|
Straw-Man Stratagem
|
|
Civil and Human Rights Violations
|
|
Fourteen articles describe racism and civil rights violations by Stephen A. Mitchell, directors, lawyers, staff, Kapos (enforcers), and some tenants at Council House during the past five years. They contain evidence of dereliction by government officials and their investigators which has resulted in unlawful evictions of physically and financially disadvantaged elderly people.
|
|
Council House directors have shown indifference to tenant abuse by managers and their thugs. They have denied tenants their right to complain in violation of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. They have also either threatened them with eviction or evicted them for filing legitimate complaints with government agencies.
|
|
Fully researched and documented, the articles allege that government officials have not dealt with complaints in accordance with law. They have consorted with Council House directors and their lawyers to conduct a whitewash of multiple instances of elder abuse and racism. By that, they violated Civil Rights Act Title VIII and Seattle Open Housing Ordinance.
|
|
Investigation revealed an extensive pattern or practice of elder abuse, violation of civil and human rights, and denial of 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.
|
|
John W. Meyers, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney, City of Seattle; Germaine W. Covington, Director, Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR); Norm Maleng, King County Prosecuting Attorney; and their employees, have neglected to investigate allegations of racism, elder abuse, and homicide by abuse. Evidently, they covered up those crimes for political expediency. Consequently, two Council House tenants filed in US District Court, Western District of Washington, for injunctive relief.
|
|
Prior to publication, all people mentioned had a chance to refute statements that could negatively affect their reputations or cause investigation or prosecution.
|
|
[Introduction to New/Updated Articles] [Constitutional Rights Initiative]
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Council House, Seattle, directors rely upon impunity and anonymity to completely disregard law. They feel secure with six judges in their pocket and an unlimited straw-man resource at their disposal. Morally wrong in principle or practice, they use straw men (straws) as a front to cover their questionable activities.
Straw judges grant them anonymity and impunity; straw lawyers help them evade their responsibilities and the law through deception, misrepresentation, and arrest or incarceration of innocent people; straw witnesses provide perjured testimony. They all know that evil people wish to remain anonymous and work to achieve that goal. [Impunity]
The directors rely upon censorship and propaganda to direct public attention away from dysfunctional behavior, elder abuse, and misappropriation of federal funds. They know that expression becomes meaningless without freedom to publish ideas and opinion. Consequently, they silence dissenters and reporters with court orders for prior restraint, or jail them.
Plato defined tyrants as people who live to do anything they please and create an aura of benevolence that gives more offense than the underlying evil. Council House directors' public appearance of benevolence, coupled with their indifference and anonymity, gives more offense than the evil itself.
Stratagems
The directors have developed stratagems with the sole purpose of financial gain. They act as benevolent dictators by using neo-fascist policies to control senior citizens. They use elaborate underhand schemes by deceiving their victims and evading laws to achieve financial objectives. Those stratagems allow them effective control without responsibility. [Impunity]
Stratagems allow manipulation of tenants by strata or societal segregation - separating people with similar social, cultural, or economic status into competing strata using politically correct criteria as control mechanisms. This requires the directors to use straws as fronts to evade culpability and maintain anonymity with impunity. [Political Correctness]
The term straw man refers to a third party that acts as a "front" in a transaction (an agent for another) for the purpose of breaking a tenancy, or engaging in some other kind of transaction where the principal wishes to remain hidden and beyond criticism for illegal acts.
Straws at the highest or wealthiest stratum of a straw pyramid have power that they can misuse to protect themselves. Those at the lowest stratum usually have no personal means which makes them “judgment proof”. Hence the expression “a man of straw” - a person of no substance used as a witness in legal proceedings.
