Contra Cabal 806-31-80 - Elder Abuse

The Scab Family

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]

Hon. Robert F. Utter, Retired Justice, Washington State Supreme Court wrote that: "The vibrancy of our Democracy depends upon our willingness to ensure that the fullest range of voices and interests is represented and heard. This is what the fight for equal justice is all about." Washington State Bar Association [WSBA] uses that quotation as a slogan but Washington judges pay little heed to it and repeatedly deny due process of law.

Washington State Court Rules of Professional Conduct [RPC] require lawyers to make a full disclosure of their interest. Those rules contain nothing that allows lawyers to remain anonymous and unidentifiable.
[RPC Rule 8.4 Misconduct]

Yet Judge James A. (Jiminy) Doerty, a straw queer and judicial poseur, issued an order disallowing such disclosure. That gives the Scab Family protection from exposure, allows them to act unlawfully in a similar way to their clients, and placed prior restraint upon a journalist.

In effect, Doerty granted the Scab Family a license to kill and sanctioned a conspiracy - a confederacy among lawyers and judges supporting unlawful or criminal acts.

Silence Censor Beleaguer [ScaB], a rogue law firm in Seattle, employs inept, scabrous tyros straight out of school to handle dirty work for its clients. The partners apparently have a revolving door employment policy. The Scab Family consists of Richard Apathetic Scab [rScab], his protégés Thane Deceitful Scab [tScab], and his hetaera Maureen Licentious Scab [mScab]. Gretchen Duplicitous Scab [gScab] and her mentor [Billie Bullshit] have become the most recent additions to the family.

Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB) has joined the Silence Censor Beleaguer (SCaB) group of law firms (now internationally known as the Scab family) which acts as counsel for Council House, Seattle. . gScab, their hit man, must count as number eleven or twelve in a stream of incompetent, lawyers that Council House directors and Stephen A. Mitchell (40), the building manager, have employed during the past five years.
[Tell it to the Judge]
[Straw-Man Stratagem]

That number does not take into account straw judges and lawyers that Council House made use of unofficially to undertake their ex parte dirty work. They protect Mitchell when he abuses elderly people, deprives them of their constitutional rights, and commits other crimes.
[Constitutional Rights Initiative] [Impunity]

The extended Scab family consists of lawyers and their clients who use five residents as thugs (Kapos) to suborn perjury. The following examples only begin to describe the full extent of their illegal and aberrant behavior. [Five Kapos] [See Sidebar for Alleged Offenses]

Mitchell sponsored this illegal and immoral activity. Indifferent directors knowingly sanctioned it in complicity with SCaB lawyers.

The Scab Family conspires, jointly and severally, to make resident lives a living hell. Three allegedly corrupt Washington judges [Doerty] [Hayden] [Wartnik] (and several others presently under close observation) condone the behavior by communicating ex parte and denying due process of law to pervert justice in their own interest.

This theater of the absurd emphasizes ludicrous folly. SCaB lawyers and captive judges employ disjointed, repetitious, and meaningless dialogue. They create purposeless and confusing situations then write scripts that lack any realistic or logical development. [Theater of the Absurd]

Unbelievable as it may seem to rational people, Doerty approved this rhetorical style when he prohibited publication of the names of lawyers and their clients. He created this satirist’s paradise in which the targets write their own copy. Any lawyer, especially a superior court judge, who practices prior restraint then says on the court record: “I believe you have the right to . . . be as critical as you want . . . of these proceedings and me,” bears the mark of a fool. [Satire and Affect]

The pseudonyms used in this essay differentiate and identify people without violating Doerty’s order. They have his specific authorization which he entered into the court record. Anthropomorphic likenesses appear in some essays until Washington Supreme Court reverses his decision and the appellate finding on First Amendment grounds. They replace political cartoons that he censored.

mScab worked for the Court of Appeals as a law clerk - a court charged with hearing an appeal predicated upon her own professional misconduct. That misconduct includes alleged conspiracy, complicity in subornation, manufacture of evidence, and intimidating or blackmailing witnesses. Evidently, Smith College (1995) and University of Washington Law School (2000) taught her very little about ethics and even less about morality.

