Lunatic Fringe

At Council House, First Amendment issues which adversely affect all journalists, senior citizen abuse, and misappropriation of government funds, have become a matter of international interest. A recent follow-up in Europe shows that similar circumstances exist there. However, the stringency of non-profit corporate laws dissuade European directors from indulging in misappropriation to the extent alleged at Council House. I now give some background into how the Council House debacle occurred and how I became involved with it.

Council House classifies as an apartment block with landlords and tenants subject to state, municipal, and federal laws, that apply to other landlord tenant relationships in US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) financially-assisted housing. Council House does not rank as a nursing home and does not provide any services except a dining room. Consequently, the landlords have no right to interfere in tenant lifestyles or politics or to enter their apartments without their permission. HUD regulations make this very clear.

At first, I was prepared to give the directors the benefit of doubt for their indifference to the suffering of their tenants. I believed that they did not know about bullying by administrators. I have now established that they have known about the abuse and misappropriation for at least three years and care nothing for resident welfare. Their financial interests override common decency.

In late 1999, I interviewed several Council House residents for some personal-interest stories. I immediately sensed an inherent fear. I probed further. Then I learned of abject abuse meted to aging residents by successive administrators.

A veteran journalist, I do not accept uncorroborated statements. I verified the information from other sources and found evidence of criminal activity which I reported to attorneys for Council House and HUD officials. None of them did anything to mitigate the circumstances. In fact, HUD covered up for Council House by withholding public records to thwart investigation.

The directors and their managers then started to harass me by using kill-the-messenger strategies. I reported the alleged crimes to other state and federal authorities and started to write about them. I also obtained a temporary restraining order against the administrator Stephen M. who had told his thugs to threaten me if I continued to write about the issues. One of them sent a death threat to me. That thug has since ambushed and physically assaulted me with a metal stick outside a store.

I recognized a conflict of interest as a resident making news and as a journalist reporting it. However, in that closed society nobody else had access to the residents or possessed the skills and experience to address and report the issues. I have tried to provide a voice for those whose voices have been silenced or ignored. I continue to speak out for disadvantaged people as I have done for many years.

As a former corporate CEO, I strongly believe that boards of directors should actively ensure accountability and trustworthiness. They must adopt an ethical stance in corporations that they lead. They must also consider moral imperatives. Moral authority erodes and devalues if used too frequently and disappears entirely if never used. As a writer, I make a clear distinction between expressing an opinion and involving myself in policy-making - a distinction that Council House directors have chosen to ignore.

I ask myself several questions before making that distinction: When should I speak out against oppression? Do I have a moral obligation to do so? What moral principles, human rights, and liberties, do the issues involve? Should I take a stand or show only academic interest? Have I exercised moral imperative or ethical judgment in decision-making? If I choose to take a stand then do I have special competence or experience that gives credibility to my opinion?

At Council House, I experienced a feeling of partisanship, a dedication to supporting those who had no voice of their own to respond to injustice. Abuse always needs someone to expose it, to draw attention to it, and to force a hearing. I felt justified in allowing moral imperative to take a degree of precedence over professional ethics that control news-making and news-gathering. I proceeded to investigate and to report on the issues despite the closeness of them.

Three years later, I do not regret that decision although I have suffered physical abuse and imprisonment under the most appalling conditions. I intend to continue publishing my findings until the appropriate authorities address the evil. I cannot tolerate lies and propaganda after experiencing several years of listening to the outpouring of Joseph Goebbels. [01] I learned at an early age from that experience and from Rudyard Kipling’s poems that:

[If ---]

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise. [02]

I heard about Felippe Jacques (72) during several interviews with Council House residents. One of them took me to J.’s apartment and introduced him as a philosopher. Other residents warned me about his irrational behavior. I quickly realized that he was a violent person and self-proclaimed misanthrope who now occasionally signs himself “Marquis de Sade” and takes pride in that association. [Noblesse Oblige]

I befriended him in an attempt to establish the truth of what other residents had said. He responded with a wealth of information about management personnel and other residents most of which I took with a grain of salt. I continued to probe. He openly responded with personal information about successive Council House administrators that I validated from other sources. He became a valuable journalistic resource.

His dogmatic and explosive anti-Semitism in a building that has an all-Jewish board of directors intrigued me. That persuaded me to question him for several months. His braggadocio about his violent and substance abusing past, also his racism, misogynism, and homophobia (that he has since disingenuously projected onto me), showed that his Council House behavior matched a life-long pattern.

I wanted to find out about the apparent control that he had over managers. He obviously received privileges that other residents did not. Successive managers have threatened tenants with eviction for smoking in the nonsmoking building yet they allowed Felippe Jacques to smoke with impunity. They allowed him to keep two animals when the rules allow only one. They did not charge him for moving apartments when others had to pay and granted him other concessions.

Felippe Jacques knew at the time of the interviews that I held an international press card and intended to publish my findings. I used him in the same way that most investigative reporters use evil or criminal sources as a starting point for investigation. Reporters give a little information that appears on the public record to obtain information that does not. They gain the confidence of the source and preserve anonymity when requested.

