrew the investigation so you will be evicted.

Her consistent "rude and abusive" behavior toward tenants leaves no surprise that Dunbar had all four tires on her car slashed three times; ostensibly by distressed Council House tenants whom she abused. [Tire Slashing]

Assuming that he had beaten the civil rights charges, Mitchell (a Council House director and administrator) then used the same catch-22 against Hawk that he used several times before to evict tenants - refusal to accept rent and eviction for non-payment of that rent.

City of Seattle regulations call for SOCR to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. SOCR does not validate a charge until its employees have collected all relevant information. They must provide written findings of fact and a determination of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause.

Moreover, SOCR has not initiated a facilitated resolution process that could avoid protracted litigation. Instead, Zwerin evidently took an easy way out that absolved Mitchell of a multitude of civil and human rights violations in which he has indulged for at least five years.

Zwerin reinstated Hawk's civil rights complaint and met with her (13 Jun 05) but has not brought the civil rights investigation to a conclusion. It evidently remains in limbo in the same way that many other complaints and public records requests made to City of Seattle remain in limbo while Council House directors and administrators continue to break laws and indulge in elder abuse.

Hawk has competent legal counsel for a trial on eviction and First Amendment issues before Washington Superior Court, Seattle (02 Aug 05) now continued for a later hearing (26 Sep 05). Elena Luisa Garella, Attorney-at-Law, a prominent Seattle First Amendment lawyer (already lead attorney in another action against Mitchell and Council House under review in Washington Supreme Court) and Kaustuv M. Das, Davis Wright Tremaine, will represent Hawk. They will work under the aegis of the Housing Justice Project (KCBA) to challenge Council House on grounds that Mitchell tried to evict Hawk for exercising her right to freedom of speech and on several other issues.

Alex J. Rose, Silence Censor Beleaguer (SCaB), Seattle, represents Stephen A. Mitchell and Council House Inc. Gretchen H-rb-s-n, Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB), Seattle, also represents Mitchell. She has an apparent and direct conflict of interest after colluding with Zwerin in a whitewash of the Hawk SOCR investigation. That professional misconduct must eventually become subject to Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) inquiry along with four years of misconduct by SCaB attorneys. [Whitewash]

Judge James A. Doerty’s gag order allowed SCaB attorneys to have no known name or identity and to lack any marked individuality contrary to Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) rules. Therefore, appropriate pseudonyms replace the attorneys' name and firm and pictures bear Doerty's stamp.

When courts muzzle journalists, deny a discovery process, and refuse cross-examination, then lawyers and their clients have free reign to act unethically. If Doerty had not initially granted anonymity and impunity to Council House directors and denied due process of law, then ten lawyers probably would not have acted as they did and elder abuse and deaths may not have occurred.

Discovery, a compulsory process, allows pretrial disclosure. It enables litigants to obtain information before trial through demands for production of documents, deposition of potential witnesses, and written interrogatories under oath. For the first time in four years an attorney has had the opportunity to depose principal witnesses for examination without restriction in a case connected with Council House.

In Hawk, Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau, Washington Superior Court, granted a temporary no-contact order naming five Council House people and staff pending a Superior Court trial (02 Aug 05) now continued to (26 Sep 05). Contra Cabal must not list those names due to an unconstitutional prior restraint previously granted to Council House by Washington Superior Court now under Washington Supreme Court review. Mitchell apparently brought that action in retaliation for Hawk filing a complaint with Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR).
[Order on Civil Motion] [Washington Supreme Court]

A tenant [name withheld to avoid retaliation] reported that, despite the sub judice status of Hawk's case, Mitchell again harassed her by calling police to intimidate her when she attended a tenants' meeting. Prior to her arrival at the meeting he called police and had an officer respond. He then indulged in rabble-rousing and tried to persuade elitists to support him in having Hawk arrested because she might make them feel uncomfortable. (13 Jul 05).

Hawk says that she rolled out of the elevator in her wheelchair at 09:20 to find a police officer sitting in a chair looking at her. She went into the meeting room and sat at the table closest to the door near the Kapos who always sit in that corner. After about two minutes, Mitchell entered the room and pointed at Hawk saying "that's her" to the officer.

