Kill the Messenger - Introduction

Judge George W. Holifield in Seattle Municipal Court, Washington today (21 Apr 06) dismissed all six criminal charges brought by Thomas Aquinas Carr, Seattle City Attorney, against the author. Carr used the City Prosecutor, Kevin Kilpatrick, as his proxy.

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. [Order of Dismissal] [Mafia Perjurers]

Six case studies relate to those charges, charges which based upon false and misleading police reports submitted by Stephen A. Mitchell (41) and Audrey F. Dunbar (35), Council House administrators, as part of a six-year campaign of harassment. Named people received a prepublication notice that warned them that their actions would receive coverage in Contra Cabal which could affect their reputation or moral character. The notice gave them ten days to respond on matters of fact. This complied with international codes of ethics agreed among journalists, several of them tested in international courts.

First in the series of seven articles, this piece refutes malicious and libelous contentions against the author made to Seattle Police Department by Mitchell and Dunbar. Official police reports show that they involved Council House associates in a bizarre scam.

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 previous “prior restraint” order (19 Apr 01), an order now reversed by Washington Supreme Court (30 Mar 06).

The criminal complaint and a notice to appear in Seattle Municipal Court alleged six violations of an anti-harassment order under RCW 12A.06.190 without defining them. The date that Carr issued the criminal summons coincided with the date that Thomas D. Adams (Bullivant Bailey Houser, Seattle) threatened to use "other remedies" then allegedly flooded and destroyed Contra Cabal web site. [Tell it to the Judge]

Council House directors have again tried to manipulate the judicial system for their own ends, and Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney, helped them. To put these criminal charges in perspective, all of which relate to constitutionally protected speech, the criminal procedure needs defining. [The Mob]

When City of Seattle brings charges against a person the Court reviews sworn reports by police officers and makes a finding of probable cause. "Probable cause" vaguely determines the "totality of the circumstances," which essentially means that the reports contain true statements and that the accused person is probably guilty of a crime.

The City must meet a threshold burden of proof to bring charges against a person. That standard does not mean that the Court believes that proof exists beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it permits the Court to set hearings, and issue a summons and warrants when individuals do not appear. One must consider the low level of that standard.

Sol Wachtler, the former New York State chief judge, admitted coining the [in]famous “legal term” that courts would “indict a ham sandwich” during an interview with Marcia Kramer of the New York Daily News. Wachtler, who is Jewish, said later that the reporter must have misquoted him and that he regretted not having used the term “pastrami”. [New York Daily News (31 Jan 85)]

City officials can review police reports and file charges within the statute of limitations (two years on gross misdemeanors). When the City files charges the Court determines the content and time of filing. The City files only a fraction of reports and does not have to file everything referred.

In this case, Carr disingenuously collected obviously flawed police reports (filed on several dates by Mitchell and a straw police officer) with a view to bringing criminal charges against the author. Carr selected six of the twenty-six police complaints that Mitchell claims he filed, most of them false and misleading, to orchestrate a hearing then asked the court for a jail sentence.

In criminal cases, if the City does not believe it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then it has the right to dismiss the charges. Courts do not automatically accept dismissals, but rarely refuse. Carr apparently acted to sate his ego, pacify his political allies, and retaliate for exposure of his unprofessional, unlawful conduct in Contra Cabal. [Dereliction and Collusion]

In this case, the City claims to have reviewed the allegations in light of a Washington Supreme Court ruling in Trummel v. Mitchell (30 Mar 06). This supports a hypothesis that Carr tried to get a conviction before a supreme court decision prevented it. Having painted himself into a corner and facing a criminal attorney whose reputation precedes him, Carr and his prosecuting attorney Kilpatrick moved to dismiss the charges.

Does that mean not guilty? Sort of. If the Court presumes a person innocent until proven guilty (something that rarely happens in Seattle) that presumption does not shift until the City proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the Court presumed innocence or effectively declared the author not guilty.

Presumption of innocence and no finding of guilt essentially means “not guilty”. "Not guilty" findings only result from a trial and simply mean the City has not met its burden of proof. This dismissal says they did not try to prove their case which in many ways makes a strong statement about the weakness of the initial charges.