Straw men at the lowest stratum primarily perform illegal acts so that principals do not soil their hands and can remain anonymous with impunity. They deliberately accept liabilities without resources to fulfill them, usually as a front for an anonymous principal. In the case of suborned perjury, they offer false testimony or sign false declarations dictated by a third party principal. Straws act as nominal parties in name only and the principal rewards them either with money or in kind for their services or testimony. [Impunity]
Principals ultimately hold responsibility for discharging the public liability associated with the benefits that accrue. The law punishes principals as well as their straws with criminal penalties for perjury or for filing false documents with courts or other government authorities. [Five Kapos]
Strata
Council House has an established pyramid of straws. At the apex, three superior court judges follow the bidding of Council House directors and grant them impunity and anonymity. Three appellate judges affirm that judicial misconduct. Indifference by directors, and impunity granted by straw judges allows the building manager to indulge in thespian endeavors at the expense of the people to whom he ultimately remains accountable - senior citizens. [First and Fourteenth]
At the secondary pyramidal stratum, tenants suborned by unethical lawyers perform as either litigants or witnesses. They perjure themselves to cover up crimes committed by both directors and the building manager. Judgment-proof (with no visible means), they deliberately offer false testimony or swear perjured declarations for a variety of rewards. [Supreme Court Review]
The tertiary stratum includes prosecutors, police, and government officials who adopt laissez faire policies. They ignore regulations that govern non-profit organizations and allow directors to operate according to their own economic principles. With willful blindness, officials deliberately avoid reasonable inquiry despite probable cause for prosecution and conviction. By that, they evade their responsibility to face the truth and to investigate crime; instead, they further their own political ambitions. [Agency Accountability]
At the lowest stratum, Kapos act as provocateurs and enforcers. They intimidate and harass anyone who does not accept or adhere to the pyramidal, straw-man stratagem. Concentration camp commandants depended on similar cooperation from trustee inmates who brutally supervised prisoners. Some Jews worked as Nazi Kapos and inflicted harsh treatment upon their fellows to avoid punishment and death. Several historians have regarded that as complicity. That ethical dilemma continues to this day and paradoxically re-emerges at Council House. [Five Kapos]
Stratum #1 - Court Jesters
Council House tragi-comedy has extended meaning when one examines alleged backstage machination by Washington Superior Court judges: James A. (Jiminy) Doerty, Michael C. Hayden, and Anthony P. (Tony) Wartnik, sitting in the same courthouse. In consort, these judges have acted with bias to protect Council House directors from federal and state prosecution for perjury and subornation, misappropriation of federal funds, alleged homicide by abuse, and wrongful imprisonment.
These three judges (and several others presently under close observation) repeatedly condone Council House behavior by communicating ex parte and by denying due process of law to pervert justice in their own interest. Hayden has a history of judicial misconduct in Council House affairs.
Hayden provides a classic example of a straw jurist. He plays for a team that draws its players from the Seattle jurisprudential cesspool. In the case of Lauren Jeanne Hawk (65), like a bad penny, Hayden turned up to replace Judge Bruce Hilyer. Instead of assigning judges without bias by a roulette process, clerks frequently fix the wheel in order to assign favored jurists. (In the 2001 case, Doerty replaced Judge Suzanne Barnett after similar “judge-shopping”.)
Court rules state that judges must disqualify themselves when in any way interested or prejudiced. They must, on their own initiative, enter an order of disqualification before a jury is sworn or a trial commences. In Hawk, Hayden failed to disqualify himself knowing that he had presided in a companion case presently before the Supreme Court for review.
When challenged by Attorney Elena Luisa Garella representing Hawk, Hayden claimed he did not remember the previous Council House eviction trial (despite massive local and international publicity) and would not agree to voluntary recusal.
Under court rules, parties can file an affidavit stating that they cannot have a fair and impartial trial by reason of the interest or prejudice of a particular judge or for other grounds provided by law. Garella considered that Hawk would not receive an unbiased hearing and demanded that Hayden recuse himself from consideration of the case.
That case involves an attempt by Council House to evict a tenant. Hawk claims in defense that Stephen (aka Stefan) A. Mitchell (40), the building manager, has tried to evict her from her federally subsidized apartment because she exercised her free speech rights to criticize management.
