Fourth Estate comes into play when the judiciary and legal profession fail to investigate their own people. Judge James A. Doerty must presently rank as the most unethical judge in Washington Superior Court system. However, neither the judiciary nor Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) have apparently done anything to remedy or halt his rampage despite world wide media coverage about his judicial misconduct. Doerty’s decisions and court transcripts show a need for immediate action to remove him from the bench.

WSBA has maintained a hypocritical silence in Doerty’s case. Former Washington State Bar Association President Jan Eric Peterson reportedly said that WSBA reprimands send two important messages - that judges must remain accountable and that disparaging remarks that reflect bias remain a serious issue. Yet WSBA has issued no reprimand in Doerty’s case although alive to his misconduct for almost three years. [Rampant Judicial Delusion]

Corrective procedures become more difficult to implement when an appellate court knowingly drags its feet for three years on a case that documents blatant judicial misconduct. This gives the public a perception that they want to protect one of their own especially when both an appellate judge (with supreme court aspirations) and Doerty approach reelection.

The appellate court gives the impression that it has a vested interest in procrastination for a variety of reasons. This exacerbates the damage to victims of elder abuse instead of mitigating it. Doerty’s decisions facilitated egregious abuse of senior citizens which continues unabated three years later. Meanwhile, the people responsible (with personal connections to, and leverage with, Washington courts) evade prosecution. [Court-Facilitated Terror] [Impunity]

Legislative presumption in democratic societies requires either election or appointment of fair and competent judges to interpret and apply laws. Those judges must respect and honor their judicial office as a public trust both individually and collectively. They must always strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the legal system. As arbiters, the public expects them to resolve disputes and symbolize respect for government and rule by law. Moreover, justice requires that the public perceive equity and fairness as well as lawful decisions.

Reasonable people follow a general proposition that the First Amendment to the US Constitution secures freedom of expression about public issues. US Supreme Court decisions have long endorsed forthrightness and condemned prior restraint (political correctness). Seminal case law provides for uninhibited and robust debate on public issues in all media. Sometimes, that debate may include unpleasantly sharp attacks on incompetent judges. [01]

In Washington State, the Code of Judicial Conduct establishes authoritative standards for the ethical conduct of judges. It contains canons (established principles) that show how to behave ethically, consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, court rules, and decisional law. [Code of Judicial Conduct]

The Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC), Washington State claims that:

The Commission works to protect the integrity of the judicial process and promote public confidence in the courts. It also serves to improve and strengthen the judiciary by creating in judges a greater awareness of proper judicial behavior.

To that end, the canons provide a structure for conduct regulation. They call for disciplinary agencies to consider all relevant circumstances. They show whether a pattern of improper activity exists in a particular case and the effect that it has upon others or on the judicial system as a whole. Generally, these canons govern the conduct of judges and bind them to legal and ethical practices. [Canons]

Under those rules, judges must conduct themselves in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards applicable to all lawyers. Those standards call for a consistently high level of judicial and personal conduct. Judge James A. Doerty, Superior Court, State of Washington, has no respect for those canons. He behaves in a way that should incur severe disciplinary action for gross judicial misconduct. Particularly, the Commission on Judicial Misconduct should evaluate Trummel v. Mitchell to learn about Doerty’s abuse of privilege and misconduct within particular areas defined thus:

Bias and Prejudice: The inclination to one side in a dispute with a particular, bent, prepossession, or preconceived opinion. A predisposition to decide a cause or an issue in a certain way without having a mind open to conviction. A condition of mind that sways judgment and renders a judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in a particular case. Judicial behavior that leads in law to the disqualification of a judge. A mental attitude or disposition toward a party to a litigation that does not address alternative views regarding subject matter. [02]

Reverse Discrimination: Prejudice or bias exercised by a person or class for purpose of correcting a perceived pattern of discrimination against another person or class. A type of bias in which the majority group perceives discrimination in favor of minority groups from which he gains privilege. [03]

Protected Class: Groups that the law seeks to protect, which include consideration of race, sex, national origin, and religion. [04]

Ex Parte Communication. The canons specify that judges must accord to every legally interested person a right to a full hearing according to law. They may neither initiate nor indulge in ex parte communication concerning the proceedings. The term “ex parte” means a judicial proceeding for a court order or injunction granted at the instance of, and for the benefit of, one party without notice to, or a contestation by, the person adversely affected.