Courts dismiss charges with or without prejudice. Judge Holifield met a request by the City to move to dismiss without prejudice. This means that he did not bar the City from bringing charges again in the future. As a practical matter, that could only happen if Washington Supreme Court suddenly moved to reverse itself, an unlikely proposition due to the constitutional issues involved. However, Council House, notorious for challenging the First Amendment rights of tenants, did not presume to ask for reconsideration of that decision within the allotted time.

Without prejudice retrial has to occur within the statute of limitations which has essentially run out in this case. The chance of these charges reoccurring ranks as legally insignificant and borders on irrelevance. A prominent Seattle criminal attorney commented: “The chances of the charges being brought again is comparable to my chances of winning the lottery though I never buy a ticket”.

City of Seattle did not challenge the absence of the author from the hearing - ironically, on grounds that he resides in cyberspace and would find it difficult to attend holographically. A lawyer commented: “Frankly, I think the City is thrilled to have you elsewhere on this auspicious occasion”.

Brad A. Meryhew (James V. Newton, Kent), criminal defense attorney, had intended to file a defense against the charges. However, the kafkaesque proceedings suddenly came to an abrupt end with the dismissal. Meryhew previously had the author released from jail (21 Jun 02) where people from the same mafia had him unlawfully incarcerated. Carr and his clan of malicious leprechauns can only succeed with barratry when the defendants remain unrepresented.
[Attorneys at Law] [Barratry]

Evidently, Meryhew’s reputation preceded him and directly contrasted the Faustian reputation of his adversaries in their pact with an elected devil incarnate. Instead, of standing its ground, City of Seattle took a powder. Ironic retribution falls due for the trumped-up criminal charges that forced the author (who has never been accused or convicted of anything except two speeding tickets) to go on the lam for seven months. Perhaps City of Seattle should prosecute Mitchell and Dunbar for filing false and misleading documents with government agencies and complicity in homicide by abuse.

A reader in New York has written about the case: “This seems to say that SM [Stephen A. Mitchell] can bring harassment charges against anyone and if the city is politically inclined (entwined) they can move forward with the charges with a very low standard. Seems also to leave an accused person in the unfortunate position of having to go to the trouble and expense of defending the charges, practically impossible for a poor person without knowledge of the law. Meanwhile, the person is an accused "criminal". . . . Then they [the City] remain[s] free to withdraw the charges. Not everyone can write or find lawyers willing to take a case as far as the Supreme Court - twice.”

Trumped-up Charges and Railroading

The author received a summons (20 Nov 05) by bulk mail apparently sent (28 Sep 05). Upon inquiry he found that the court had held a hearing (12 Oct 05) in absentia then issued police warrants for his arrest and incarceration. Service by bulk mail of an ambiguous summons which does not include any details of the charges ranks as no service at all. That alone should cause an ethical judge to dismiss charges immediately instead of issuing bench warrants. [Summons]

The charges blatantly attempted to preempt a Supreme Court decision; moreover, City of Seattle did not file any facts or particulars (applicable laws and legal precedents) to support its contentions. Instead, it filed the rambling statements of Mitchell an acknowledged sociopath and pathological liar. [Thespian Liar] [Ravening Sociopath]

Carr’s behavior shows how previous contentions in Contra Cabal of dereliction and collusion by Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle, and his team of pandering leprechauns and flaks ring true. The behavior of Nickels and Carr ranks as yet another kafkaesque stunt by city officials to favor their political mentors. They have consistently covered up crimes committed by political allies, then tried to kill the messenger using coercion, threats, and unlawful means. (In The Trial, Franz Kafka described how Joseph K. did not receive a fair trial and his tormentors maintained their anonymity. Joseph K. ended up dead and his tormentors continued their abuse without restraint.) [Dereliction and Collusion - City of Seattle] [The Trial - WIP]

Kafka Wig fits Washington State Justices . . . Judges have repeatedly disallowed discovery and cross-examination that would have exposed subornation and perjury: instead, they granted Council House directors impunity. By that, they became liable to charges of judicial misconduct. Six of the eight witnesses who offered testimony in a preliminary hearing of an apparently frivolous antiharassment and eviction proceeding set for hearing (26 Sep 05) previously filed perjured declarations against other Council House tenants. Directors have consistently suborned a tenant elite since 2001. They committed perjury to pervert justice and tampered with each of the witnesses in that case. They either unlawfully evicted them, tried to bribe them, or had Kapos harass them. In Washington state, perjury by signing misleading declarations or giving false testimony classifies as a class B felony which carries a maximum punishment of ten years in a correctional institution, and/or a $20,000 fine, on each count.