Felippe Jacques requested anonymity on some points of information. I continue to honor those requests and have only used confidential information as background after verifying and validating it through other sources. I listened but did not accept what he said at face value, especially when he seemed as dysfunctional as the administrators upon whom he eagerly informed. He has since documented much of the same information himself and distributed it as propaganda. [Noblesse Oblige]

I would not normally disclose the mental condition of people whom I interview. I prefer to use it for background only. However, in this case it essentially forms part of my report. Council House counsel opened the door to using that information by introducing mental health issues into the public record. Counsel filed derogatory mental health statements about adversaries without foundation. The directors have also used mental health propaganda in perjured testimony to support their cover up.

Counsel classified all Council House residents as “vulnerable adults” (mentally impaired in varying degrees). This supports the attitude of the administrator Stephen M. (39) who considers anyone over 62 years of age as having diminished mental capacity. In contrast, a blind resident interviewed at her centenary birthday party sounded more lucid and practical than any of the administrators ranging from 24 to 38 years of age. [Vulnerable Adults]

Federal regulations do not allow vulnerable senior citizens to occupy apartments in government financially-assisted buildings restricted to independent living. I found ulterior motives for the vulnerable adult classification when I delved into testimony - not the caring reasons that counsel would have the court believe. Ironically, none of the present tenants should live at Council House by counsel’s definition according to HUD regulations.

Counsel’s definition claims that all Council House residents suffer from mental impairment which makes them ineligible for an apartment. Very few tenants suffer from mental problems. The managers should not have admitted the few people who do suffer from mental disorders or should have transferred them to nursing homes long ago. However, deciding in accordance with law means loss of income.

I checked Council House testimony against medical and psychiatric records released to me by several victims of abuse. The documents showed no psychological abnormality. This despite claims by the administrator that mental deficiency justified his repeated threats of eviction and his staged police arrests.

Counsel’s claim to the vulnerability of the general population did not contain a shred of evidence to support it. Counsel knowingly used suborned testimony and perjury to support Council House claims. This detrimentally affected several residents singled out for abuse by the administrator. Those decisions have contributed to negligence which allegedly resulted in at least two resident deaths and dangerous behavior by several others.

The directors and their associates occupy “hornet nests” at Herzl-Ner Tamid, a conservative Jewish congregation, and Temple De Hirsch Sinai, a reform synagogue, both in the Seattle area. They use synagogues for contact and have infiltrated the top echelons of the Herzl-Ner Tamid administration. They use an inane interpretation of religious concepts to violate federal regulations and to evade responsibility for their actions.

Scheming, greed, and sacrificed principles, have no place in Judaism which they purport to practice and behind which they hide. They fail to see what happens in front of them requires a constant struggle and an open mind. Their present concern relates to using their wealth for manipulation of law to extricate themselves from blame for wanton and meaningless cruelty. They apparently have no intention of mitigating the alleged crimes or changing administrators and policies to relieve the cruelty and discrimination. They hang together in a cover-up that will hang them when law-enforcement authorities see fit to prosecute them for their alleged crimes.

I have found that administrators at similar residences have a less-than-perfect love for their residents. However, they try to rule by love not fear. Their residents do not perpetually have to guard against the corrosive influence of the people surrounding them. They do not have to suffer benefactors who constantly use strategies that make the acceptance of charity humiliating.

Council House managers humiliate senior citizens by treating them like children and degrading them with zero-tolerance policies. The residence stinks of charity and condescension. Visiting groups probably mean well but inevitably expect some show of contrition for age and poverty.

The religious zealots among them act as though poverty signified a sinful soul. They cannot pass by without making a show of their charity and cannot leave without expecting thanks. Thus, the directors should have expected no gratitude and allowed residents their dignity to remain free of coercion for gifts of fruit baskets.

Staff distributed fruit baskets at the holiday season. They had passed their “sell-by date”. Evidently an overstock, those baskets probably resulted in a tax rebate equal to the wholesale cost as a charitable contribution. The residents had instructions to thank the directors. They required acknowledgment for their out-of-date products and belated delivery of “largesse”. Several people realized the fiscal significance and self-aggrandizing motives for the gift then sent obsequious notes of thanks.

The directors continue their indifference to suffering. Instead of addressing the issues they strive to alter the common perception of the problem. This insures that future efforts to improve the situation will have little chance of success. No plan will work as long as age, race, and poverty are generally regarded as a shameful disease that infects people incapable of helping themselves.

I do not intend these articles to offer any plan for redemption for senior citizens forced to live in less than desirable facilities. I do not make specific proposals for reform and my purpose does not relate to a solution although my writing may suggest some alternatives. Members of this particular community have already experienced too many final solutions during their lives. They have earned the right to end their days free of tyranny.

Nmesis.

© Copyright 2002 by Paul Trummel
All Rights Reserved: 22 Nov 02/13:21 GMT
Edition: #801-21-00/05-0125-18:28
Feedback: Webspinner@ContraCabal.org