Hayden wrongfully introduced evidence into a 2001 case under circumstances that a reasonable person can only describe as collusive and biased. In that trial, Hayden relied entirely on perjured testimony suborned and filed by Mitchell in a case that had nothing to do with an eviction.
Doerty previously presided and decided a case based on perjured testimony. He would not hear legal argument in refutation and exhibited flagrant bias and prejudice. Hayden used that decision as the sole basis for his finding in the eviction case.
Hawk’s defense raises many constitutional arguments about the validity of her eviction - the same arguments that lawyers have made repeatedly in appeals of the 2001 case. Garella claimed that if Hayden remained in a position to consider and decide the issues in Hawk that it would severely compromise the appearance of fairness. Hayden possessed information that could color his perception or give that appearance through his previous connections both in and out of court.
|
|
In Rice v. McKenzie, the Fourth Circuit held that:
|
|
. . . Our task, then, is to determine whether a reasonable person would have had a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality. In the process of making such a determination, we cannot be influenced by our own faith in the integrity of a particular judge. Congress was concerned with the appearance of impartiality to the general public. Neither our faith not the imaginings of one highly suspicious of others are relevant. The inquiry begins and ends with a determination whether a reasonable person would have had a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality.
|
|
|
Under protest, Hayden eventually recused himself as Doerty has effectively done under pressure. This time, Hawk has proper legal representation which has forced a recusal - something an ethical judge with Hayden’s prior experience in a similar and connected case would have done immediately upon seeing Council House on the docket. Judge Theresa Doyle, Washington Superior Court, will now preside (26 Sep 05). [Motion to Recuse]
Hayden knows the railroading he previously administered in a consort with Doerty yet feigns bad memory. When challenged by Garella, he said that he could not remember a case (31 May 02) in which he dragged an elderly reporter (69) in shackles from solitary confinement into superior court as though attending a first hearing.
Doerty had the week before (23 May 02) placed the reporter among murderers and rapists without cause and eventually kept him there for 25 days - a chivalrous act by “jurists” to protect Wartnik’s wife (and other Council House directors) from exposure for forgery and perjury. The man spent a total of 111 days in jail without due process of law. Wartnik later exclaimed: “He’s right where he should be . . .” [Supreme Court Review] [Metamorphosis]
|
|
The prisoner narrates:
|
|
I languished in jail 111 days at the hands of Wartnik and Doerty for no particular reason other than that, as a journalist, I had written about elder abuse and criminal activity at Council House condoned by Wartnik’s wife Lynn as co-president of that apartment block. While locked out and in jail I paid rent for fourteen months.
|
| A lawyer had successfully defended me in a former eviction proceeding. Not satisfied with the finding in that court, Council House and their corrupt judges had me moved to solitary confinement at King County Jail then brought another unlawful detainer action in Superior Court. They denied me telephone contact with my lawyer while in maximum security and the first I knew about the hearing was when they brought me from my cell. |
| Before court, they kept me in a very cold cage near the court for about ninety minutes and would not give me water. After about two weeks lying on a concrete slab in solitary confinement, I could hardly stand when they brought me into court to the sneers of Council House managers and their Kapos. |
| Hayden then heard the case as though it were a first hearing, ignored the previous court findings, refused to allow my lawyer to argue the case, glowered at me like I was some sort of vermin, and evicted me from my home. |
| He openly declared on the record that he had no need to hear argument because he could rely completely on Doerty’s findings in my anti-harassment case a year before – the same case that caused an international furor and the same argument now awaiting a decision by Washington Supreme Court. [Supreme Court Review] |
|
|
Hayden’s body language at that hearing indicated his power, delectation, and bias. He conducted an obviously rigged hearing, then unlawfully evicted the reporter. Consequently, the reporter had nowhere to go when a public defender had him released from jail.
If Hayden has such a bad memory that he cannot remember such colorful proceedings and the publicity associated with them, then perhaps he should retire from the bench, permanently. Wartnik has already retired and it should not take long for Doerty to follow if the judiciary cleans up its act.
 |
|
|
Statement by
Washington Superior Court
Judge Anthony P. Wartnik:
|
|
He's right where he
should be . . .
