|
Hawk defies the Raven
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
I would like to thank all those working to stop my eviction for their diligence and caring. I think it is a huge victory to have Council House offer me $5,000 in that it shows how effective my defense counsel has been. However I have never been in this to gain for myself.
Elena Luisa Garella has made it very clear that it would be to my personal advantage to take this offer but I am making a stand to help all the tenants at Council House. It came to my attention that this apartment complex was being mismanaged much to the detriment of the tenants and I had to reject the offer despite the arguments put forth by Elena Garella and Kaustuv Das.
They are both eloquent and obviously care for my well-being but I am making a stand to benefit all tenants. No one has been able to stand up to Mitchell and his unfair policies and remain as a tenant. I do not think I should have to be forced to move because Mitchell feels threatened by anyone disagreeing with his policies and course of actions that are harmful to many tenants causing much stress and disruption to many tenants’ lives.
Garella and Das have made it very clear to me that I could lose this case and that would leave me homeless, which in my case jeopardizes my life. My life would be worthless. I would have quantity but no quality if I ran out on my duty here which I see as standing up for those who are powerless to oppose Mitchell and his abusive policies. I could not live with myself knowing I was turning my back on those people who need and want respite from Mitchell and staff.
I appreciate the legal arguments in my behalf and all the hard work it took to get Council House to recognize they are wrong in trying to evict me as they have never offered any settlement before. They are only doing so as they fear losing which would mean Mitchell and the staff and Board would come under scrutiny for policies they have inflicted on tenants. The lawyers’ work has been excellent.
The goal of Mitchell and others is to stop any disagreement with the policies currently in effect and to not hire someone with the abilities to run Council House in a positive manner. This is a matter of principle for me and no amount of money can sway me from my course which is to make a secure living environment for all tenants.
I am humbled and very grateful that so many quality people have taken a stand to help me. My ultimate goal is to see tenants have a safe place to live where they don't feel threatened if they disagree with staff. Also I would like to see someone hired with the background and managerial skills necessary to the job of running Council House in an effective, impartial manner that would allow the tenants to feel comfortable and free again.
I am not rejecting this settlement because of any lack of defense by my lawyers but because my moral convictions won't allow me to gain at the expense of others. I am trying to make a statement that no tenant should be harassed and/or evicted because Mitchell does not personally like them.
If I leave there is no one to fight for the rights of tenants here, and why should I lose my home and go through the stress of moving because Mitchell lacks administrative skills and has a personal vendetta against tenants who rebel against his tyrannical manipulations.
If they get rid of me then their path to dictatorial control is clear and there would be no chance to free the tenants to live a secure and happy life, so leaving is not an option for me. Also I would like to feel that I have the right as an American to live in an environment that does not harass or threaten tenants that would like to discuss making positive changes.
$5000 doesn't begin to address the issues that Mitchell has brought to the detriment of tenants and I would not be able to sleep nor like myself if I left for personal gain without dealing with how Mitchell and the office staff have abused their power and hurt current and past tenants.
I would like to see that $5000 put in a fund for tenants and to have Council House stop wasting tenant money on defending Mitchell’s abrogation of tenant civil rights. The unfairness of him attacking tenants and then using tenant money to defend himself is ironic.
Lauren Jeanne Hawk
1501 17th Ave # 307
Seattle, WA 98122
206 568 3439
Rejected Offers
|
|
Second Offer Rejected
|
|
Seattle. 05-0914-1200.
|
|
Despite Hawk’s refusal to accept the offer made by Council House directors, their lawyers returned (14 Sep 05) with a new but similar offer. Hawk has classified the directors as “outrageous” and the offer as “horrific”.
|
|
Hawk says that Council House lawyers now offer to:
|
|
Dismiss the case against Hawk without prejudice; create a $5,000 fund for mediation to avoid similar issues in the future; review rule G to define “rude and abusive behavior”; and, allow Hawk to continue to live at Council House.
|
|
In return Hawk must:
|
|
Agree not to sue them for retaliation for speaking out about Mitchell’s behavior; and, allow Council House to leave an existing no-contact order in place.
|
|
Hawk responded to SCaB through her lawyer:
|
|
Are they crazy? They should have put $10,000 into mediation and [investigated] Mitchell’s behavior that causes all these lawsuits and angry tenants. How dare they suggest I have a 'no-contact' order when I have been the one harassed unmercifully by Mitchell and his enforcers.
|
|
As far as dropping the suit without prejudice I have only heard lies and deceit and manipulations from Mitchell and others and have no doubt they are just trying another way to oust me. I have heard a lot of words and not seen any actions that show any real concern for the silent majority of Council House tenants who do not follow and blindly applaud Mitchell.
|
|
Hawk says that if she agreed to their offer then they could bring the same issues up in the future at will because they do not promise to change anything. She has asked Garella to insure that SCaB submit any future settlement offers in writing over an official signature. She says that she will not listen or respond to anything they do not submit in writing.