The criminal complaints apparently retaliated for articles in Contra Cabal that exposed dereliction and unlawful practices by Carr, other city officials under his direction, and Council House directors. The articles explained how Mitchell and Dunbar (also their directors and thugs) have orchestrated a campaign to file myriad false and misleading statements, abused hundreds of senior citizens, and had complicity in at least two alleged homicides by abuse over a five-year period. Federal and municipal officials have neither investigated those complaints nor taken action upon them although fully apprised of the circumstances. [Dereliction and Collusion] [Elder Abuse - Introduction]

Carr, who ranks more as devil incarnate than saint,¹ has neglected to investigate two cases of alleged homicide by abuse and many other crimes at Council House. Instead, he filed criminal charges (28 Sep 05) against the person who reported those deaths and other crimes knowing them to be false and malicious.

Supreme Court Decision

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. [Supreme Court Decision #2]

All the contempt motions based upon alleged violations of an original flawed and unconstitutional anti-harassment order. The trial court denied the author his right to counsel and jailed him for 111 days (including 25 days in solitary confinement).

Trial court had absolutely no justification for refusing a continuance and neglecting to provide legal counsel. By failing to address that neglect, an appellate court concurred with a Draconian trial court order - prior restraint, constructive eviction from a residence, and jail time without considering constitutional rights.

Washington Supreme Court upheld a part of the challenge which related to trial court's restraining orders. It concluded that the trial court did not err in issuing the first antiharassment order which provided a no contact zone around Mitchell and Council House. That issue still needs juridic attention to discover and address the denial of due process and the inherent perjury and subornation on which Doerty based his order.

Judicial Misconduct

Doerty committed judicial misconduct in a much more serious way than in the case of a judge censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of Washington. The Commission ordered her to fulfill all of the terms of a Stipulation and Agreement for violating Canons 1, 2, and 3 (A)(l) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.²

In Ottinger, the Commission heard charges that she had violated judicial canons and the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in a pattern or practice of violating criminal defendants' fundamental and constitutionally-protected due process rights. She repeatedly failed to comply with court rules and case law requiring full advisement of rights to counsel for criminal defendants at arraignments.

In multiple cases, Ottinger failed to properly advise criminal defendants of their right to counsel, maximum penalties, and consequences of conviction. She did not inform them of their right to remain silent and failed to make a finding of probable cause that a crime had been committed prior to imposing bail or conditions of pretrial release. Doerty committed violations of federal law for political expediency in addition to those on the Ottinger list. [Ottinger]

Washington State Court Rules of Professional Conduct [RPC] require lawyers to make a full disclosure of their interest. Those rules contain nothing that allows lawyers to remain anonymous and unidentifiable. Yet Doerty issued an order that gave Council House lawyers protection from exposure and allowed them to act unlawfully. Carr and City of Seattle among others took full advantage of that finding knowing it to be legally indefensible.
[RPC Rule 8.4 Misconduct] [Impunity]

By his actions, Doerty placed a prior restraint upon this author. In effect, he granted lawyers a license to kill the messenger and sanctioned a conspiracy - a confederacy among lawyers and judges supporting unlawful or criminal acts. The recent criminal complaints by City of Seattle apparently formed part of that conspiracy. Council House directors have shown a pattern or practice of filing dozens of false police reports during a five-year period and supported them through suborned and perjured testimony. [Court-Facilitated Terror]

Doerty’s restraining order not only gave lawyers protection from exposure, but also allowed them to commit barratry and perjury to restrain publication of their malfeasance. Doerty and the court of appeals did not reverse the unconstitutional prior restraint decision (19 Apr 01) for almost five years. The supreme court has had to do it for them.