Solitary Confinement
|
|
Lynn C. Wartnik, his wife and former co-president Council House, Seattle, forged HUD documents to insure appointment of Stephen A. Mitchell as building manager and committed perjury to place a tenant in solitary confinement.
|
|
Judges Doerty and Hayden condoned their behavior and effectively granted them impunity.
|
|
Prosecutors must now indict Wartnik's wife for forgery and perjury.
|
|
[Queer Connection]
|
|
In the eviction case at which Hayden presided (31 May 02), Council House filed an unlawful detainer action based on a Notice of Termination of Tenancy (27 Feb 02) in Superior Court. Mitchell had unlawfully locked out the tenant for almost fourteen months and had him jailed without cause on perjured testimony. The tenant had written about Council House and complained to government authorities about elder abuse.
Mitchell alleged non-compliance with provisions of a lease agreement but failed to provide an opportunity to comply or vacate because he had locked the tenant out for fourteen months. He then had him jailed while accepting timely payment of rent for the entire period.
Mitchell created a catch-22 by preventing the tenant from occupying the premises then claiming non-compliance with terms and conditions that require occupancy. That differs from his normal practice of refusing rent then evicting tenants for non-payment of rent.
Washington Superior Court found that the notice failed to comply with the law and that the court lacked subject matter for unlawful detainer jurisdiction. It claimed that the notice failed to comply with the provisions of the lease and Seattle’s Just Cause Eviction ordinance. It also found that the tenant had an entitlement to continued possession of the premises and denied the writ of restitution then awarded him attorneys fees.
The court did not allow a defense of retaliatory action or that payment of rent constituted a waiver of claims to prior breaches of a lease. That evidently encouraged Mitchell to retaliate again.
 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Instead of appealing the decision, Mitchell and Council House again went “judge shopping” and “bought” Hayden. Instead of reviewing the findings in the trial court, Hayden went fishing in the files (or had Doerty and Wartnik trawl them for him) to produce more than forty perjured declarations suborned by Mitchell on which Doerty had refused discovery process in another case. In that case (19 Apr 01), Mitchell entered those declarations into the record of a kangaroo court held by Doerty. That resulted in the lockout and jailing with solitary confinement.
Felippe Jacques (72±), Mitchell’s chief suborner, straw man, Kapo, and propagandist, recently boasted that he has another 36 “generic” declarations already sworn for future use in any case that they may file. This emphasizes Mitchell’s bizarre stratagem.
Reportedly, Jacques has now (19 Aug 05) written poisonous letters purporting that they come from a person that Mitchell has targeted for eviction. He then delivered them to other tenants whom Mitchell has targeted apparently to create another bizarre diversion - a divide and destroy scenario.
When Mitchell feels offended by everyday comments, he fantasizes about violations of leases, scripts an eviction scenario, files suit, then commits perjury and subornation to support his contentions. With judges like Doerty and Hayden on the bench and an indifferent board of directors he usually gets away with it.
In the eviction hearing (31 May 02), Hayden decided that the findings in Doerty’s kangaroo court (19 Apr 01), which denied constitutional rights of freedom of expression, established that the tenant had violated his lease by conduct three years before. That conduct criticized management about illegal acts and reported them to government oversight authorities. Doerty contended that the tenant should not have challenged his landlord’s “authority” and that Mitchell had a right to silence him.
Hayden found the lawyer’s argument (already found valid by another court) that no continuing violation of the lease had occurred, unpersuasive. He claimed that the tenant ordered to do very specific things by Doerty had failed to do so repeatedly. Those “things” related to complying with unconstitutional prior restraint orders issued by Doerty that had nothing to do with leasing an apartment.
Hayden then granted an order to vacate that the tenant could not supervise from solitary confinement. He lost his home and valuable artwork that disappeared in the enforced eviction.