Perjury. A deliberate assertion about a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, deemed material to an issue or point of inquiry, sworn into evidence with intent to mislead or with knowledge of its falseness. [05] Or, the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under an oath or disallowing a discovery process to cause that condition.

Defamation. Speaking base and defamatory words that prejudice a person’s reputation, community standing, office, trade, business, or means of a livelihood. [06]

Oral Defamation. Speaking false or malicious words, by which injury results to another person’s reputation. [07]

Libel and Slander. Both methods of defamation, the former symbolized by print, writing, pictures, or signs, and the latter by oral expression or transitory gestures.

Ad hominem. Invective without reason. Used by sick people venting their spleen without knowing the rhetorical difference between ad hominem and satire (iconoclasm). Satire. A legitimate genre that uses invective based upon reason to explore a proposition and state an opinion, For example, a judge who defines satire as a violent act shows that he does not know the difference between satire (iconoclasm) and ad hominem. [Satire and Affect]

Generally, WSBA and CJC should examine Doerty’s gross humiliation, character assassination, libel, and slander. He placed a litigant in a position where he could not respond or defend himself without incurring contempt of court. In addition, it should particularly examine the incidence of ex parte communication that led to incarceration on perjured charges. The testimony brought by that communicant, another judge, without allowing the victim the benefit of counsel or due process of law, also needs investigation.

Clearly, to any reasoning observer, Doerty’s findings (17 Jun 02) and (21 Jun 02) represent a travesty of justice and blatant judicial misconduct. The canons clearly define appropriate conduct for judges concerning people appearing before them. In Trummel v. Mitchell, Doerty has from the start (20 Mar 01) adopted an insolent and aggressive attitude toward the petitioner.

A journalist and associate professor, Doerty publicly humiliated him, then insinuated and arbitrarily denied that he possessed the professional and academic credentials that he holds. Doerty’s extreme behavior has caused attorneys worldwide to express their concern and both lawyers and the international press corps have described him as “running amok” and “out-of-control”.

The judicial canons require judges to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of judicial conduct and personally observe them by maintaining standards of integrity, independence, and impartiality. They must comply with the law. Doerty has neglected to follow those canons and has indulged in abusive behavior that can only define as gross judicial misconduct.

The canon calls for judges to perform their judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Doerty’s behavior hardly construes as unbiased. Judges may not make any public comment expected to affect the outcome of a case. Yet, the continued humiliation and ridicule of petitioner, also the implication that he holds no academic or journalistic credentials, affected the outcome of the case.

Moreover, Doerty’s grandstanding for the media has greatly affected their perception of the litigant’s character and in turn the public perception of him as evidenced by some media reports. A judge knowingly distributing propaganda automatically creates severe prejudice therefore the need for canons that control such behavior.

Here, the judge initiated the proceedings (20 Mar 01). He gave legal advice to one party that adversely effected the other which eventually led to incarceration without benefit of counsel or due process of law. He has since withheld hundreds of documents and transcripts to cover up his misconduct at that hearing.

The misconduct increased when Doerty repeated derogatory and humiliating ex parte remarks made by opposing parties and entered them into evidence without logic or reason. The canons specify that judges must accord to every legally interested person a right to a full hearing according to law. They must neither initiate nor indulge in ex parte communications concerning the proceedings. By using ex parte communication, Judges like Doerty threaten the very foundation of free expression and democratic practice let alone the principle of justice.

Judge Anthony P. Wartnik, a senior judge in the same court system, allegedly, encouraged Doerty ex parte to issue an order sua sponte (without prompting or suggestion!). That order caused placement of the petitioner, incommunicado, in maximum security with solitary confinement for twenty-five days in addition to 86 days already spent in general population. The opposing party neither brought disciplinary charges against him nor filed motions to support this extreme measure.

In other words, Wartnik and Doerty, both superior court judges, could do whatever they liked behind the petitioner’s back leaving him no recourse in law. Using that unusual and illegal prerogative they allegedly conspired to increase the coercion for contempt of court. They elevated it to a level that put the petitioner in close quarters with an accused serial murderer/rapist, a cop-killer, and other violent individuals. Jail authorities classified them as “ultra-security inmates”.

The petitioner personally interviewed many inmates. They showed a higher degree of integrity and honesty than Doerty has shown from the bench or Wartnik, his wife, and other Council House directors have shown anytime during these proceedings. The maxim “honesty among thieves” rang very true under those circumstances. [List of names and addresses of Council House directors]

One of those accused murderers will soon appear before Wartnik. A reasonable person must fear for him. Will he, a person of color, receive an unbiased hearing from a bigoted judge before he receives a death sentence - a likely penalty in that particular case?