Instead, Doerty continued to withhold transcripts and other documents to cover up his judicial misconduct. Moreover, he unconstitutionally restricted the author from visiting large parts of Seattle for almost four years - a continuing situation. All trials took place under the auspices of Washington Superior Court Presiding Judge Richard D. Eadie who evidently has no concern about judicial or lawyer misconduct. [Impunity] [Supreme Court Decision #2]

Reprise

During the millennial year, Contra Cabal published six articles and distributed them as pamphlets at Council House as permitted by state law and municipal ordinances. Stephen A. Mitchell sent a staff member and a tenant Kapo to try to blackmail the author into ceasing publication. They threatened court action if the author did not comply. The articles later appeared on a web site based in Holland (2001) and Council House directors had the court send the author to jail without due process of law. [Life in a Seattle Squirrel Cage] [The Mullen Legacy] [Silverman's Folly] [Theater of the Absurd] [Ethnic Discrimination] [Tall Structure Terror]

Several Council House tenants asked the author to voice their concerns (1999) about rampant abuse and denial of constitutional rights. They voiced those concerns privately in fear of further retaliation for speaking their mind despite laws that allow open debate and freedom of speech mandates published by federal, state, and municipal oversight authorities. As a direct result of publishing the pamphlets, Mitchell and his predecessor Mark T. Mullen started to harass the author.

Before publication of any of the tenant concerns the writer brought them to the attention of administrators and directors. The directors then trumped-up charges that he harassed tenants although the tenants opined freely and openly to questions and the reporter did not coerce them.

Several directors retaliated by ostracizing tenant dissenters when they complained about elder abuse and placed a prior restraint on the right to speak out. A reign of terror ensued that continues to this day (22 Apr 06), despite pending federal and state legal action brought by two tenants.

Mitchell and Mullen reacted viciously to the approach to directors who wished to remain anonymous. Having received no response from the directors, the author published pamphlets under a municipal code introduced by Seattle City Council. The author has always had a disrespect for people who disrespect law and had a responsibility as a journalist to publish the truth. [Prohibited Acts by Owners]

When the blackmail continued, the author brought an antiharassment action against Mitchell and Council House in an attempt to stem the abuse. In that action, he also acted in a representative capacity as spokesperson for many tenants who lived in fear of speaking out in the neo-fascist environment established by Mitchell.

What started as general interest stories relating to elderly people had turned into a nightmare. Tenants spoke about the abuse they had suffered for years from administrators and how they found bureaucrats (US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and City of Seattle (CoS)) impervious to complaints.

The stories changed from general interest to an in-depth investigation of crimes and other unlawful activities. During a six-year period, twenty directors and lawyers conspired to suborn at least sixty perjured declarations from tenants and other people in attempts to silence constitutionally protected reports.

Six directors deliberately committed perjury and six judges have aided and abetted them to cover up elder abuse, massive fraud, racial discrimination, misappropriation of government funds, and homicide by abuse for financial gain. Three of the judges actively participated in the conspiracy.

Despite the Supreme Court finding (30 Mar 06), Mitchell reasserted (12 Apr 06) his right to continue the prior restraint which has continued for seven years and resulted in many unlawful evictions. He claims that he does not have to comply with court orders and that his directors can have any negative judicial finding reversed behind the scenes.

A tenant reported that Mitchell publicly claimed to have won the supreme court case and could lawfully continue with prior restraint when in fact the court reversed a previous finding and he lost his case. He has now lost the case that he orchestrated in Seattle Municipal Court. It must rile him, a rabid racist, that a black judge dismissed the case.

Conspiracy

Originally, the author claimed unlawful harassment and obtained a temporary restraining order against Mitchell who repeatedly violated the order and obtained a temporary retraining order in retaliation. The court ordered a hearing on the original order and Mitchell had to withdraw his retaliatory order. This gave the directors free reign to mount an anonymous vilification campaign against the author with impunity. That campaign resulted in his imprisonment and, more recently, criminal charges. [Supreme Court Decision #1]

Judge James A. Doerty dismissed the author’s motion, retained jurisdiction, and unlawfully gave legal advice to Council House from the bench which included a direction that they should counterclaim. Since Doerty’s decision, all proceedings in Washington courts brought by Council House or by its tenants have followed a kafkaesque script which includes multiple judicial and lawyer misconduct in consort with public officials. [Kafka - The Trial]

Trial court prior restraint granted directors anonymity and impunity by precluding publication of their names. This forced redaction. Supreme court reversal of the trial and appellate decisions relieves that unlawful prior restraint on publishing constitutionally protected speech or writing - writing that contains details of conspiracy to commit elder abuse that resulted in two alleged homicides. The author can now reveal the names of the people and the way that they conspired to pervert justice. [Supreme Court Decision #2]

Craig S. Sternberg, a Seattle bankruptcy lawyer (Sternberg Thomson Okrent, Seattle), husband to Sheila Sternberg, formerly Co-president of Council House, checked the journalism credentials of the author with officials of the National of Union of Journalists, London. He asked NUJ for personal information without declaring his interest as a lawyer or without asking for permission of the member (2000).

