Washington Court of Appeals procrastinated for three years then waited another seven months after oral argument to make a decision. The court, Mary Kay Becker, Marlin J. Appelwick, and Ann Schindler, then buried its finding as an unpublished opinion. The opinion smacks of political expediency and begs challenging in a higher court. It echos the judicial misconduct of trial court Judge James A. Doerty and ratifies his biased and draconian decisions. One lawyer called it "a travesty" and another said "the court should be ashamed". The appellant’s lawyers, disappointed with the ruling, will seek further review. [Oral Argument 14 Nov 03] [Opinion 14 Jun 04]
The opinion affirmed the trial court decision. It effectively granted Council House directors impunity to continue their elder abuse and to cover up their complicity in alleged homicide. It also declares another open season of violence by their thugs upon this writer. It follows the maxim that powerful people get what they want by deception, distortion, and judicial compromise, and demonize their adversaries to achieve their goals. [Elder Abuse - Preface]
Elder abuse resumed at Council House within hours of the court posting its opinion on its web site (14 Jun 04). It involved another violent assault upon a dissenting tenant that required police intervention. [Croak]
Felippe Jacques, co-conspired with Mitchell to manufacture 43 perjured declarations. Their attorney Maureen L. Mitchell, now a clerk with the appellate court, entered them into the trial court record knowing that they had suborned them. More than a year later, a lawyer on Council House board of directors manufactured a another 21 declarations then filed them. The trial court refused to allow a challenge to the authenticity of either batch of declarations and the court of appeals has accepted them knowing the circumstances surrounding their manufacture. [The Scab Family]
Since publication of the appellate opinion, Jacques has boasted, in writing, that he has another 34 affidavits ready for use in future court hearings and that he now awaits the next move by lawyers. He claims that he has saved them to support “devastating” things that he will say in court. He previously claimed that he has impunity and can do whatever he wants despite laws that prohibit such behavior. Perhaps the appellate judges should subpoena the new batch of affidavits and add them to their existing arsenal of ad hominem and perjury to strengthen their opinion. Franz Kafka has rolled over in his grave. [Croak]
Exemption from Punishment
Impunity frees Council House directors and managers from punishment or penalty for crimes that they have allegedly committed. The court of appeals opinion effectively grants them immunity from legal prosecution. The appellate court knew that the trial court refused to allow cross-examination of allegedly suborned and perjured testimony yet acted according to arbitrary will. It showed no legal or moral limits and gave little consideration to oral argument.
Impunity ranks as an extreme form of social control that entirely erases the rights and will of an individual while a dominant person triumphs. Impunity intoxicates through power. Unlike almost all other social or legal relations, impunity allows no compromise and relies completely upon unilateral decisions. It allows judges to ignore argument and to manipulate suborned testimony to suit their own will.
The term “impunity” defines an extreme form of machination - crafty and involved plotting to achieve sinister ends. Intoxication of power develops in stages until it reaches an absolute. It allows a dominant elite to punish writers who expose their crimes despite laws that guarantee immunity to people who report them.
When a trial judge moves a writer to solitary confinement for what he has lawfully written and published, it creates impunity for the targets of his exposé. It also encourages them to use that protection to commit even greater crimes when an appellate court affirms the decision.
In King County jail, some guards have empathy and understand injustice. They often chant guilty until proved innocent. They accord prisoners a modicum of sustenance, privacy, and self-determination so that they can retain a personal identity. That identity surfaces from memory, hope, and expectation. Inmates then make the best of their confinement through an internal monologue. That humanitarian approach contrasts the cruel and inhumane treatment of senior citizens living at Council House. They cannot exercise their memories, hopes, and expectations without fear of reprisal from neo-fascist administrators. [Elder Abuse - Introduction]
Impunity has an emotional foundation in sadism - pleasure from inflicting pain (physical or psychological) on others and then enjoying their reaction. It encourages physical torture and verbal humiliation with the intent to control individual will and disallows natural respect. It allows abuse across all dimensions of being and reveals the sadistic psyche of the aggressor. [Noblesse Oblige]
Impunity ranks as an ultimate form of terrorism driven by fear. That fear forces individuals against a wall with no resources to defend themselves. It provides a sadistic pleasure for the perpetrator and destroys individual will, permanently. It also frightens their associates into submission when they observe the punishment meted to a person they respect - a favorite tactic used by Mitchell and his thugs who boast and write about it joyfully.