Hayden’s decision and alleged judicial misconduct as a straw jurist caused irreversible harm - Mitchell has now recycled the same script for the Hawk performance and hoped to have Hayden as his leading man. [Kafka - The Trial]
Mitchell responded to criticism of his behavior with Draconian measures that included eviction, jail, and a coordinated campaign to defame the tenant. He could neither find another place to live nor employment. His treatment of Hawk in the present case replicates that aberrant behavior. Jacques latest poisoned letter manoeuver bears out that fact. Hopefully, the court will stop Mitchell in his tracks before he succeeds in yet another elder abuse rampage.
Due to the foresight of her attorney, Hawk will not have to suffer Hayden’s indignities and pandering to a corrupt oligarchy. Hopefully, Doyle will assume the role of an honest and unbiased judge in a corrupt system.
However, nobody who knows Council House directors, their political power and wealth, and manipulation of the court system, will hold their breath while waiting. Mitchell has already proclaimed publicly that if Doyle finds against him, then her decision will be reversed behind the scenes. Reasonable people will wonder how Doyle feels about that statement and whether Mitchell will repeat it under oath in her court.
Stratum #2 - Unethical Lawyers and Crazy Actors
Council House directors furnished Mitchell, an out-of-work actor, with virtually unlimited financial resources for lawyers. That allowed him to stage a farce and to build an organization within which to commit elder abuse. Board indifference allowed him to convert government funded time and resources to private thespian interests. Moreover, he now has two cases of alleged homicide by abuse to his credit that authorities have neglected to investigate and continues to file frivolous law suits against tenants. [Who Killed Jackie Nations?] [Last Cruel Days. Homicide?]
A complaint becomes subject to Superior Court sanctions if a finding does not meet three conditions: complaint well-grounded in fact; complaint warranted by existing law; and, reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal basis of the action. Inquiry during actions brought by Council House lawyers during the past four years do not meet the objective standards that define reasonable inquiry.
Those lawyers should become subject to sanctions for filing a string of frivolous lawsuits intended to harass and intimidate tenants. They initially sued in retaliation for an antiharassment suit brought against Council House and to retaliate for myriad complaints against Mitchell. At the initial hearing (20 Mar 01), Doerty presumed to give legal advice to those lawyers by suggesting in open court that they should file a cross-petition.
[Superior Court Civil Rules - CR 11]
None of their causes have a basis in law. SCaB lawyers have failed to provide facts supporting a legal theory and neglected to investigate their complaints before filing suit. These blatant attempts to use legal process as a coercive weapon should not go unpunished. They have counseled their client to use the courts to violate tenants’ federal and state constitutional rights to petition government for redress of grievances: rights directly linked to the effectiveness and survival of a representative form of government.
Doerty prohibited debate on the social and economic interests inherent in the case. He ignored the benefit of collective thinking and in the process punished a reporter for indulging in a democratic free exchange of ideas: precisely the type of debate that federal and state constitutions protect. That protection works toward illustrating and harmonizing differences. [First and Fourteenth]
The opinions stated in the latest lawsuit belong in a political arena (or vaudeville theater) not in a courthouse. The courts, through straw jurists, have repeatedly chosen to condone Mitchell’s insidious campaign of fear, coercion, and intimidation against senior citizens through judicial bias and denial of due process of law.
Doerty should have dismissed Mitchell’s case. Instead, he found against the reporter with prejudice after giving legal advice from the bench. He has since repeatedly thwarted access to transcripts. He even issued a contempt citation related to a legitimate request for transcripts to evade an appeal of his decision.
Mitchell has repeatedly suborned perjury by obtaining declarations from a parade of gullible senior citizens not equipped to counter coercive persuasion. He has used litigation and his employers "deep pockets" to try to intimidate tenants into silence despite their constitutional right to petition government. Moreover, his lawyers have conspired with him to evade the law and breached their ethical responsibility to their profession and their client.