Sternberg found that the author holds an international press card and that National Union of Journalists (London) (NUJ) “licensed” him by granting him a trade union card ratified by international law enforcement more than forty-five years ago. Despite having knowledge of his standing, Council House directors claimed that the author held false credentials and conspired to silence him.

NUJ contacted the author about the unusual inquiry. He gave permission for their membership director to release certain personal information to Sternberg that affirmed the author’s status as a bona fide journalist. Despite that validation, Council House directors again tried to enforce prior restraint. They then misled the court (2001) by not divulging that Sternberg had already investigated the author’s credentials and found them valid. The author entered his press card into evidence at the first hearing but it “disappeared” and does not appear on the court record.

Richard R. Beresford, a Council House lawyer, warned the directors that the author had a constitutional right to publish his newsletter and other properly researched information freely. Despite Beresford’s warnings to “leave him alone”, the directors and judges persisted in their witch hunt purposely to discredit the author.

Sternberg wrote to Lynn C. Wartnik, a Council House Co-president, and her husband Judge Anthony P. Wartnik, Washington Superior Court, (22 Mar 01) to apprise them of the planned railroading and perversion of justice. Then, Judge Wartnik conspired with Judge James A. Doerty to summarily deny the author’s harassment petition and to retain jurisdiction (19 Apr 01).

Sternberg lobbied for support from Council House directors by sending them copies of his letter to Judge Wartnik and his wife claiming unwanted and unwarranted harassment. He asked them to become parties to a lawsuit. Sternberg informed them that he had appointed Maureen Mitchell (Short Cressman Burgess, Seattle) and already approved funding for the suit. He advised them that insurance would cover some or all of the legal fees and required their immediate attention in signing and returning the document.

As a result, Doerty granted Council House an antiharassment order effectively to silence investigative reporting. He misapplied law by granting a restraining order designed for domestic disputes for prior restraint purposes. That action deprived the author of his constitutional right to free speech.

That restraint prevented him from reporting politically sensitive issues or giving information to federal, state, or local agencies in good faith. The legislature had previously enacted statutes to protect reporters from this type of prior restraint yet Doerty ignored those statutes and constitutional law when making his decision allegedly at the direction of Judge Wartnik.

Doerty granted an antiharassment order with instant and permanent effect which caused eviction of the author from his home followed by loss of all his possessions and euthanasia for his dog. Six months later, Council House brought frivolous lawsuits asking for confinement in a mental institution or imprisonment for violation of the unlawful restraining order by publishing the six stories on a web site located in Holland. [Archive]

Doerty and the Butterflies In Greek mythology, butterflies of the family Satyridae, symbolized lecherous lawyers. Recognized by the gap between their front teeth, dumbo ears, and goat-like intelligence, they had a misguided, well-developed talent for unrestrained revelry. Judges affected with satyriasis have a proclivity toward anal licentiousness. This manifests in unusual sexual activity. Irreversible loss of brain function from tertiary syphilis causes irrational and Draconian decision-making. Their bizarre findings prompt litigants to call for psychiatric examination. [Rampant Judicial Delusion] Brain-dead judges end their years in Washington Superior Court asylum situated in the basement of King County jail. Overcrowding shows a need to expand that facility.  [Queer Connection]

Mitchell and Felippe Jacques (his principal Kapo now staff enforcer and propagandist) organized a campaign to suborn testimony from more than forty Council House tenants and staff. Doerty refused to allow a discovery process or cross-examination then convened a kangaroo court subjected to Washington Supreme Court review (04 Sep 02). [Supreme Court Decision #1]

Later, Doerty jailed the author for contempt of court and court officials forced him into a straight jacket wheelchair. Doerty left him in jail for 111days without recourse. During the incarceration, Doerty had him transferred to solitary confinement sua sponte (without a hearing) and then the same directors who originally conspired together filed perjured declarations retroactively to support Doerty’s draconian solitary confinement order. [Metamorphosis]

As a result of insistence upon his freedom of expression, everything that has happened since has proved the author’s point of view. The most vile and vicious treatment of elderly people at Council House has existed for years in many ways typical of concentration camps in Europe during 1930s and 1940s. The directors retaliated against the author for exposing those crimes against humanity by having him incarcerated.

