Early seventeenth-century Calvinists tried to suppress political proselytization by their religious and political opponents in favor of their own doctrine. Three hundred and sixty years later, a Jewish constituency in Seattle has acted in a similar way. To support them, Judge James A. (Jiminy) Doerty, Superior Court, Washington State, resurrected the restrictions on freedom of the press imposed by the Press Licensing Order, London 1643. He then arbitrarily incorporated them into findings that bypass US and Washington State constitutions.

	Pending appellate review, this reporter analyzes Trummel vs. Mitchell and Mitchell vs. Trummel, Washington Superior Court, 01-2-04698-5 SEA ~ This article provides neither a legal opinion nor an interpretation of law.

Doerty prepared a bigoted, subjective, and contradictory opinion which mainly based upon hearsay and hateful articles written by Stephen A. Mitchell (39), Council House administrator, and his thugs. He then launched several defamatory courtroom tirades in an obvious attempt to gain media attention for himself. This resulted in libelous reporting by two Seattle media hacks [01] that echoed around the world [Five Kapos].

Before the hearing to release the reporter from custody, Mitchell and his thugs published multiple libel on the Internet, distributed it to other media, then sent copies to the reporter’s professional and academic colleagues. Mitchell also filed false reports containing similar statements with government agencies (a criminal offense). Lynn (wife of superior court judge Anthony P. Wartnik), and other Council House directors, then climbed on the bandwagon and started their own campaign of perjury and defamation. [Rampant Judicial Delusion]

Disregarding Doerty’s nationalistic slurs and agism for the present (in anticipation of consideration by the Commission on Judicial Conduct), both media representatives and attorneys have determined that the opposite describes the true circumstances. The international press corps, incensed by the findings, has now protested against the blatant invasion of freedom of expression and character assassination. Several have filed amicus curiae briefs in company with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). [Amicus Curiae]

Doerty let loose his diatribe without furnishing a shred of evidence to support his contentions or allowing refutation. He posted it on the court web site then released the journalist under duress after 111 days in jail. Doerty has since constructively recused himself by performing a lateral arabesque.

A Seattle attorney commented that Doerty’s promotion to Chief Civil Judge sounds impressive but effectively keeps Doerty out of the courtroom shuffling papers so that he cannot embarrass the court any further. Another attorney suggested that he had apparently received counseling from his peers. [02]

Doerty’s promotion carries no pay raise or other benefits - effectively it only recused him from Trummel v. Mitchell after he refused to recuse himself. Doerty evidently reached his maximum level of incompetence and received the lateral promotion given to judges who make fools of themselves in the courtroom.

A corollary shows that in time every court tends toward employing people too incompetent to carry out their duties. Promotion from one level of incompetence to another does not negate the principle but results in pseudo-promotion or percussive sublimation - a trumpeted move from a position that reveals incompetence to a position that hides it from public view. [03] It seems that other judges arranged Doerty’s move to a position with a longer title that covers up his incompetence and arrogance in the hope that it would save them from further embarrassment.

His performance dictates that he needs a GED (High School Equivalency) level education to open his mind. This essay may help him obtain enrollment in History and Law 101. Perhaps he should have attended the seminars that this author facilitated in jail. He could have earned a GED certificate along with three inmates. Instead, he successfully terminated that inmate reeducation and resume instruction by moving this retired professor to solitary confinement without legitimate cause. [Metamorphosis]

Doerty’s opinions have now become subject to two appellate motions ordered by a unanimous decision of the Washington Supreme Court. However, Washington Court of Appeals has now dragged its feet for almost three years despite pressure brought upon it by that decision. [Court of Appeals - Oral Argument] [Supreme Court Decision]

History

In 1215, King John of England authorized, under duress, parchment copies of Magna Carta. He affixed his seal then had them publicly read throughout the realm. By that, he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. [Magna Carta]

King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law. Magna Carta mandated: "Justice be to none denied or delayed". That document now forms the core of American jurisprudence. “Not being [truly] American, perhaps [Doerty] has difficulty in understanding this basic principle of a federal republic.” [What Say the Reeds at Runnymede?]

In 1644, during a former era of political correctness, the poet John Milton published Areopagitica. He pled for unlicensed printing and became famous as a spokesman for liberty claiming that the state must act as umpire not as a player. Milton also made an eloquent defense of freedom of the press and opposed the restrictions of the Press Licensing Order of 1643.

That edict required all journalists to gain approval from the government before publication of their work. It sought to bring publishing under government control by creating a body of censors to whom journalists had to submit their work for approval. Milton argued that the order represented attempts by the state to control thought by coercion.

Council House directors, aided and abetted by at least three allegedly corrupt judges, chose to coerce and incarcerate a reporter by myriad retaliation against him for reporting their unlawful activities. Doerty meted draconian punishment to a him when he followed his moral and ethical principles in an attempt to achieve ethical administration and an end to abuse of senior citizens.

Doerty retroactively ordered censoring or deletion of published articles. He placed a prior restraint on future articles by demanding signed news source waivers and ordering an unconstitutional surveillance prohibition. By that, he arbitrarily censored several web sites. He also held the publisher in contempt of court and fined him $100.00/day - all without due process of law.

Areopagitica won Milton public recognition and notoriety as a spokesman against similar totalitarianism. Later, a similar treatise cost him a fine and a term in prison. He found out, to his detriment, that freedom of expression does not universally mean freedom to criticize and to oppose when facing corrupt judges - a situation now prevalent in the United States of America ironically defined as “land of the free”.