The ex parte activity allegedly protected Wartnik’s wife, Lynn, from exposure for complicity in abusing senior citizens and misappropriating government funds. She previously held the position of co-president and remains a director of that HUD, financially-assisted, senior citizen housing facility with substantial equity interest. A reasonable person would expect Judge Wartnik to have an ongoing interest appreciation of those assets.

Doerty entered false statements into evidence made by Stephen (aka Stefan) A. Mitchell, Council House administrator and executive director who claimed that: “. . . Council House was federally examined and no negligence or tenant abuse was found . . .” [08] and “Federal investigators have not found evidence of wrongdoing”, [09] both skewed statements neither validated by a public records search nor verified by US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the oversight authority.

This occurrence had a direct bearing on the case. Much of the evidence predicated upon reports to government authorities about abuse of tenants and misappropriation of government funds at Council House also retaliation for filing those reports. Doerty ignored the mandated immunity due the petitioner for filing them. [Elder Abuse - Preface]

Washington law requires that any person who complains to any branch or agency of federal, state, or local government, about organizations subject to agency oversight remains immune from civil liability. Doerty should have granted that immunity. He should also have granted protection from retaliation for performing that civic duty. Instead of granting that protection guaranteed under the law, he granted immunity to the perpetrators of the crimes that exposed in the reports. [RCW 4.24.510]

Doerty brought the judiciary into disrepute by denying due process of law and exempted Council House directors from their legal duties, penalties, and liabilities. He effectively granted them immunity from prosecution. The directors continue their indifference to resident abuse and misappropriation of funds despite public exposure. [Impunity]

People who accept public money have no right to privacy. They remain subject to review despite judges who grant them immunity. However, one must admire the directors’ business acumen, they apparently now own three superior court judges - James A. Doerty, Michael C. Hayden, and Anthony P. Wartnik - all with a guilty until proven innocent mentality - probably more will surface in the future.

Doerty sits on the bench with a laptop computer. He uses the web to obtain evidence without verifying or validating it then enters it into the record. He claims to have his own web page - so that makes him an expert? Even tyro web surfers know that one must carefully scrutinize web information and verify it using investigative tools before accepting online statements.

Using character assassination and a consistent pattern of emotional remarks to make personal political statements, clearly ranks as an abuse of office. This particularly applies when, although required to exhibit fairness without personal bias, he obtained libelous statements from the Internet and places them on the court record.

Doerty lacks even a modicum of patience, dignity, or courtesy to litigants. Instead, as the public can see from the transcripts, he has ranted slanderously to the detriment of one litigant in favor of another. His forays into rhetoric require some remedial education until he understands that satire has a legitimate purpose in communication where ad hominem does not. [Satire and Affect]

An intelligent lay person studying the findings and transcripts will recognize not only Doerty’s ignorance of law but his vicious attacks. Most of those attacks concerned the reputation and character of a principal litigant and his attorney. Posting links on his personal web site to official court documents knowing them to contain false and malicious information also destroys the perception of integrity inherent in some courts.

Conclusion

The canon calls for judges to take appropriate disciplinary action when they have knowledge of another judge committing a violation of the judicial code. Washington State Bar Association also has a vested interest in court integrity and must act in this case. Disciplinary action particularly applies when a judge allegedly has a personal financial stake in equity dealings with his wife that form part of the evidence in the case under adjudication.

Doerty’s attempts to censor the Internet show an abysmal ignorance of technology and rhetorical structure. Moreover, based on his web surfing, he has issued contempt findings against a journalist to silence him without questioning evidence or understanding news gathering.

Reasonable people expect all judges to have studied Socratic method. They expect them to have at least a basic understanding of rhetorical assumption, implication, and conclusion, even if they know nothing about computer technology and the law.

A democratic legal system predicates upon the principle that an independent, fair, and competent, judiciary, will interpret and apply the laws that govern. The role of the judiciary remains interpretation and not construction of law to insure adherence to accepted notions of justice and the rule of law.

The judicial code provides the framework and precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect. They must honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the overall legal system. Elected judges sit as arbiters of facts and law which allows them to resolve disputes. They serve at the pleasure of the electorate. Consequently, they must project a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

Nmesis.