The behavior did not only relate to administrators but also to indifferent board of directors who remained anonymous and would not address criminal issues in attempts to cover up their own criminal activity. The author informed the directors in advance of his intention to publish details of elder abuse. They reacted by trying to kill the messenger.

About twenty-five directors, past and present, conspired with superior and appellate court judges and attorneys to bring the writing to an end by coercion instead of rational discussion. They employed more thugs (Kapos) to threaten and intimidate those whom they had already abused and have ratcheted up that coercion over a six-year period. Their behavior resulted in the Washington Supreme Court decision supported by five international amicus curiae which predominantly reversed the previous findings. [Supreme Court Decision #2]

The directors once again conspired to have the author jailed to silence him. They tried to return him to jail using the manufactured criminal charges in Seattle Municipal Court described in the appendices. Two people have died, allegedly from homicide by abuse, and dozens of other elderly people have suffered and continue to suffer from elder abuse. Any exposure to US General Accounting Office of their unlawful and immoral activities could result in prominent people going to jail if the corrupt and lawless political situation in Seattle should change. [Kill the Messenger - Case Studies - WIP]

The false and misleading charges brought by Thomas A. Carr (City Attorney, Seattle) and Kevin Kilpatrick (City Prosecutor) rank as nothing more than barratry. They result from the misuse of administrative power by elected officials to protect allies from prosecution for corruption, elder abuse, and misappropriation of probably millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The conspiracy involves dereliction by congressmen, senators, judges, and administrators, at national and state levels. [Barratry]

The recycled charges in the recent filing have only confirmed and continued the misuse of power and wealth by Council House directors to silence a journalist in defiance of his constitutional rights. They constitute unlawful retaliation for speaking out by jailing him without due process of law recently demonstrated by crashing this web site in an attempt to destroy the medium responsible for their exposure. The directors have now become desperate, and therefore dangerous. They will stop at nothing to achieve their immoral, illegal, and racist objectives.

Council House directors continue to maintain anonymity despite their public figure status. They continue to allow the abuse of their tenants and misappropriation of government funds. They have for several years followed a kafkaesque scenario by relying upon anonymity and impunity granted by straw superior court and appellate judges. [Straw-Man Stratagem] [Impunity]

Seattle Cesspool

Laissez-Faire means Abuse Federal and municipal officials charged with oversight of Council House adopted laissez faire policies. They neglected to investigate reports of elder abuse, racism, harassment and alleged homicide. They also condoned eviction without due process of law. Laissez-faire, a French term, means a policy of nonintervention by government or “let things alone”. At Council House, Seattle, the doctrine favors Zionist exclusionary practices and self-interest. Inevitably, laissez-faire policies lead to abuses, in this case, elder abuse. Unlawful and rigid control over tenants by administrators, combined with misappropriation of rental income and government subsidies benefit directors while exclusionary practices breed racism and terrorization of elderly people. Laissez-faire emphasizes the profit motive at the expense of those whom the law protects while government officials acquiesce for political expedience.

City of Settle reflects Council House dereliction and professional misconduct. City officials have not insured that 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 also paralleled federal authorities in suppression of information and complaints and adopted laissez faire policies when dealing with racial discrimination and elder abuse.
[Seattle Office of Civil Rights]

Carr’s criminal complaints against the author apparently retaliate for publication of articles in Contra Cabal. Those articles exposed dereliction of city officials and unlawful practices by Council House directors which Carr and other officials under his direction, including Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers, appear to have condoned.
[Dereliction and Collusion]

Allowing City of Seattle to decide what a reporter may write and what he may not write construes as prior restraint and starts a long trail of prohibitions for political or other self-serving purposes. A person named in a news report has the right to refute statements but not to restrict publication of them.

One of the criminal charges relates to reporting two cases of alleged homicide by abuse. The false and misleading charges filed with police by Stephen A. Mitchell and Audrey F. Dunbar relate to the content of an article published in Contra Cabal that exposes their collusion in those alleged homicides.
[Jackie Nations - Abstract] [Who Killed Jackie Nations?]