The torture and abasement rituals documented in photographs taken at Abu Ghraib prison vividly portray the sadistic fantasies prevalent in domination-and-bondage culture. However, those fantasies, deeply rooted in the psyche and readily accessible in society, normally remain confined to imagination or bounded by consensual relations. Sane people remain immune from these fantasies or restrict them to their imagination. They do not act them out.
Sadists demonize their victims. Authoritarian tolerance of abuse creates a climate that encourages sadists to devise new scenarios against dissenters. It takes a specific political, judicial, and social demeanor, knowingly to allow managers to act out sadistic fantasies upon elderly people. Court of Appeals has adopted an attitude of dismissive negligence that effectively condones abuse and grants permission for it to continue indefinitely.
Fundamental miscalculation of power and ignorance of law apply strategic doctrines rationalized by utopian ideology that bastardizes legal ethics.  Judicial arrogance predicates upon an over-valuation of individual power and an unrealistic expectation of what it can accomplish. It manifests in an indomitable will that dismisses all impediments and objections arbitrarily. It has no place in a court of law.
Elder abuse at Council House stems from Zionist zealots ironically supported by neo-fascist ideologues to the exclusion of other beliefs and ethnic groups. An all-Jewish board employs neo-fascist thugs to do its dirty work. The combination demonstrates how a minority imposes itself absolutely through totalitarian liaison. [List of names and addresses of Council House directors]
By affiliation with state bureaucracy, the directors effect a broad coalition then maintain an abusive policy. They act with impunity to effect racial and religious discrimination and intimidate dissenting tenants. Impunity condones that racist attitude. Paradoxically, Jacques an avowed anti-Semite previously claimed:
. . . in America there is an unwritten law that bars anyone from criticizing Jews, Judaism, Jewishness or Israel.
Ostensibly, that philosophy places all Jews above the law and automatically grants Council House directors impunity to adopt abusive polices. [Evil, Anonymity, and Social Tyranny]
The chief judge gives the perception that she has a monopoly upon truth and justice. Her opinion shows that she only listens to herself and ignores everyone else. This probably saves the generously upholstered posteriors of her colleagues and political affiliates. She apparently follows an ideological fantasy not based in law to assess her power and self-interest.
Court of Appeals insisted that oral argument should comprise two briefs - civil and contempt. However, the court merged those distinct topics into one opinion in an apparent attempt at obfuscation. The opinion certainly confuses people not directly connected with the case and the court once again libels and vilifies this reporter.
Lawyers argued two relatively distinct sets of criteria during oral argument - freedom of expression and harassment. They addressed the merits and technicalities of each topic to get to the nub of the law in relation to the facts. They formulated argument that supported what the court should have considered an open and shut case on the civil issues - an argument supported by five amici curiae all challenging abrogation of constitutional rights. [Oral Argument 14 Nov 03]
On the contempt issues, the appellate judges reiterated the outrageous contentions made by the trial court. Judge James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court, knowingly entered into evidence 43 perjured declarations also propaganda and derogatory statements that he obtained privately or by surfing the internet.
Council House deliberately published propaganda containing character assassination for Doerty to find. Doerty used it then refused to allow a discovery process. Council House lawyers claimed in oral argument that Doerty could use that “evidence” without allowing discovery, cross-examination, or refutation - a stretch under any generous interpretation of law. [Judicial Misconduct and the Law]
If Doerty had allowed a discovery process then it would have proved that Mitchell and his accomplice Felippe Jacques either wrote or suborned most if not all the declarations. Although the appellant repeatedly brought those facts to Doerty’s attention he deliberately ignored them and preferred perjured testimony over evidence. The appellate judges have followed suit.
Due to commingling of bar collateral, the court has released an unpublished opinion using a garbled rhetoric that supports political issues. It effectively condones harassment of senior citizens. Whether the court deliberately obfuscated remains immaterial. The language definitely distorts the facts and delays justice still further and continues to delay and deny due process of law.
