Perjury and Subornation

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.

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. Jailing someone under false pretenses using perjury and subornation for that purpose classifies as a grievous crime punishable by a long prison sentence. Council House directors and their administrator have deliberately used multiple instances of perjury and subornation as a political weapon. [Statutes]

More than forty residents (tenants) provided perjured testimony to create a response to an action brought against Council House managers and directors (landlords). Stephen A. Mitchell maliciously suborned testimony from many of them to support fantastic contentions and intimidated other witnesses. Judge James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court, with his political connection and bias toward Council House directors, willingly wrote that perjury into the record without questioning it.

Doerty denied attorneys an opportunity to use the legal discovery process. That process would have exposed the insanity and lies contained in the declarations predominantly authored or suborned by Stephen Mitchell (aka Stefan), Felippe Jacques (aka Marquis de Sade), and Nathaniel Stahl (aka Knate). Doerty, by his finding, has probably exposed all residents who signed false statements to criminal prosecution by arbitrarily entering their declarations into evidence. By law, directors and residents who made false statements under oath can neither claim that they made a mistake nor that their declaration did not materially affect the proceedings. It looks like they have all ended up between a legal rock and hard jail time.

Unfortunately, judges have immunity from prosecution for their misconduct. However, those residents who gave false testimony remain jointly and severally liable for their actions - in particular the testimony that resulted in incarceration of the person against whom they falsely testified. Their lies significantly affected Doerty’s decision to jail a journalist. That journalist languished in jail for 111 days as a result of uncontested testimony. Doerty also ordered 25 days in solitary confinement locked down 23 hours a day under the worst conditions in the state of Washington.

Subornation becomes especially serious when it involves lawyers and judges. Disbarment only starts the process of punishment for officers of the court. Plotting to accomplish sinister ends ranks even more seriously when a senior superior court judge and his wife have complicity.

The issues took on another dimension when senior Superior Court Judge Anthony P. Wartnik - with wife Lynn C. Wartnik, a Council House director and former co-president and party to the litigation - allegedly indulged in ex parte communication. In a consort with Doerty, three judges allegedly acted backstage to protect Council House directors from prosecution for perjury, misappropriating federal funds, and violation of both federal and state laws. By their own actions, some Council House residents have insinuated themselves into a situation that would not have affected them otherwise.

With their lies and deceit both directors and some residents condoned incarceration of several other residents. In this case, the cruelty of jailing a person without cause or due process of law did not satisfy them. They used additional perjury and judicial ex parte communication (one-sided deal-making) to increase the initial open-ended incarceration for contempt from 86 days to ultra-security solitary confinement for another 25 days. Then a public defender had him released. That ranks as cruel and unusual punishment, especially when the victim had only met a civic responsibility, as both an individual and as a journalist, to expose alleged crimes.
[Cruel and Unusual Punishment] [Rampant Judicial Delusion]

The accredited journalist used the Washington State Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17) and the US Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) to verify information obtained from sources. He refused to name those sources under his constitutional right as a journalist and held them harmless and anonymous. From government sources he also obtained state and federal documents needed to validate the statistical and supporting data that he published. Council House directors have never sued for defamation or libel. They could find nothing defamatory or libelous in what the journalist wrote; therefore, they could not challenge the truthfulness of his writing.

Evidently an attorney on the board of directors orchestrated the latest deception. Allegedly, Judge Anthony P. Wartnik, husband of Lynn, director and former co-president, had the journalist transferred to ultra-security solitary confinement among accused murderers and rapists. Reportedly, when questioned about this draconian measure, he said: “He’s where he should be [in solitary confinement].” A year after release from jail that journalist now suffers from a condition similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, has difficulty walking, and suffers from a respiratory problem - all medical conditions that did not exist before he went to jail.

Initially, the administrator attempted to silence the reporter by using both capricious court actions, blackmail, and physical assault. When that did not succeed he had him jailed. The directors wanted him to remove his European web site from the Internet - a violation of his constitutional right to publish information. They even had political cartoons removed. Removal of that site protects them from exposure for their alleged crimes - abuse of senior citizen residents and misappropriation of government funds.

Although the administrator publicly denies government oversight, the property most certainly comes under state and federal regulation as a non-profit corporation also by continuing to accept HUD financing. Council House counsel calls it “a non-profit charitable organization”. Tenants know otherwise. It has a history of resident abuse and misappropriation of government funds.

Fifteen willing residents (since named by one of the participants) held a Christmas 2000 meeting with the sole intent of spreading hate and suborning testimony. The catalyst in whose apartment they held the meeting, Felippe Jacques, has since distributed the minutes of that meeting. They will eventually form part of the court record. This meeting apparently resulted from failure by administrator Stephen Mitchell to silence a resident through blackmail and threats of eviction.

The plotting at that meeting has now developed into an issue of worldwide concern. That concern will probably continue for several years because it affects so many people professionally and economically. The residents who organized this frame-up conspired to incriminate an individual using false pretenses. They perjured themselves and they all deserve long jail sentences.