Instead of investigating and prosecuting Mitchell and Dunbar for committing a crime, Carr filed criminal charges against the reporter. In effect, Carr has become an accessory after the fact of homicide. He has effectively tried to silence the reporter by jailing him for reporting crimes.

Evidently, Mitchell and Dunbar could find nothing untrue in the report which would allow them to bring a defamation suit; instead, they have unlawfully used harassment law and manufactured false and misleading “evidence” in collusion with Carr and SPD. When they could not attack the message they tried to kill the messenger.

Although fully cognizant of the facts, Carr has neglected to investigate homicide complaints which carry with them punishment by life imprisonment and/or fines upon conviction of the people involved. Carr has known about the deaths for several years and received official notification ten months ago (16 Jun 05), yet has done nothing except attack the author for reporting crimes. [Homicide by Abuse]

Carr has colluded with Mitchell for several years by allowing him to file false and misleading information about the author. He has a blatant conflict of interest. His office prejudiced the author by controlling the prosecution in which he filed a biased and malicious criminal complaint, evidently for his own political purposes.

T. Sean Sheeran, a lawyer on Carr’s staff, works as principal apologist for the shenanigans of Mayor Greg Nickels. He had the audacity to send an email message to the author stating: “You are a very disturbed person, and more jail time would be good for you” while his office still had criminal charges pending. Like Carr, he forgets that as a public servant he must use discretion and as a lawyer must not comment on sub judice cases. He knows now why the author lampooned him as the horse’s ass.

Racism

Events in a recent SOCR investigation should have addressed rampant racism at Council House in addition to the current criminal complaints; instead, the investigators conducted a whitewash. Allegedly, a SOCR investigator terrorized a black tenant to an extent which coerced him into reversing his testimony and signing a statement to the effect that no racism occurred at Council House. The author had no personal interest in that case except to report it in his capacity as a journalist, yet Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) and Mitchell used it as a vehicle for filing additional libelous complaints against him - another attempt to silence him. [Whitewash] [Refutation - WIP]

Bullivant Houser Bailey (BHB) has not explained its involvement in professional misconduct and interference in a civil rights inquiry by Gretchen Herbison, one of its lawyers. That inquiry by Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR reports to Carr) into a complaint by a tenant addressed multiple instances of racism at Council House. (BHB) represents Council House yet Herbison involved herself in the investigation - a direct conflict of interest that mocks the statement that “BHB fosters a workplace culture of inclusion that respects and values the diverse backgrounds, beliefs, differences and life experiences of each individual”.
[Seattle Office of Civil Rights] [Racial Prejudice and Civil Rights] [Whitewash]

Carr can rest assured that nothing that he does will silence this author. In fact, his every attempt will only encourage more writing and an even larger audience than already shows interest in his aberrant behavior. When he again tries to retaliate more words will hit the web; however, those words will contain facts not the stream of propaganda and lies that emanate from flaks within City of Seattle administration employed by Mayor Greg Nickels.

Mitchell and an assistant boast publicly that they control oversight authorities and have another twenty police reports and more than thirty perjured affidavits ready to use in future. Mitchell says that judges who favor his board of directors will reverse adverse findings by any court sua sponte (on a whim behind the scenes). That does not interpret as an idle boast when one considers judicial machination related to Council House during the past five years. [Supreme Court Review]

The criminal charges, now dismissed, related to pure speech protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Washington state harassment law specifically precludes any issues that relate to protected speech. Yet, Carr again showed his disregard for law by acting politically instead of lawfully. He used harassment law and contempt citations for actions already argued as protected speech before Washington Supreme Court.
[Agency Accountability] [Elder Abuse - Introduction]

When journalists discover criminal activity they verify, validate, then publish their findings. They insure that the appropriate authorities receive a copy of the article so that government can investigate and indict individuals allegedly responsible for crimes. This procedure should hold other victims harmless and protect the journalist from reprisals for not reporting potential crimes. However, the unholy alliance in Seattle between government officials, judges, and Council House directors allows dereliction by government officials while court granted anonymity and impunity supports a cover up of crime. [Impunity]

Laissez Faire

Government officials have retaliated against the scribe instead of addressing the issues. The recent charges count as another instance where Carr has tried to silence a reporter to protect political allies. Previously, he withheld public records to thwart reporting on criminal activity and threatened the author for insisting upon release of them. The current criminal charges interpret as a frivolous implementation of tha