Despite published allegations about subornation by mScab, Court of Appeals employed her as a clerk either without investigating her previous record or by choosing to ignore it. A reasonable person would postulate that court managers should have hesitated before employing her.

Prior to appellate employment, she manipulated and negated court procedure by making false declarations. However, Washington Supreme Court in its wisdom (or perhaps just on its knowledge of law) chose to unanimously counter appellate court machination used to avoid hearing the case.

Not bad going for a tyro lawyer just out of school who now reaps the rewards of appellate court employment despite a blatant conflict of interest. Her superiors should have ordered her not to attend oral argument in an attempt to give at least the appearance of probity.

mScab will become subject to a complaint under RPC on completion of the case. tScab will probably join his “sister-in-law” before the bar association. Hopefully, that will result in disbarment for both of them and warn future graduates against similar behavior. Enough scab attorneys already practice without admitting more of them to the bar.

Apparently, tScab no longer works for SCaB which he joined after graduating from Washington State University (1998) and University of Washington Law School (2001). His sojourn as an intern in Australia (1999) probably helped him hop into place for his first case before Washington kangaroo courts. Who knows how many judges this joey now has hidden in his mother’s pouch?

gScab, new to the scene, adds to the Kafkaesque production with duplicity and professional misconduct. Angela Milton-Dawson, Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR), made a promise to a Council House tenant that she would protect witness names by using pseudonyms.

Despite the promised anonymity, the designated SOCR investigator disclosed the names to gScab. gScab then transmitted the information to Mitchell who immediately tampered with some witnesses and intimidated others.

Although the whole investigation revolved around racial prejudice against blacks by Jews, the investigator (a Jew) only interviewed one black person on the list and did not record what he said. Apparently, he described racist events that the investigator and gScab did not want on record.

gScab “adjusted” the testimony of witnesses that favored Council House, several of whom had a history of committing perjury for Mitchell. She then returned the amended and signed statements to the investigator who apparently filed them as work product. [Racial Prejudice and Civil Rights]

gScab apparently now wants to enter the doctored statements as evidence in an ongoing eviction trial. It seems that the sole purpose of gScab’s involvement in the (SOCR) investigation related more to preparing witnesses and evidence for an eviction trial than achieving an equitable decision in a civil rights investigation. She apparently used an access opportunity to manufacture evidence favorable to her client, probably the reason that SCaB employed her as straw lawyer in the first place. [Straw-Man Stratagem]

Journalism ethics and customs do not expect a reporter to obtain waivers from sources and it remains impractical for him to do so - especially when a no-contact order potentially restrains him from approaching thousands of people. Journalism waivers and permissions normally only apply to photographs in particular circumstances such as rape and child photography - permissions that Doerty neglected to obtain when he used more than thirty pictures of children on his web site during his election campaign. [Queer Connection: Pedophilia]

Journalists have a responsibility to report the details and to name the people that they allege have committed crimes. Therefore, withholding the names of people who have committed illegal acts for politically correct reasons subverts journalistic ethics. Political correctness defines as self-censorship. Deletion of names from a report changes the content and context thereby making it less than truthful. Ethics and law prevent publication of anything less than truth and one cannot “unpublish” material already published. [Shame Naming and Blaming] [Political Correctness]

Judge Mary Kay Becker questioned prior restraint in publishing names during oral argument. She stated unequivocally that the author wanted to write about Council House administrators who put residents in jeopardy. She asked counsel: “Is it. . . possible to do that without . . . identifying the administrator? [Satire and Affect: Prior Restraint] [Full Disclosure]

Council House administrators and directors have unlawfully manipulated tenant lifestyles and cruelly tried to impose their ideology upon elderly people then denied them recourse. The directors live in affluence and think that laws do not apply to them. Documents show that they organized a deliberate campaign of perjury to cover up alleged homicide and the unlawful incarceration of four residents.