Stratum #3 - Government Agencies and Laissez Faire
Laissez faire policies have allowed an increase in elder abuse with impunity granted by trial court decisions. Council House abuse has now reached Washington Supreme Court for review. Agencies might have avoided two deaths and four incarcerations if they had complied with HUD and City of Seattle mandates. Instead, federal, state, and municipal officials have tried to cover up wrongdoing by colluding with Mitchell, attacking the messenger, and silently withholding public records. [Silent Withholding]
Government officials do nothing to investigate serious allegations although they have received many notifications of Council House fraud and elder abuse during the past five years. They chose to ignore federal laws that apply to the theft or misappropriation of public money.
Those laws establish a maximum 10-year prison sentence for conversion of government funds to personal use and extend penalties to anyone who receives them. Penalties particularly apply when individuals derive additional income after using government-subsidized employment and resources to support private thespian pursuits.
Officials have neglected to act on elder abuse complaints and continued negligent policies which has resulted in even more abuse and alleged homicides. Government authorities have not awakened to this egregious manipulation of the system and assault upon the rights of senior citizens or launched full and independent investigations.
Whether one classifies agency inaction as bureaucratic bungling or collusion does not matter. The fact that residents continue to suffer abuse and the directors continue to misappropriate government funds, does matter. [Agency Accountability]
Stratum #4 - Kapos
Kapos gain access to the Council House feeding trough by working as straw men for Mitchell - the building manager. They help him break leases and engage in harassment and racism with no apparent goal other than personal reward. With others whom they suborn, they repeatedly commit perjury as a prerequisite for filing suit. They front for Mitchell who brings frivolous lawsuits for the sole purpose of maintaining a lucrative stratagem.
Charlene Sego (53), Grinnell Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, and her (alleged husband/partner/co-conspirator) Nathaniel Stahl (59), acted as straw men for Mitchell. Stahl lives at Council House and Sego visits him there.
Mitchell used Sego/Stahl to retaliate against Pola Doenyas (75). Doenyas supported Lauren Jeanne Hawk (65) who defended herself against an action by Mitchell to evict her. Sego brought a frivolous antiharassment suit against Doenyas and then Stahl manufactured evidence and offered it as testimony. [Pattern or Practice]
Mitchell has a history of using Kapos and their molls as straw men to evict tenants whom he does not like based upon his own racist or ideological prejudices. He employs several thugs to enforce neo-fascist ideology and “zero-tolerance” policies and has repeatedly suborned an elite among tenants to manufacture evidence and commit perjury to support a series of frivolous law suits.
Sego, who frequently visits Council House, has acted variously as straw and perjurer with abandon. She has no residency qualifications yet has insinuated herself into Council House affairs as a straw for Mitchell. It is outlandish, and the essence of abuse, to use as straws in court two people of apparent diminished capacity - individuals unable to understand that commission of perjury ranks as a crime.
Sego and Stahl acted as straw men for Mitchell in the Doenyas case; two weeks later they appeared as witnesses for Mitchell in the Hawk case with an almost identical script and courtroom choreography. One of Mitchell's favorite pastimes as an out-of-work actor involves scripting perjury for his straws so that he can act out his fantasies in court.
[Pattern or Practice]
Sego has publicly admitted to drinking her own urine in attempts to cure a genetic skin disease. Under oath, she blamed that skin condition on harassment by Doenyas. If Sego cannot legally call Doenyas "mommy", then Doenyas had nothing to do with her skin problems. Sego gives new meaning to the term “getting pissed”.
Stahl has a diagnosed bipolar condition, dubious residency qualifications, and has for several years acted as straw and stool pigeon for Mitchell. In that capacity and as a Jew, he has filed false reports of anti-Semitism against tenants with the Anti-Defamation League, interfered with incoming mail that resulted in a formal complaint to the US Post Office, written scurrilous letters to the editors of newspapers about tenants, and physically assaulted Doenyas.
One person commented after reading the Sego/Stahl testimony with its contradictions that Stahl and Sego must have met each other in a mental institution. They certainly did not spend enough time rehearsing the lines that Mitchell apparently wrote for them. They neither knew the day of the week nor could they tell the time of day the alleged harassment occurred.