Law

With a draconian and biased trial court decision, Doerty sent this reporter to jail for an indeterminate period. The case attracted worldwide interest among journalists when they learned of his decision now on appeal. The reporter served 111 days (25 days in solitary confinement in the same section as Gary Ridgway, the Green River serial rapist and killer) for publishing constitutionally protected information. Simultaneously, Milton probably turned over in his grave muttering: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. [The more things change, the more they remain the same.] [04]

Washington State Legislature describes ethics as the foundation of government that derives its power from the natural character of the people. [05] Coercive power directs itself inwardly and essentially distinguishes state government from the voluntary subordination found in every community. When the judiciary subordinates the rights of individuals then government breaks with its constituency and needs reconstruction. When judges take control over all the vital and cultural activities of the people then the judiciary forfeits its own dignity and its specific authority to decide issues. [06]

The term “ethics” describes ideal individual and organizational behavior while law defines the minimum practical standards permitted by an ethical society. Ethics do not equate with morals but more with professional standards and law. Moreover, one expects higher ethical standards from judges than the lowest common denominator that legal dialectic provides. Unethical behavior by them classifies as judicial misconduct despite the disparity between ethical constraints and legal rules.

The judiciary, by virtue of its elected responsibilities, subjects itself to the sanctions of law and scrutiny of the media. It must consider public accountability as a public service obligation. The legislature has decreed that all state employees must conduct government affairs with openness and an unswerving commitment to the state constitution and the public good.

The distinction between interpretation and construction needs precise understanding. Interpretation helps discover the meaning of existing text whereas construction employs political creativity. Together interpretation and construction unify legal precedent and legislative doctrines. [Justice Delayed: Justice Denied]

Judicial interpretation unfolds the law by elaborating upon a series of doctrines, formulas, or tests. It searches and defines the meaning already within the text. Therefore, it ranks as a process of discovery linked to the original text and not a creative pursuit. When the text has no discoverable meaning then creativity beyond interpretation remains a legislative endeavor.

Neither interpretation nor construction changes the centrality of the text. However, both provide extensions to political mandates. Consequently, ethical judges limit themselves to interpretation while legislators concern themselves with construction. Judges may not redefine terms and apply them arbitrarily. [07]

However, Judge James A. (Jiminy) Doerty has assumed the powers and responsibilities reserved for the legislature in addition to those granted to him as a judge. He has redefined legal interpretation and construction by merging them. In similar way he has merged ethics and morals apparently for political expediency. Consequently, he functions more as an out-of-control oligarch than a judge. By that, he denies due process of law on a variety of nebulous grounds.

Constitution of the United States, an instrument of government and supreme law, prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of government. It incorporates amendments that control a system of fundamental laws and principles that have embodied rights and marked fair legal process since 1789.

Doerty denies due process of law and consistently abrogates those constitutional rights. In particular, he denies: the right to timely notice; the right to prepare a defense; the right to confront accusers; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to an attorney; and, the right to an impartial and unbiased hearing.

Conclusion

Civil rules do not allow arbitrary or general denials (denying all allegations in a complaint). This applies especially when the litigant declares a readiness to refute allegations under an oath. Civil court rules permit general denial only when the judge intends in good faith to controvert all the formal assertions of fact. Doerty has not controverted all the declarations and assertions in the complaints as the law requires. Instead, he has arbitrarily rejected them.

Doerty follows a procrastination principle that denies or postpones due process of law. He uses kill-the-messenger techniques that delay justice then deny it. He abuses the law meant to rectify unlawful practices and indulges in the same patterns and practice of unethical behavior that the law expects him to correct.

Evidently, Governor Gary Locke failed abysmally to establish an honest judiciary when he appointed The Honorable James A. Doerty to Washington Superior Court. Locke should have considered Doerty’s track record as a lawyer instead of his sexual proclivity when he decided to appoint this queer judge. [Queer Connection]

Foggy aptly wrote:

But then Jimmy, a former Childrens Court babysitter before he stumbled into his $100,000/yr judgeship, ain't exactly a legal whiz to begin with. With literally no judicial background whatsoever, he's mooching off his fellow Gays to hold his job. With all the first-rate Gay lawyers in town, a little weasel like Jimmy was a poor choice for the bench. But, since the others are too busy making tons of money and aren't as willing to kiss political ass . . . he got the job. [Locke appointed Doerty then he ran unopposed in the election]. He kept his homosexuality a big secret right up until the last moment. You would have thought he was ashamed of being Gay or something. . . . he came popping out of the closet as Mr. Queer Seattle. Whatever works eh. Once he had the job he climbed back in his closet and has done nothing to repay the Gay community for its help. What are Little People for, after all, except to help Big People like Jimmy. [Another Foggy Moment #227]

Pending reversal on appeal, world wide web law as interpreted and rewritten by Superior Court Judge James A. Doerty, State of Washington, has precedence. Consequently, his revised code implies that:

The people of this state yield their sovereignty to all branches of government. In delegating their authority, they give the judiciary the right to decide what they should know and what they should not know. By that, the people remain uninformed so that they cannot control the statutory instruments that they have created. They must construe statutory meaning narrowly and interpret exemptions liberally to inhibit public policy effectively. [RCW 42.17.251]

Doerty censored names and pictures of Council House administrators. Pseudonyms and anthropomorphic likenesses appear in their place until the appellate or supreme court reverses his decision on First Amendment grounds. Any resemblance to Doerty in political cartoons or writing, whether he remains intellectually dead or not, construes as purely intentional and has his specific authorization which he entered into the court record. When a judge orders a veteran journalist and satirist not to publish information about potentially thousands of people then says “I believe you have the right to . . . be as critical as you want to of these proceedings and me.” his statement bears the mark of a fool.

Nmesis.