In the cover up, mScab willfully encouraged her client and his principal thug to suborn and intimidate witnesses by assisting them in their unlawful and coercive activities. Moreover, she aided and abetted them in filing frivolous and capricious law suits that made false allegations of non-compliance with a restraining order. [Trials of Leon Harris]

Three years after the original order and six months after oral argument the appellate court continues to procrastinate. A former appellate clerk claimed that most judges make decisions before oral argument. After reading the transcripts and oral argument any competent lawyer would conclude that a decision should not take so long to make. It transpired that an ulterior motive factored into the long-delayed appellate deliberations. [She Knows you Know]

tScab replaced mScab when she left SCaB for the Court of Appeals. He continued the unprofessional practices that mScab and rScab initiated and tried to fight a rearguard action to cover up some of the previous machination.

tScab made outrageous claims that he could, with impunity, proffer “evidence” (forty-three perjured declarations that Mitchell, fScab, and mScab suborned) then deny a continuance to facilitate legal representation. By that, SCaB automatically prevented discovery - the process that compels disclosure of documents before a proceeding and cross-examination. One has only to read the declarations then study the style and language structure to know that most of them emanate from a single author [fScab) who mass produced testimony. tScab argued that the suborned testimony did not need a "trial-type hearing" with cross-examination of witnesses.

A responsible person would not trust any lawyer that far, let alone the Scab family. As a result, his firm, allegedly in collusion with the judge, caused a reporter to lose his home instantly then go to jail and solitary confinement, all this without a proper trial or legal representation that would give him a chance to defend himself. He still remains homeless more than four years later. A string of other Council House tenants have since received similar treatment.
[Metamorphosis] [Hawk and the Raven]

The lack of a “trial-type hearing” also allowed the courts to ignore the fact that Mitchell has had four elderly people incarcerated and had complicity in at least two deaths: both probably classify as homicide by abuse. Moreover, he has terrorized many other senior citizens by either ordering Kapos or coercing an elite to call the police about residents without probable cause.

His monstrous behavior includes planned ostracism and virtual imprisonment of residents in their apartments that he calls his “zero tolerance policy”. To boast about his whimsical persecution he holds Coffee with Steve meetings each month. At that time, he turns residents against each other with vacuous arguments. If anyone questions him then his Kapos make them write apologies that he files as confessions for later use as blackmail. This segment of a tape recording transcript exemplifies his modus operandi. [Coffee with Steve - Transcript]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Doerty and Paul L. Sherfey (King County Superior Court Clerk) have withheld 500 documents requested (12 Dec 02) under the Public Disclosure Act and a transcript for more than four years. Doerty also refused to let the petitioner see 200 documents that Council House handed to him during the hearing (20 Mar 01). Doerty has also buried the sworn and notarized affidavits that supported the petitioner in bringing his anti-harassment suit and used only the perjured declarations.

This followed a previous incident when Mitchell refused review of the same 200 documents contained in a “blackmail file” - one of many duplicate personal files that he maintains on several residents contrary to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations.

Doerty allowed the Scabs to quote from perjured declarations at successive hearings and to cover up resident abuse by their client. The most recent cover up occurred during oral argument (14 Nov 03). This behavior runs contrary to the judicial code based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern.
[Code of Judicial Conduct]

The Scabs made false allegations and fatuous arguments before the appellate court. Withholding the transcript covers up the fact that Doerty gave legal advice from the bench to Council House which persuaded them to bring a counterclaim (based upon perjured testimony) in the first place.

At an appellate hearing (14 Nov 03), tScab lied through his teeth to cover up his firm's attempts to pervert justice in alleged consort with judges [Doerty] [Hayden] [Wartnik]. Moreover, in one of the most garbled arguments heard by this reporter in over fifty years reading law and legal rhetoric, tScab destroyed himself. In fairness, the case needed a more experienced attorney to argue it. Why did rScab not handle the oral argument? Did he need more time to orchestrate more fraudulent scenarios?

tScab started his presentation by introducing “forty-three declarations submitted by Council House residents that detailed the harassment that they suffered in Council House” knowing that his clients and mScab had suborned that testimony through intimidation and coercion. gScab has now followed suit with her witness manipulation in a case against another tenant.

Becker asked tScab how he would respond to the claim that the content of the declarations classified as improper hearsay. He argued that Doerty could enter them into evidence solely on his remarks. In addition, he claimed that Doerty had authority to enter an order because he saw that the facts warranted relief. Both Doerty and the Scabs knew that Council House had manufactured evidence and suborned testimony. Moreover, Doerty consistently manufactured evidence himself after surfing the Internet. He extracted false and demeaning propaganda put there by vScab and fScab for that purpose.