[Pattern or Practice]
Mitchell has Sego/Stahl scheduled again as witnesses in the Hawk hearing (26 Sep 05). Rumor has it, that in addition to giving testimony, Mitchell will join Stahl and Sego in a Wilson, Keppel, and Betty sand dance that he has planned to entertain, and try to sway, Judge Doyle. One must hope that they spend more time rehearsing than they did for the preliminary hearing before they throw sand in her eyes.
Their histrion antics did not sway Judge Mariane Spearman, Washington District Court (West Division). She ruled that Sego had failed to carry her burden of proof in the antiharassment action that she had brought against Pola Doenyas. Her decision, like that of Judge Maureen A. Howard for another tenant, Leon L. Harris, appears to show a chink of light and reason in a thoroughly dark and demented judicial cesspool. [Trials of Leon L Harris]
Three Strikes - They Are (on the way) Out
Washington needs an initiative similar to the proposed Judicial Reform Act (JDA) in California. That proposal addresses the problem of straw jurists and associated judicial misconduct. Particularly, it calls for judges indicted for criminal conduct or sued civilly by a complainant to pay for their own defense and not have the free services of elected or appointed public counsel.
Ironically, JDA also calls for "Three Strikes And You're Out" legislation for judges, and prevents chastised judges from receiving full retirement benefits. It insists that public servants must account to the people not the reverse.
Judges would remain free to exercise jurisdiction under law, to make mistakes, to make bad decisions, and even violate the law and due process. However, they may not deliberately violate the law or deny due process. Judges must not remain independent of the law or willfully violate it.
Unbelievably, Doerty proclaimed that the protection of the First Amendment belonged exclusively to government officials - in direct contrast to his sworn promise to uphold the Constitution. Does Washington electorate really want this unelected shmuck on the bench purely to represent a constituency of backdoor bandits? Do voters need Hayden as his fellow pandering poodle?
The three judges mentioned, among others, have entertained perjurers and used “judicial independence” to remain unaccountable in their disrespect for law. This contrasts with their Draconian use of police to demand respect for those same laws by the proletariat. [Judicial Reform Act]
Doerty’s orders have allowed Council House directors and their building manager to launch a neo-fascist campaign of hate that has now extended beyond the original conspirators who framed tenants and jailed them. It has allowed Mitchell and his thugs to increase their campaign of terror against residents with impunity. They can now disseminate propaganda and lie to cover up their crimes under court protection - the essence of the Hawk case now continued for hearing (26 Sep 05) [Impunity]
Instead of upholding the law, Doerty and Hayden have given Council House directors and their administrator a license to indulge in character assassination without any opportunity to refute it. They have also given them a license to start an open season on residents. Mitchell has used that license to escalate his reign of terror. Tyrants inherently feel insecure which manifests in aberration which becomes progressively dangerous.
The escalation of the war against dissident residents who advocate freedom of speech and assembly has now reached greater proportions than originally reported. By allowing their managers to impose a neo-fascist ideology upon tenants, the directors threaten the freedom of both speech and conscience. [Freedom of Conscience]
Both directors and employees have a perfect entitlement to hold political views and to advocate their arguments publicly. However, they may not treat them as unquestionable truth and force residents to accept them under penalty of eviction. Any denial of the right to a particular political sentiment through coercion defines as demagoguery.
In their support of Mitchell, the directors have no apparent reason other than to establish power, and satisfy greed. This manifests in bigoted indifference to the suffering of their tenants.
Doerty took away any protection that reporters had from unethical attacks upon them and their writing. He left them vulnerable to a constant stream of hate mail and articles published on the web and in the print media by Council House propagandists. He denied them their right to refute that propaganda by issuing a no-contact order and allowed the directors to cover up their crimes with anonymity which left tenants open to physical assault by thugs.
If reporters do not name perpetrators of alleged crimes then the authorities do not know whom to investigate. The court order allows retaliation against journalists by censoring their work, jailing them, and physically assaulting them. Using anonymity, management has extended that abuse to Council House tenants who reported unlawful activity to authorities. Managers have retaliated against them with a campaign of terror using tenant Kapos.