The meeting participants opened a Pandora’s box that they cannot close. The box contained hate and bigotry that spread like a plague. They brought evil to bear upon other residents in an aura of declared misanthropy (hate of other human beings). That meeting not only violated federal law but reached a contemptible level of human experience.

Their scheming has involved government officials who will eventually have to account to US congressional authorities for their dereliction (willful neglect of duty) and participation in a cover-up. Some of those officials have spread propaganda to protect themselves. Others have provided false and misleading information to the media and to US representatives.

It looks as though jail remains a distinct possibility for the Council House administrator and the ringleaders. Others will probably receive punishment and heavy fines. The directors, with their wealth and connections, will probably buy their way out of trouble or call in political favors then leave their managers to take the rap. However, none of them can avoid public humiliation for what they have done. The humiliation will at least equal that which they have imposed upon their victims.

The story begins with collusion over several years between two fascistic administrators. They both used kill-the-messenger techniques to deal with routine landlord/tenant complaints (like noise abatement) over several years. They obtained capricious court orders on perjured testimony in retaliation for reporting alleged crimes and landlord dereliction to government agencies. The present administrator then instilled fear among multiple residents by boasting of his zero-tolerance policies. He publicly referred to this technique as making residents virtual prisoners in their own apartments to control them through fear. [Zero-Tolerance Policy]

The administrator and his directors took almost twelve months to plan and agitate toward jailing the reporter. During that time they had three other residents incarcerated without due process. They “constructively evicted” several other residents using harassment and railroading techniques. Sometimes they used illegal search and seizure to establish grounds. With the assistance of two of the five resident thugs, they coerced about 25% of the residents to make sworn declarations then to sign them. They then obtained an order to lock their victim out of his apartment as they had tried to do on several occasions with other residents. After the lockout they still charged and accepted rent for fourteen months and have not reimbursed it. They also exacted a fee for a parking space occupied and charged to another resident - deliberate fraud.

Probably more important, they fraudulently claimed a government subsidy for that apartment during the lockout. That fraud, with much larger misappropriation of government funds, probably leaves the administrator, his predecessor, and the directors open to federal indictment. The statute of limitations on those and other offenses will not run out for several years.

US General Accounting Office (GAO), will eventually have to investigate HUD officials responsible for oversight of this property. HUD must eventually take punitive action against Council House instead of covering up the facts.

Some directors signed an authority for the administrator to act the way he did and have furnished almost unlimited funding to him, probably in excess of $100,000. The directors and Judge Wartnik will ultimately have to face the consequences either in the courts or before the organizations that supervise ethics and misconduct of judges and lawyers.

Some compassion must adhere to the fact that some of the elderly declarants who perjured themselves came from manipulated backgrounds. They probably have not experienced independence of thought throughout their lifetime. Their vulnerability became attractive to a manipulative administrator to whom they have since adhered like leaches.

That characterization only applies to a few gullible people; the others acted knowingly and willfully. One must remember that Council House shelters residents expected to live and think independently. They must cater for themselves. Many have a good education and business acumen. Some of the perjurers have paralegal experience. They should all know better not from a legal but from a moral perspective. They live at Council house because of impoverishment not senility. They called the tune; now they must pay the piper.

Five justices of the Washington Supreme Court ruled (04 Sep 02) unanimously that the Appellate Court must hear the appeals that they previously rejected out of hand. This significant victory, the first step in a long journey to establish individual rights, means that the appellate court must address the questions:

Should trial courts allow the anti-harassment statutes to be misused as a prior restraint to abridge a citizen’s constitutional right to free speech?

Should the trial courts allow the anti-harassment statutes to be used in a retaliatory manner to circumvent other laws, such as actions for defamation, or the landlord-tenant statutes?

Should the trial courts interfere with the right of pro se litigants to representation by counsel?

Lawyers filed two appeals. Professional journalism organizations filed amicus curiae motions. Judge James A. Doerty, the trial judge who granted the orders, constructively recused himself in disgrace. His opinions have become the subject of ridicule in the international media and among lawyers. Counsel will probably depose Council House residents, administrators, and directors, in the future. [Appellate Brief #1] [Appellate Brief #2]

For the moment, the court order prohibits contact with residents. However, contrary to what the administrator has announced publicly, nothing in that order prevents residents from sending information or questions to the subject of that order. He will disregard unsigned communications.

If any resident has had second thoughts about making their declaration under duress then they may confidentially contact the attorneys. By that, they could lessen penalties or try to avoid future legal action against them for perjury. The lawyers will listen to explanations about the subornation which may have some bearing upon residents’ personal legal liability in the future. Several residents have already availed themselves of this opportunity to mitigate damage and to protect themselves against prosecution. [Attorneys-at-Law]

Oh, what a tangled web both landlords and tenants wove when first they practiced to deceive and how vastly they improved their style - probably to a point where some will end up in jail. Doerty, like other renegade judges, has no compunction about jailing senior citizens.

Council House residents should remember that Council House attorneys (SCaB) have already stated that they do not act for residents to avoid them having a conflict of interest. The fact that a SCaB attorney suborned residents to commit perjury on SCaB legal stationery does not mean that SCaB will defend them in any future prosecution. Those residents should immediately consult with other attorneys.