Apart from perjury, SCaB and the Kapos conspired with Mitchell in an international hate and character assassination campaign. They distributed dozens of hate and propaganda diatribes by email and on the Internet to influence public perception and court decisions. Doerty consistently relied on that material (in addition to the suborned declarations) when writing his “scabrous” findings. Three examples of the many instances of alleged judicial misconduct follow:

These examples, among many others, comprise a pattern or practice of judicial misconduct in consort with SCaB. The lack of any evidence to support findings and incarceration amounts to judicial harassment contrary to rules of judicial procedure. The available decisions and transcripts show a Kafkaesque perception of reality.

None of the writings in question rank as anti-Semitic, misogynistic, or homophobic. In any event, an experienced trial court judge should know that even racist and homophobic speech remains protected - that any person who utters such speech has the same legal rights as anyone else.

Council House has never challenged the veracity of reports about them. Applicable law clearly prohibits any consideration of the content of the appellant’s statements (injunctions on speech must stay content neutral) except under narrowly defined circumstances. [03] Doerty should have carefully applied established First Amendment doctrines without bias despite any language that he may have personally found offensive or controversial.

Doerty consistently reacted emotionally to content and failed to maintain appropriate judicial decorum and impartiality. No legal or factual issue came before the trial court that would require him, or even permit him, to express an irrelevant personal opinion on the relative social value of the subject writings.

Council House everyday attorneys [BB] told Mitchell when he complained about publication of the first edition of the newsletter that the First Amendment protected its content and distribution. Mitchell announced that legal advice publicly at a tape recorded administrator’s meeting with residents. Mitchell acted to the contrary. Despite the warning, he went “lawyer- shopping” to find a law firm that would give him the advice that he wanted to hear.

The directors recommended rScab [ScaB] who has a close relationship with Judge Anthony P. Wartnik and his wife Lynn (then Co-President of Council House). Both Wartnik and rScab sit on the board of directors of Herzl-Ner Tamid Conservative Congregation, a synagogue on Mercer Island near Seattle, along with other directors’ family members.

Wartnik evidently used his power as a senior superior court judge and colleague to influence Doerty. They held ex parte (behind the scenes) conversations that both judges have admitted. Wartnik acknowledged two meetings and Doerty one. [Hornet Nests]

Council House has now instructed Bullshit Harass Bendover (BHB) and the ubiquitous gScab. Reasonable people must wonder what backstage machination with judges qualified BHB for appointment in view of the previous prerequisites Council House considered when instructing lawyers.

The reporter had myriad correspondence with [BB] over fourteen months (11 Feb 00 through 12 Apr 01) when he reported the allegedly criminal activity at Council House with copies to the directors. This followed an ethical journalism practice of giving alleged wrongdoers the opportunity to refute allegations or to mitigate circumstances. Both Richard B. and the directors remained indifferent and did not respond to the issues. Instead, they tried to kill the messenger.

The directors then gave Mitchell authority to spend unlimited money for legal fees. This allowed him to go on a sociopathic rampage. He unlawfully incarcerated several residents and intimidated and abused others. He frequently called the police on trumped-up complaints to frighten them. One elderly lady said that she had never had a brush with police in her lifetime until Mitchell set her up.

Mitchell, and fScab his principal Kapo, concocted forty-three declarations over a three-month period when their rampage got out of hand. mScab then had them photocopied onto SCaB stationery. fScab boasted to third parties about his success in suborning residents and commented upon their stupidity in signing declarations. Meanwhile, the administrator continued to state publicly that he aimed to jail the reporter.

Later Mitchell said that he had spent $10,000 (now amounting to probably hundreds of thousands spent on other frivolous law suits) on legal fees but had not yet succeeded in jailing him although he had already effectively evicted him using the no-contact order. He kept trying in consort with mScab until he succeeded. The directors remain accountable for giving him virtually unlimited money for legal fees to cover up his criminal activity.