Hawk claims that about 40 minutes into the meeting Mitchell started a "hate routine". He told tenants to file complaints with the district attorney who would eagerly press charges against her if tenants "felt uncomfortable" around her. Hawk said: I didn't have to say anything, all they had to do was to feel uncomfortable. Mitchell echoed a statement reportedly made by Nancy Sweiven, another one of his thugs, who complained that she "felt uncomfortable" parking her car next to a vehicle owned by a black tenant.

Perjury

Hawk claims that Mitchell suborned testimony that resulted in the no-contact order against her (30 Jun 05). Mitchell has a history of threatening or coercing tenants who will not perjure themselves for him and retaliates against tenants that testify against him by evicting them.

Six of the eight witnesses who filed declarations against Hawk [in response to her SOCR complaint] 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 to pervert justice. Corrupt judges have repeatedly disallowed discovery and cross-examination that would have exposed those crimes: instead, they granted impunity. [Impunity] [Pattern or Practice] [Paper Trails]

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.

Prior to exposure in Contra Cabal, Mark T. Mullen (a former administrator) withheld information about BHA complaint procedures for many years. He manipulated the rules when tenants realized they had a legal right to complain. [HUD-Seattle and Bremerton Contract Administrator]

Both Mullen and Mitchell have abused tenants using censorship, kill-the-messenger, and zero tolerance policies for about ten years. Mitchell appeared for a Washington Supreme Court review (23 Jun 05) of First Amendment violations and unlawful use of antiharassment lawsuits which he used to evict and imprison another tenant.

An appellate judge (Mary Kay Becker) apparently lost her bid for a seat on the Supreme Court after publicity about her alleged cover-up and bias in the same case. Despite the international furor that he has created through his elder abuse and unconstitutional behavior, Mitchell persists in racist and unlawful activity with impunity granted by superior court and appellate judges, now the subject of Supreme Court review.[Bimbo Limbo] [Supreme Court Review]

Conclusion

Council House directors have shown indifference to tenant abuse by their managers and thugs for an extended period and several organizations now have them under investigation on racial discrimination issues. Directors have denied tenants their right to complain in violation of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

A Council House elite and Kapos (enforcers) have established procedures for harassing tenants whom Mitchell does not like. They have no particular reason except that their targets do not comply with Mitchell's political dictates or possess different attributes to his own. Mitchell mobilized that elite to start a campaign against Hawk and to suborn perjury against her for use in court.

Few people dispute that Hawk has different attributes to members of a politically correct society; however, dissent forms an important part of democracy and the First Amendment probably protects her views more than run-of-the-mill speech. [Political Correctness]

Victor DeLeon, President, Council House, received a letter from Hawk entreating him to take action through conciliation. Hawk says that she told DeLeon on the telephone that she wished to conciliate and had approached him because Mitchell had lied to the board of directors and violated laws. According to Hawk, DeLeon replied that he would try to get the board to speak with her and that he would keep an open mind even though he remained a big supporter of Mitchell. She says they never called.

DeLeon has a history of perjury that supports Mitchell. He lied to have a tenant, whom Mitchell had jailed without due process of law, moved from general population to solitary confinement. He conspired with other board members and Lynn Wartnik (wife of Judge Anthony P. Wartnik) to file perjured testimony that effectively caused placement among accused murderers and rapists. Lynn Wartnik and Sheila Sternberg, while co-presidents of Council House, knowingly forged and filed HUD documents so that officials would approve Mitchell's appointment as administrator. [Rampant Judicial Delusion]

Council House will never have peace without justice. Managers have provoked individuals to symbolic violence by tire slashing in a similar way that governments provoked terrorists to cause the recent carnage in London (07 Jul 05). On the sixtieth anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies in history (which included six million Jewish deaths in the Shoah and death of five million other minorities) that a board of directors consisting entirely of Jews* should behave in this disgusting, immoral, and racist way, boggles the mind.
[Vehicular Irresponsibility - Tire Slashing]

[Nmesis]

*Apart from Mitchell the token goy.
*Ages shown (30 Jun 05).

© Copyright 2005 by Paul Trummel
All Rights Reserved: 06 Aug 05/09:53 PDT
Edition: #711-01-00/06-0616-15:21
Feedback: Webspinner@ContraCabal.org