The chief judge reiterated hearsay that indicated bias. She knew that the appellant had consistently refuted the perjured testimony. Moreover, it did not form part of oral argument yet she chose to introduce it apparently to solidify a previously determined opinion. She obviously could have cared less about the carefully prepared arguments or the amicus curiae briefs. Several attorneys gasped noticeably when she uttered:
. . . let’s just assume that it’s true here that Mr Trummel was wondering around in doorways with his ear against the doorways at 3 o’clock in the morning and that he was thrusting his face and forehead up against other people at meetings and calling them obscene names . . .
Becker introduced an assumption without any implication or a logical conclusion - a basic principle of argumentation. Assumptions should have no place in an appellate court record any more than 43 suborned declarations containing libel and hearsay should form part of a trial court record. She deliberately introduced libelous, unsubstantiated hearsay into the appellate court record knowing that the trial court had erred in not allowing discovery or cross-examination. That defines as bias and political chicanery that has no place in a court of law.
Why did she not let the matter rest and refer the contempt issues back to the trial court so that an ethical judge could decide about them after allowing cross-examination of evidence?
Does Becker fear that an ethical judge will throw out the 64 declarations after discovering that they contain perjury?
Would that truth scuttle any argument and embarrass the judiciary?
Did fear of Judge Wartnik’s wife Lynn going to jail for condoning elder abuse and committing perjury influence the appellate court opinion?
Would her incarceration prejudice Becker’s reelection to the appellate court or election to the supreme court?
Will the electorate send Becker to the supreme court on a Machiavellian platform in the November (2004) elections?
Becker has an obvious affinity with the law according to Judge Doerty. Perhaps she should run for the supreme court on a Doerty/Becker ticket. They could then jointly care for all the innocent little children and jail their abusive elders with impunity. [Supreme Court Election] [Oral Argument 14 Nov 03] [Opinion 14 Jun 04]
If fantastic dreams of power occlude reality then no way exists to adjust to long-term consequences. Using judicial power for ad hoc expedience only makes the fantasy more convincing. Moreover, judicial machination overrides the prime function of democratic government.
Terror emanates from the use of fear to provoke action in self-interest. It takes many forms and any court or bureaucracy can generate fear perpetually. One only has to spend time in King County jail to see the havoc and destruction of lives caused by recalcitrant, racially biased, superior court judges. [Metamorphosis]
Both trial and appellate courts have ignored supreme court precedent. That precedent limits manipulation of collateral facts by federal, appellate, and district courts - facts unconnected, or only remotely connected, with the issue or matter in dispute. If one cannot develop a fair and reasonable implication from those facts then they become inadmissible as evidence. Yet Council House has repeatedly used collateral “evidence” as a ploy to mislead the courts and the public. Lawyers cogently argued in a pertinent order predefined by the court. However the court has commingled evidence in its opinion to support an undefined motive.
The appellate court treated the perjured “evidence” with the fervor of a Christian fundamentalist disallowing exegesis of the scriptures. No fair and reasonable implication results from unexamined evidence and it therefore remains inadmissible. 
Terrorists provoke fear by scaring victims into submission. Judges use politically correct language to instill fear. They call it “racheting up the coercion” to induce the same effect. When judges unlawfully jail reporters for what they write, that defines as terrorism. [Conspiracy of Silence]
Elitists make policy but it takes public acquiescence to execute it. A public without fear does not acquiesce. The disgrace of Council House directors and the courts that support them remains far from complete. Impunity or not they cannot continue to cover up the crimes that they have allegedly committed.
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression remains the cornerstone of a flourishing democracy. All citizens have a right to express themselves without hindrance on any issue using any medium. Council House and Washington courts continue deliberately to target a journalist who chooses to use the world wide web as his medium. They have repeatedly tried to silence him through prior restraint and censorship. They have failed to realize that he has freedom to write in any genre he chooses to balance the utterances emanating from mealy-mouthed, recalcitrant judges. [Prior Restraint]
Several journalists have recently died by assassination. Their investigations and criticism exposed wrongdoing by those in power and threatened their position and influence. Death threats have consistently emanated from Council House without any control by the directors. Their attorneys received a complaint about them four years ago yet they have not ordered their managers to control their thugs. Instead they commit perjury and impunity encourages more violence. Since publication of the appellate opinion Council House has issued another threat that interprets in that fashion.