A few months later, Mitchell failed in his attempt to have the reporter jailed on a trumped-up breach of the no-contact order while in the courthouse reporting a case. The judge gave the reporter the protection of the court. fScab assaulted him on that and other occasions, once with a metal walking stick - a first degree assault - and made death threats against him and other residents. [Noblesse Oblige: Death Threats]

When asked, “What do you find . . . that indicates that an anti-harassment order can be brought on behalf of people who are really not even themselves parties or under the jurisdiction of the Court?” tScab answered that Doerty had “equitable authority to do substantial justice and litigation as the facts warrant” - all this without a discovery process, cross-examination, or a continuance to allow an attorney to prepare and argue the case.

tScab argued that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and said that:

[If another Court] can enter an order based just on attorneys’ remarks then a Court can enter an anti-harassment order based on forty-three declarations that are placed before it.
[Oral Argument Transcript]

In arguing those points he ignored the machination that occurred and the denial of due process of law. Becker then remarked:

. . . a no-contact order is much less onerous than an order that ends up having the effect of evicting someone from the place that they live . . . what about the possibility that justice will go awry . . . if there is no opportunity to cross-examine people who are making complaints . . . to ferret out if these are really true allegations as opposed to being perhaps some kind of a campaign against an unpopular person. [Oral Argument Transcript]

With that statement, she evidently recognized the railroading and the organized campaign of subornation that took place. tScab then launched into more gobbledygook when he tried to justify denial of a discovery process and legal representation. He implied that denial of discovery and a lawyer met a public and private interest in a speedy remedy for victims of harassment. Bizarrely, he claimed that it would be inconsistent with a speedy remedy to cross-examine witnesses for every anti-harassment case.

In other words, Mitchell suborned unmitigated crap from forty-three elderly people (some of them illiterate or vulnerable) under threats of reprisal for not complying. tScab then claimed that they should not suffer cross-examination. He then blatantly drew attention to the fact that the reporter, the real victim, brought the anti-harassment suit to protect himself from abuse by managers and Kapos in the first place. Audaciously, he mentioned the hearing (20 Mar 01) then lied about the circumstances surrounding that decision.

Doerty continues to withhold the transcript of that hearing which shows that he instigated a cross-petition sua sponte (by his own whim) from the bench. He instructed Council House to bring a countersuit without a motion to that effect. His subsequent behavior, evidenced by a legal source, shows that he had ex parte contact with Judge Wartnik - husband to Lynn, Council House co-president - on at least two occasions.

The following statement made by tScab before the appellate court does not contain a scintilla of truth. He relies on the absence of the transcript (20 Mar 01) to say what he damn-well pleases:

There was a hearing on March 20th where a cross petition was made by Mitchell at that March 20th hearing for relief. Hough says that Doerty could have entered an order right then and there. But he didn’t do that. With . . . due process rights in mind he refused to grant relief to Mr. Mitchell at the March 20th hearing and said no, we need to have a separate hearing where you need to have a petition, where you need to put the evidence before me, give Trummel notice and an opportunity to respond.

And that’s why the April 19th happened at all. He was given that opportunity to have notice and an opportunity to be heard and rebut the charges with a writ response and also he was given the opportunity to rebut the charges of an oral response but he declined. So I think that, in this case, Mr. Trummel’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to respond to charges in a meaningful way in a meaningful manner was satisfied.

Judge Doerty’s ruling was not just based on Mr Trummel’s writings. It was based on a package of conduct that included the prowling through the hall, the listening into residents’ apartments at three in the morning, verbally abusing and intimidating people inside Council House’s common areas and the posting of offensive and defamatory attacks on the doors of the residents. It was not a content based restriction but was based on the package of harassing conduct that took place. [Oral Argument Transcript]

Absolutely no harassment or invasion of privacy occurred nor did tScab prove anything else. He tried to lie his way out of the corner into which mScab forced him. tScab knowingly used propaganda and testimony that Mitchell had suborned by providing tenants with draft copy. What Doerty classified as harassment and surveillance amounted to nothing more than constitutionally protected news gathering.

Doerty completely ignored the pro se argument filed with the court and denied a continuance which would have allowed an attorney to argue the case and controvert Mitchell’s lies and propaganda. Mitchell continues to suborn and use similar testimony more than four years later by filing false testimony in current cases (30 Sep 05).