Effectively, Judge Doerty’s order and appellate Judge Mary Kay Becker’s affirmation have granted anonymity to directors, their administrator, and their thugs. They have created an open season that allows them to impose egregious punishment on individuals for dissenting or reporting crimes to government authorities.
Since the decision (27 Feb 02) to jail a reporter and silence him, employees have taken advantage of the anonymity and immunity to escalate the terror. They can now kill messengers with impunity and create an aura of fear that dissuades residents from speaking out.
Fortunately, Hawk has legal counsel for her trial on eviction and First Amendment issues before Washington Superior Court, Seattle (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 Das, Davis Wright Tremaine, will represent Hawk.
Both attorneys work under the aegis of the Housing Justice Project (KCBA) and will challenge Council House on grounds that Mitchell has tried to evict Hawk for exercising her right to freedom of speech and on several other issues. Alex J. Rose, Silence Censor Beleageur, Seattle, represents Stephen A. Mitchell and Council House Inc.
Mitchell, a racist, narcissistic, hedonistic, out-of work actor, spends most of his time harassing selected tenants as their building manager. He either uses direct harassment supported by thugs or brings frivolous harassment lawsuits against tenants using straws as either fronts or witnesses. Totally unqualified for the job and sociopathic, he has for more than ten years created a variety of characters and personas in order to obtain taxpayer funding for his musical, theatrical, and “ministering” ventures. [Creative Clever Cunning Creature]
|
Poseur - A person who habitually pretends to be something he is not. One who affects a particular attitude, character, or manner to impress others.
|
Statement by
Washington State
Superior Court Judge
Anthony P. Wartnik:
He's right where he should be . . .
Solitary Confinement
Lynn C. Wartnik, his wife
and former co-president
Council House, Seattle,
forged HUD documents
to insure appointment of
Stephen A. Mitchell as
Building Administrator
and committed perjury
to place a tenant in
solitary confinement.
Prosecutors must now
indict Wartnik's wife for
forgery and perjury.
|
As a straw for his directors, he ruthlessly harasses tenants by filing false police reports in attempts to control their psyches. Paradoxically, he advertises himself to attract women in newspaper personal columns by portraying himself as the epitome of decency and spirituality. Disingenuously, he bills himself in a Seattle Weekly advertisement as a creative, clever, creature.
Full of false character claims, also manufactured professional and educational qualifications, the advertisement presents him to any rational person in a narcissistic way based upon his acting persona. From his self-description one would not recognize him as a paranoid, dangerous, and evil sociopath. [Histrionics and Narcissism]
Conclusion
Council House directors rely upon censorship and propaganda to direct public attention away from dysfunctional behavior, elder abuse, and misappropriation of federal funds. They know that expression becomes meaningless without freedom to publish ideas and opinion. Consequently, they silence dissenters with court orders for prior restraint, then jail the reporter.
Neo-fascists control Council House through the indifference of directors to their stratagems and segregation by stratum. Instead, of meeting their responsibilities as state actors they deliberately violate laws that support that financial privilege. The directors have found that it pays them handsomely to continue a policy of willful blindness protected by anonymity.
A Council House tenant and German-Jewish dissenter and survivor of the Shoah claims with others that he has experienced camp tyranny at the hands of Mitchell and his Kapos. He says that he experienced the horror of a concentration camp during the 1930s and that his family died in a camp during the 1940s. He said that if his family had dissented with him, and not acquiesced to Nazi propaganda, then they would probably have survived.
Council House directors' public appearance of benevolence insults the intelligence. When challenged by ethical and honest people, they throw money at their problems by giving their administrator virtually unlimited financial resources for myriad lawyers.
For an all-Jewish board of directors to ignore the admonishment by Elie Wiesel that: "Indifference to evil is evil", belies reason and epitomizes that evil. Indifference to evil condoned by jurists through grants of anonymity and impunity with endorsement of constitutional violations gives more offense than the evil itself.
[Nmesis]
Ages shown (30 Jun 05).
|