The courts, through delays and denial of justice, have granted impunity that sanctions violence. The directors probably think that will relieve them of their responsibility to address elder abuse. Instead, they allow Council House administrators to dispose of their critics. They have consistently over the years using kill-the-messenger techniques. They find a way to evade the issues and behave like the worshipers in the temple who wanted to kill Jeremiah because they did not like his message. [Theater of the Absurd]
Combating impunity requires an increase of pressure on governments agencies (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, City of Seattle, and State of Washington) to investigate and prosecute people responsible for crimes at Council House. The failure to investigate and bring to justice those responsible contributes to an atmosphere of fear that chills the full exercise of freedom of expression.  [Elder Abuse Case Studies]
Human rights organizations continue to work toward the day when no writer or journalist need fear punishment or death simply for exercising a right to write. Impunity violates freedom of expression and acts as a double-edged sword. Killing a writer, whether actually or metaphorically, classifies as “censorship by killing”. Denial of access to the truth about elder abuse violates the rights of both victims and society.
World wide, state agents, private individuals, and members of armed opposition groups, censor journalists who have exercised their right to freedom of opinion and expression. They suppress dissent. In most cases the state fails to investigate or allows authorities to comply with lip-service.
Very few prosecutions have succeeded in cases prosecuted and brought to court. Superior Court of Washington and the Washington Court of Appeals have sunk to the level of extremists who manipulate the truth for their own ends - Robert Mugabe, Ariel Sharon, and George W. Bush immediately spring to mind.
Some investigations take place but the outcome remains the same - courts grant effective impunity. They either find no official culpability or allow their affiliates to find a scapegoat to serve a few years in prison. The problem then gradually fades from public memory and the powerful pay off their help.
Impunity for crimes committed against writers and journalists granted by government agents or courts remains a serious threat to freedom of expression. Council House would rather silence criticism and hide information about abuse. They would kill individuals brave or foolish enough to investigate their criminal activity.
They have already tried to kill this elderly writer (then 68). They requested a judge to put him in jail. That resulted in solitary confinement with a 23-hour lock-down, incommunicado, without medication or diet. Another time they attacked him in the street with a metal stick. When the directors of Council House and their tame judges can subject an elderly journalist to harassment, violent assault, and imprisonment, with impunity, then a voice that exposes elder abuse falls silent. [Metamorphosis]
Council House directors know that no writer other than a senior citizen can report their abuse. They run a closed society as benevolent dictators and disseminate propaganda to reporters that many of them publish. Young people cannot comprehend elder abuse and some of them think that seniors deserve bad treatment. The directors play upon this by portraying everyone over the age of 62 as vulnerable adults with dementia. [Vulnerable Adults]
When attorneys resort to using a “vulnerable adult” argument to draw a curtain over facts, corruption deepens, and the ability for society to deal openly with problems diminishes. 
A free press is like a canary in a mine. Just as the canary’s death sends a signal that the miners are in danger, so the death of press freedom means that society is in danger. 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. That right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas using any medium regardless of frontiers. That does not, and never has lawfully defined as harassment.
Lawyers and journalists may request further information and court documents by email. Readers can obtain names and addresses of Council House Directors at [List of names and addresses of Council House directors].
Readers can find Court of Appeals particulars on the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) web site linked here: Marlin J. Appelwick, Ann Schindler, and Mary Kay Becker. It appears that Becker wants to remain electronically incommunicado (as do the Council House directors) by not publishing her email address. Readers should register their protests or send their comments about the opinion to: Appelwick and Schindler with a copy to Contra Cabal for publication in a Mary Kay Becker memorial journal. Becky's Boutique will help voters to recognize her disingenuousness when they decide whether to reelect her to the Court of Appeals or elect her to the Washington Supreme Court.