Mitchell also manufactured the accusations which tScab used in argument about prowling through the hall, listening at tenant doors at night, and verbally abusing and intimidating tenants by posting offensive and defamatory attacks on their doors. Only the pamphlets appeared on or under their doors and they contained no offensive attacks upon tenants or defamation.
[Life In a Seattle Squirrel Cage]

The web versions of the six pamphlets (censored by order of Doerty) now subject to Supreme Court review comprise the sum total of the complaint of harassment. No violence or shouting ever occurred (apart from a vociferous call to order under Roberts Rules to avoid a racially motived argument at a tenants’ meeting).

The linked pages contain the databases for six printed newsletters distributed at Council House and comprise the sole basis for the Council House motion for prior restraint. Legal distribution to tenant doors took place in six deliveries. The copyright dates show the approximate dates of distribution. Although residents should have received 1,350 pamphlets in aggregate, Mitchell stole about 450 of them by unlawfully removing them from doors. The number delivered approximated 900 in aggregate.

All investigation for the articles conformed with the ethical standards accepted by reporters as described within the articles. Readers should consider for themselves whether the content of the articles, all constitutionally protected, warranted such Draconian measures as eviction and imprisonment with solitary confinement.

Council House did not bring their antiharassment counterclaim until at least six months after publication of the last edition. One must ask how the content of a pamphlet published up to eighteen months previously which nobody forced anyone to read could cause severe emotional distress! The same data did not appear on the web until more than a year later (01 Jan 02).

The content enraged and triggered retaliation by Mitchell, a sociopath and pathological liar. This caused him to manufacture evidence to evict the author as he has done repeatedly, and currently does, to tenants (09 Oct 05). He later had the author imprisoned when the pamphlet content appeared on the web. [Ravening Sociopath]

The sum total of all argument in a case that involved eviction and imprisonment with solitary confinement related to the legal delivery of 900 pamphlets to Council House tenants. The content criticized management by a sociopath who cannot tolerate criticism under any circumstances.

Only six people asked not to receive the newsletters and the author honored their requests. However, those same people filed affidavits complaining about the content of the newsletters that they did not receive! Nobody complained to the author about content, not even Mitchell, and several people congratulated the author on his attempt to inform residents.

The board of directors and their lawyers had prior notice of the content of each edition which gave them the opportunity to respond and comment before publication. Only one director replied with an insulting, subliterate email message. The lawyer informed Mitchell that the author had a right under Seattle Municipal Code and the First Amendment to distribute newsletters within the building but Mitchell ignored his advice. Instead, he went “lawyer-shopping” and found the Scab family who pandered to his wishes despite laws to the contrary.

Doerty made an arbitrary finding which prevented this reporter from returning to his home that day. He effectively ordered an instant and permanent eviction. Someone else had to retrieve this reporter's dog which he had put down the following week. Council House denied access to personal belongings, including computer and databases, for another fourteen months and charged rent for that period.

This writer did not frequent the public rooms at Council House except to attend and report resident meetings and to teach therapeutic T’ai Chi. Those classes helped twelve elderly people recover their balance and to walk properly without using walkers. So when and where did the alleged harassment that tScab claimed take place?

While in a professional mode, reporters hardly ever join in discussion and only ask questions at an appropriate time. This reporter raised his voice one time at a meeting after switching roles from reporter to resident to call for order under Robert’s Rules. He endeavored to stop a potential racial riot fomented by fScab. When he prevaricates, tScab seems to conveniently forget that this reporter has the discussion at that meeting (and most other resident meetings that he attended) on tape recordings.

On the original order that seems to be the case and then later it was expanded to get into this area of surveillance which does seem to be the key point here at issue that because his writings evidenced his continuing interest and watching over of activities at Council House that he then could be prohibited from posting material on the website which in and of itself is constitutionally protected activity. That’s clear. [Oral Argument Transcript]

After more convoluted statements by tScab, Becker gave the impression that she had become as confused as this writer and his attorneys at the ambiguity contained in the previous court orders and tScab’s convoluted “argument” in support of them. She said:

Was there any discussion in a Court or . . . [that] he couldn’t post the names, the addresses or other personal identifying information. . . or did he simply have to remove names and addresses [leaving the rest intact]. Exactly how deeply did Judge Doerty get into editing this material? [Oral Argument Transcript]

tScab answered that the personal identifying information could be name, address, phone number, social security number or photograph of Council House residents. He again brought up the matter of social security numbers knowing full well that none of that data ever appeared in Contra Cabal because of ethical constraints. The Kafkaesque scenario continued when tScab claimed that:

And in a private forum it can’t be said that you have constitutionally protected right to go around posting and forcing defamatory and offensive attacks on the doors of people’s residence. You don’t. People don’t have the right to come to others’ homes and day after day post offensive attacks on your [sic] door. [Oral Argument Transcript]

Again, tScab lied. The issues concerned six newsletters distributed over one year to residents who did not request suppression of their names. Seattle Municipal ordinances specifically allow such distribution and prohibit managers from either censoring bulletin boards or frustrating distribution. The ordinance specifically allows: “Distributing leaflets in a lobby and other common areas and at or under tenants' doors”. [Prohibited Acts by Owners]

tScab’s claim that government and the legislature can regulate conduct in a private forum defines as pure bunkum. He should read the state and municipal mandates about pamphleteering, something this writer did before he distributed the newsletters. tScab should take time to read Contra Cabal where he can find all the information and links to the law that he needs. Becker answered with rhetorical questions:

. . . isn’t that something that goes on in America all the time? Don’t political candidates go out and put leaflets which some may regard as offensive if they don’t believe in the political views that are contained therein on people’s doors, under their doors? Isn’t that fairly common? [Oral Argument Transcript]

Most residents did not complain about the distribution of the newsletters. The complaints came from the administrator and his thugs who unlawfully removed them from doors. Residents knew that they could ask not to receive them but only six took advantage of that opportunity. Many complimented the writer on his efforts to shed light on abuse and the insane administrative processes.

The content did not attack residents but provided a reasoned case for improvement of the facilities and a stop to abuse by the administrator and his thugs. Publication and distribution of the last edition of the newsletter took place about six months before Council House brought their countersuit. mScab, in a consort with Mitchell, deliberately distorted what took place in the news gathering process and distribution procedure related to Contra Cabal. The article about incessant noise in the building clearly defines the legality of the news gathering process and references the law. [RCW 9A.46.010] [Life In a Seattle Squirrel Cage]

This copy appeared in the first edition of the newsletter (19 Feb 00) yet tScab disingenuously chose to ignore it during his argument as he ignored the Seattle ordinance that allows distribution of pamphlets. [Prohibited Acts by Owners]

An investigator found the sources of excessive noise during his first patrol of the building and confirmed his findings during subsequent patrols on different days. He patrolled all residential floors at various times during the night over a ten-week period to test Pooh-Bar's claims.

He walked down the center of the public hallways and recorded only noise and conversation heard from that position. By that he conformed with RCW 9A.46.010, and other statutes, that relate to the invasion of personal privacy.

He neither contacted residents nor acted in any way to provoke, harass, coerce, intimidate, or humiliate them. Moreover, he reserved the right to publish his findings, including alleged violations of leases and municipal and state laws, using constitutionally protected speech in whatever medium he chose. [Life in a Seattle Squirrel Cage]

A Council House thug (xScab), a large illegal resident who lives with his queer partnerand poses as a “care-giver”, physically assaulted the reporter in the early morning (04 Sep 00) while he distributed newsletters. The reporter called the police for protection. After examining the reporter’s international press card, and the content of the newsletter, the officers stayed to insure safe distribution of the remainder of the copies. In retaliation, xScab then started the rumor about listening at doors that obsesses trial and appellate court judges, also yellow news outlets. xScab has since filed several perjured declarations in support of Mitchell.

Mostly single men and women over the age of 62 occupy Council House apartments - eighty percent of them women. Why would the reporter want to listen at their doors in the middle of the night when he could hear the music that he needed to report from the other end of the building? Moreover, what could he expect to gain by listening at the doors of a bunch of elderly people in the middle of the night? This claim only accents the unsubstantiated “testimony” in the other declarations. Consider the source.

Given his penchant for Internet pornography, perhaps Mitchell has again projected his own fantasies onto this reporter by falsely testifying that he listens at doors on hearsay from xScab. Mitchell, completely devoid of a sense of decency or responsibility, has shown a pattern or practice by frequently misusing his administrative power to project his own repugnant behavior onto residents at Council House. [Thespian Liar] [Ravening Sociopath]

After the assault by xScab, threats of eviction by Mitchell, and death threats by fScab, no further distribution of the newsletter took place pending an anti-harassment suit against Mitchell. Mitchell immediately broke the terms of the temporary restraining order by issuing a frivolous countersuit that he had to withdraw later.