|
|
Hawk maintains that Council House and their lawyers “are treacherous as hell” and that Garella should not have to field their garbage. She ended by saying that she considered Mitchell and his lawyers insane to make such an offer.
|
|
|
Coffee with Steve
|
|
Seattle. 05-0915-1200.
|
|
After Hawk rejected SCaB’s second offer, Mitchell held a Coffee with Steve meeting with tenants (14 Sep 05). Hawk reports that:
|
|
Mitchell told his audience of about thirty tenants that, whatever the court decides (26 Sep 05), he will evict her anyway. He said he had evicted people who won in court before and he would make sure that he would eventually evict her.
|
|
Mitchell ranted and raved to transform the audience into a lynch mob after which three tenants told her she should die. Mitchell spoke non-stop for 75 minutes and worked his audience to a point where they started shouting. He finished by urging tenants to call police and get restraining orders against her for no particular reason.
|
|
|
Third Offer Rejected
|
|
Seattle. 05-0916-2056.
|
|
Hawk says that SCaB contacted her again. They said that they would dismiss the law suit and pay her lawyer’s costs if she would forgo legal fees. She told them “absolutely not!”
|
|
Hawk explained:
|
|
They started this and my lawyers worked hard and deserve to be paid. If it was so hard on Council House, then why didn't SCaB give up their fees?
|
|
I told them I would seek to settle things by going to the board to get the current staff fired for abusing tenants they do not like. I intend to ask the directors to hire qualified caring people to replace them.
|
|
It has always been my goal to stop the racism and the illegal targeting of individuals who oppose Mitchell’s dictatorial and harassing policies.
|
|
SCaB cannot fathom someone who works for the common good. It have never had on my agenda an intention to seek monetary damages. They do not understand that money cannot provide an answer to the problem.
|
|
A lawyer commented:
|
|
They're running for the hills and well they should as they have backed a very bad horse in Mitchell.
|
|
|
The Scab Shimmy: Off-Again, On-Again
|
|
Seattle. 05-0928-0000.
|
|
Council House filed a motion to dismiss the case that they brought to evict Hawk. They asked for a decision without prejudice and without an award of Hawk’s attorneys' fees and costs. They gave no particular reason other than that they wanted to dismiss the case without paying lawyer fees and costs.
|
|
Seattle. 05-1003-0000.
|
|
Council House withdrew its motion to dismiss which effectively reinstated its eviction action against Hawk. Hawk claims that they did this because she insisted that any dismissal include payment of her attorney fees and costs. She said that Council House brought the case and she had to defend herself so why should they not pay her attorney when they want to back out. She also objected to without prejudice because Council House could bring a new case on the same issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puget Sound Quadrille
|
|
It must be a very pretty dance, said Alice timidly. Would you like to see a little of it?” said the Scab Turtle. Very much indeed, said Alice.
|
|
So they began solemnly dancing round and round Alice, every now and then treading on her toes when they passed too close, and waving to mark the time, while the Scab Turtle sang this, very slowly and sadly:
|
|
Will you walk a little faster? said a whiting to a snail.
There's a porpoise close behind us, and he's treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance!
They are waiting on the shingle - will you come and join the dance?
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, won't you join the dance?
|
|
Thank you, it's a very interesting dance to watch, said Alice, feeling very glad that it was over at last: I do so like that curious song about a trial!
|
|
With Apologies to Lewis Carroll. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
|
|
|
 |
The Issues
|
|
First Amendment
|
|
Washington Superior Court
|
|
Reversal of a preliminary restraining order and defense in a contingent eviction proceeding.
|
|
That a tenant qualifies for eviction upon arbitrarily classification as a rude and abusive person.
|
|
Fourteenth Amendment
|
|
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and City of Seattle (SOCR)
|
|
Reversal of a Seattle Office of Civil Rights decision by Seattle Human Rights Commission.
|
|
That no racism occurred at Council House, Seattle.
|
|
|
The Trial
Elena Luisa Garella, Attorney-at-Law, Seattle, a prominent First Amendment lawyer (already an attorney in the Council House Supreme Court action) and Kaustuv Das, Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT), will represent Hawk. Both attorneys work under the aegis of the Housing Justice Project (KCBA).
Garella and Das will challenge the constitutionality of Council House actions on grounds that Mitchell has tried to evict Hawk for exercising her right to freedom of speech and on several other constitutional issues.
[Hawk and the Raven] [First and Fourteenth] [Lawyer - Open Letter]
Appellate court decisions by allegedly corrupt judges in another Council House First Amendment case await a Washington Supreme Court decision that will allow publication of Council House directors’ and lawyers’ names; meanwhile, pseudonyms replace them. [Supreme Court Review]
|
