|
The profiles describe abuse of several senior citizens at Council House, Seattle. They result from more than three years of research and investigation using government documents, resident interviews, and personal observations. They include details of abusive treatment that probably would not have occurred if management had not misappropriated funds allocated by Congress for resident well-being. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal oversight authority, has failed to investigate reports of resident abuse and misappropriation of government funds. HUD officials have concealed public records available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to thwart inquiries. Investigators and auditors from HUD Office of the Inspector General (HUD-OIG) have colluded with HUD officials to cover up HUD oversight neglect. National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) built and refurbished Council House, a residence for senior citizens on Capitol Hill, Seattle. They obtained federal financial assistance through HUD for the original construction and rehabilitation. Residents then amortized mortgages by paying rent over several decades while HUD continued to subsidize some rents and services. NCJW appointed directors who employed administrators mandated to comply with HUD directives when managing the building and dealing with residents. Successive administrators have not complied with those regulations. Instead, they have introduced supremacist policies and enforced them contrary to federal law. A judge effectively denied a reporter the basic right to counsel after he informed government authorities about crimes committed at Council House. The administrator perjured himself and suborned residents in a frame-up then locked the reporter out of his home/office. Since, the administrator has tried to have the reporter jailed to silence him and mounted a cover up. Now the directors have manipulated court procedures under an umbrella of judicial misconduct. The directors continue their indifference to resident abuse and misappropriation despite public exposure. HUD officials continue to turn a blind eye to the mismanagement and resident complaints. Now, a superior court judge has brought the judiciary into disrepute by granting Council House qualified immunity and by denying due process of law. Aberrant Behavior and Unlawful Activity Five months after Virginia Lambert, a straw man for Council House, lost her case (Lambert v. Harris), nothing has changed. Mitchell and his staff continue the same behavior and the directors provide unlimited financial resources for him to bring frivolous lawsuits and contempt motions to try to cover up the problems that he causes. Mitchell has for more than eighteen months publicly encouraged residents to bring arbitrary antiharassment suits against other residents. Especially, he has orchestrated lawsuits and police action for constructive and unlawful evictions. The Council House directors and HUD must take notice of Mitchell's supremacist tactics. They must restore order by appointing a qualified administrator who will not abuse residents. Apparently, Judge Howard considered the problems in Lambert v. Harris a matter for management to resolve not the courts. Clergy and other residents have said the same thing. Mitchell has actively provoked situations that cause disputes among residents during the time that he has worked as administrator and continues to do so. The directors have authorized and directed Mitchell to commence legal action including, but not limited to, eviction proceedings and antiharassment petitions. This evidently distances them from Mitchell's bizarre management strategies. Those authorizations have allowed Mitchell to act unilaterally in a representative capacity on behalf of Council House. They have also allowed him to employ lawyers to set some residents against other residents whom he considers, in his sole discretion, disrupt peace and harmony. Those virtually unlimited funds allow Mitchell to arbitrarily declare open season on people with whom he disagrees and to establish "zero tolerance" policies. They have granted this absolute power despite HUD regulations that provide specific procedures to deal with resident problems and complaints. They allow him to call police about residents who have refused to tolerate abuse. They have allowed him to have elderly residents committed for several days psychiatric evaluation to show them what power he has over them and to punish them for standing up to him. The police believe Mitchell when he tells them that as administrator he has authority and mental health degrees that he does not possess. He tells police that he has diagnosed the resident as a violent mental case and a danger to other residents. As a result, several of the residents that he has had incarcerated went to public mental institutions without prior examination by a qualified psychiatrist. The residents Mitchell sent to the mental hospital all returned to Council House with a clean bill of mental health. Interviewed before and after the event, they signed releases for their mental and medical health records. Those records showed nothing unusual for people in their seventies and eighties. They certainly did not show any mental health condition that would allow confinement. Documents obtained from sources and interviews with them suggest that if anyone needs mental evaluation then Stephen A. Mitchell should receive it. In light of his aberrant behavior, the directors have ample grounds to refer him for psychiatric evaluation. His unbalanced behavior suggests a serious psychological problem that needs urgent attention. His contact with residents' relatives to make trouble for them; his defamatory letters to their friends and colleagues; his frivolous lawsuits; all indicate diminished responsibility let alone dereliction. His inveterate lying, hysteria, and public disclosure of his sexual problems also show a need for intervention. Similarly, the directors should have Felippe Jacques held under observation for the violent attacks, death threats, subornation, and hate messages that he has composed and sent by email also posted on a locked bulletin board. Understandably, Council House directors do not want to act because they have much to hide themselves, particularly, misappropriation of government funds and acquiescence to long-term resident abuse. They may calculate that spending almost $30,000.00 to cover up crimes seems modest in relation to the large amounts misappropriated. Their policy seems evident when one considers that they could easily obtain eviction orders if they had probable cause. An unlawful detainer action would cost them about $1,000/$2,500 in attorney fees and court costs instead of the current expenditure and the enormous contingent liabilities that they have accrued. Conclusion Council House staff use court findings to tighten their unconstitutional hold over residents by pointing to lawsuits as an example of what could happen to them. Mitchell and Jacques both use locked bulletin boards to post disinformation and censor fact to support that intimidation - shades of Joseph Goebbels. The Kafkaesque Council House charade continues unabated by the directors or HUD. That an all-Jewish board of directors should allow supremacists like Mitchell and his staff to continue behavior reminiscent of Nazi Germany strikes a democratic person as truly oxymoronic. The authorities must stop Mitchell and his directors before others die as a result of gross neglect and abuse. Paul Trummel (Nmesis)
The redaction (censorship) of names in the Washington State, USA, version of Contra Cabal complies with an order (26 Oct 01) issued by James A. Doerty, Superior Court, State of Washington. That ambiguous and unconstitutional order unlawfully requires Nmesis not to publish names of myriad people whose names he does not know - now or in the future. That order now awaits appellate review. (See case law). |
||||
|
||||