The day he received service of the antiharassment order Mitchell had a hissy fit. Without any provocation, he called police and had a former resident visiting friends arrested and incarcerated on trumped-up charges of trespassing. He had previously unlawfully evicted the same individual without cause. [Elder Abuse - Search/Seizure]

Council House brought its anti-harassment countersuit about six months after the publication of the last edition. How can anyone suddenly suffer emotional distress from the content of a newsletter that they read six months earlier?

Distributing newsletters six times a year with information that rarely mentions residents does not amount to:

. . . a resident in an apartment building who is writing specific offensive attacks about those residents and posting them on their doors so that when they open up the door to their home they continually see this attack on them and their neighbors. . . . [Oral Argument Transcript]

Several declarants did not receive newsletters after requests to the reporter to withhold them. They must have found or borrowed copies then filed declarations complaining about the content. Would the same people object to the content of a newspaper they found on a bus then file declarations accusing the bus driver of harassment? Becker succinctly asked:

. . . [If] Seattle Weekly . . . decides to engage in a campaign of calling public attention to alleged deficiencies in the administration of Council House, for whatever reason, and posts it regularly on the door of the residents [then] is that something that can be the subject of an anti-harassment order? [Oral Argument Transcript]

Becker alludes to practices prevalent since three Englishmen - John Milton (1608-1604), Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), and Thomas Paine (1737-1809) - all stood their ground in the UK and Paine later in the US. However, The Scab Family want to revise history without eloquence or erudition. In a consort with Doerty they have doomed themselves to failure with an abysmal ignorance of law and conceit beyond comprehension. Meanwhile, elderly people continue to suffer under a reign of terror through judicial procrastination.

Tyranny will continue at Council House until its directors offer alternatives and judges cease to support them in unlawful activity. A high proportion of tenants believe that the directors need to clean house by employing a completely new team of qualified administrators who possess both morals and ethics. The directors must also evict the people they employ as Kapos who receive wages and/or benefits in kind.

American law does not distinguish between principals or their agents in the commission of unlawful acts. It holds directors liable for their own acts also acts by their agents. Consequently, when directors employ people or subcontract for a service they remain jointly and severally liable for any willful or negligent damage to third parties. Directors may neither claim ignorance of wrongdoing by their employees and agents nor remain unaccountable and anonymous.

At Council House (a non-profit corporation mandated to disclose the names of its directors), the board maintains strict anonymity using fraudulent court orders to cover up wrongdoing. The directors use tongs to handle hot coals and expect to walk away without getting burned under the auspices of a disingenuous court system.

Washington Supreme Court unanimously ordered Washington Court of Appeals to hear the case (04 Sep 02). After oral argument (14 Nov 03) the appellate court failed to make an expeditious determination. The delay continued to exacerbate elder abuse under a cloak of silence mandated by several trial court findings since (19 Apr 01). The appellate decision now awaits a finding by Washington Supreme Court after oral argument (23 Jun 05).

The time has come when the judiciary should concentrate more on the abuse meted to residents at Council House. They should address the behavior of the directors and administrators instead of constantly trying to kill the messenger by believing the propaganda and false charges leveled against him.

The directors need to employ overt negotiating strategies that promote tenant responsibility instead of covert ideological strategies that cause unlawful eviction, imprisonment, suicide, or other premature death. Fomenting differences between racial and religious groups has allowed successive administrators to manipulate tenants and deliberately cause discord. This has given them a feeling of power which has allowed them to terrorize tenants.

Transformation requires that older people share their values, their education, their resources, to explore commonalities, not to highlight differences. Congress has mandated procedures for complaints, a democratic resident association, and administration accountability to tenants.

However, Council House directors have negated those procedures by appointing tyrants as administrators, condoning neo-fascist policies enforced by thugs, and manipulating the court system. Evil, anonymity, and social terrorism come in all stripes and colors and know no bounds at Council House. [Evil, Anonymity, and Social Tyranny]