Residents should not rely on any legal support from Council House. After a recent physical assault, upon a writer by Felippe Jacques - the same resident who convened the Christmas meeting - SCaB claimed:

In response to your January 6, 2002 letter regarding alleged acts taken by Mr. Jacques we remind you that we represent Council House, the institution. We do not represent Mr. Jacques as an individual. Every resident of Council House is entitled to and may retain counsel of his or her own choosing. Mr. Jacques has not retained this firm, and we would only consider such a representation if it did not present a conflict with the interests of Council House. However, we appreciate your efforts to keep Council House informed of your concerns regarding its residents and we will forward your letter to Stephen Mitchell, Administrator of Council House.

Consequently, the landlords - wealthy Council House directors - have some legal protection while their predominantly indigent tenants have none. Residents should wake up to the fact that the directors with their virtually unlimited wealth will probably save their own skins by using their administrator and his script-writers as scapegoats. It looks as though they will not support residents who involved themselves in the scam although they promoted it themselves. At a scheduled board meeting, they authorized funds for legal services to support frivolous legal action. It makes sense for residents who signed declarations, whether under duress or not, to either take the opportunity offered or appoint their own attorneys as soon as possible.

The directors will probably use residents’ perjured testimony as evidence to support any action that they take against their managers. Meanwhile, they have at least three superior court judges in their pockets and enough money to keep those judges fed and watered for many years to come. Do residents really think that Mitchell and his directors will bail them out when push translates as shove? Most residents have more intelligence than to believe that they will get any help from the directors when the time comes for them to address personal legal problems that result from these issues.

The directors, through their administrator, have consistently developed new strategies to mislead the court. Stephen Mitchell, with his resident accomplice Felippe Jacques, has circulated disinformation and posted it on bulletin boards to propagandize issues. They have circularized professional associates with hate-mail and continue to feed the media appalling lies that some of them - in particular Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Jewish Transcript - have published without fact-checking their copy. Those reporters have knowingly and maliciously published libelous Council House propaganda.

That disinformation echoed worldwide then other media republished it. Several Seattle reporters have a history of yellow journalism. They exploit, distort, or exaggerate the news to create sensations that attract readers. Other writers have acted in either a naive or incompetent manner. They all chose to adopt kill-the-messenger techniques similar to those used by Council House administrators and directors for no apparent reason other than lurid reporting. This has resulted in complaints to publishers with requests for investigation by their managing editors into unethical reporting practices. Roger Oglesby, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, editor and publisher, and other editors have failed to launch an ethical investigation although requested several times to do so. Instead, they continue to procrastinate in attempts to cover up their libel.

Traditionally, fascists disappear when serious trouble overtakes them. Residents should have considered the source when reading Council House pamphlets or when listening to the administrator’s oratory. They lost sight of the fact that actors generally only consider the quality of their performance not the truthfulness of what they say. [Art of Thespian Lying]

Stephen Mitchell should have paid attention to the old Yiddish maxim:

Ah a nar shveight, vaist men nisht tsu er iz a nar tsu a chochem. (Insecurity, commonly regarded as a weakness in normal people, is the basic tool of the actor's trade).

He neglected to understand that people love actors for their unoriginality and for adhering to their scripts. He should have understudied himself to discover his weaknesses before accepting a job as dupe for a board of corrupt directors.

Mitchell has now reached his thespian pinnacle by lying to a superior court judge which will probably result in his receiving a taste of his own medicine in jail. He can experience first hand what home boys feel about corrupt honky actors. He can experience real sublimation when inmates modify their instinctual impulses in ways acceptable to jail society. He will learn to understand inmate preoccupation with, and enjoyment of, effeminate thespians. He will bear the brunt of prisoner disgust for calumniators - especially when they know that he has given false testimony and had innocent people arrested and incarcerated by scripting frame-ups and writing false reports.

Writing obvious lies into evidence following biased political affinity, and harassing litigants in court, will probably result in judicial misconduct charges against the judge. SCaB involvement will certainly cause bar association complaints against Council House attorney Richard Du Bey (SCaB), and his assistant Maureen Mitchell, for subornation and witness tampering.

They must all now take responsibility and account for their actions in the courts. Meanwhile, Council House residents who have a modicum of decency and moral responsibility should probably try to extricate themselves from this situation before it overtakes them.

Nmesis.

Brad A. Meryhew, formerly Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons (SCRAP), a public defender appointed by Judge James A. Doerty when media pressure became too hot for him to handle, obtained the author’s release from solitary confinement (2002). Ironically, Meryhew succeeded without a purge of the alleged contempt that Doerty contrived in an ex parte relationship with Judge Anthony P. Wartnik. Meryhew, now in private practice as a partner in the Law Offices of James Newton, Auburn, Washington, will defend against the new criminal complaints filed in an alleged retaliatory compact among Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney, Council House directors, and lawyers exposed in Contra Cabal. Meryhew visited the author frequently while in jail and after transfer to solitary confinement. He inspired the author to undertake extensive research into institutionalized racism during and after his release. [Institutionalized Racism] [Attorneys at Law]