Internet Jurisdiction

Due process of law does not exist at Council House, Seattle, a closed society. Now, a biased Judge James A. Doerty, Washington Superior Court, has placed the landlords of this US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) financially-assisted residence for senior citizens and their special interests above the law. He has ordered censorship of Internet essays containing reports about resident abuse and misappropriation in a draconian, unconstitutional, harassment finding. Moreover, he knowingly based his finding on a frame-up and multiple perjury.

Council House directors condone, and their administrator, Stephen (aka Stefan) A. Mitchell (37), 6126 8 Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107, with Felippe Jacques (72), 1501 17 Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122, consistently orchestrate unlawful activity and suborn senior citizens at Council House. More than forty residents perjured themselves by signing false declarations under oath as a direct result of duress by Mitchell and Jacques aided and abetted by novice attorney Maureen L. Mitchell (Short, Cressman, and Burgess - Seattle). Judge Doerty accepted those declarations with impunity.

Jacques (one of several thugs and agent provocateurs working with Mitchell) incites and coerces other residents to commit unlawful acts - he recently launched an unprovoked, street attack upon this reporter (68) with a metal stick.⁽¹⁾ The directors have neither taken action to restrain or evict Jacques for that offense nor have they acted against him and other thugs for multiple violations of leases, HUD Directives, and Seattle Municipal Codes, for at least five years.

Prevention of Expression

Council House board of directors consists of a group of fifteen wealthy people indifferent to the needs of senior citizens. They have used an unlawful tactic known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in Government) to try to silence a reporter using prior restraint. They then intentionally caused him collateral economic damage. Evidently, they could not prove inaccurate reporting that would have allowed them to bring defamation or eviction lawsuits so they used a non-governing harassment law.

Ironically, Washington State passed the first modern anti-SLAPP law in 1989 to counter an increase in frivolous lawsuits designed to silence people who openly express their views to government agencies. In this case, the Council House directors have financed strategies to force a reporter to devote substantial time and money to defend litigation and to stop him reporting their alleged crimes.

Doerty failed to question or allow refutation of suborned testimony filed by Council House. Instead, he allowed people who advocate an unlawful supremacist ideology to restrict freedom of expression. Then he redefined investigative reporting as harassment and unlawful surveillance while designating freelance reporters non bona fide.

Council House Past Co-Presidents (2000-2001) Sheila Sternberg, 8530 NE 26 Street, Bellevue, WA 98004 and Lynn Wartnik, 8811 SE 55 Place, Mercer Island, WA 98040, in a consort with other directors, have furnished Mitchell with more than $20,000 in attorney fees. With that money, Mitchell and his attorneys have covered up unlawful activities for which the directors remain ultimately responsible.

Inquiry into the draconian measures that Judge James A. Doerty imposed, and the broad jurisdiction that he claimed, revealed that Doerty holds court in the same courthouse as Lynn Wartnik's husband (senior Superior Court Judge Anthony P. Wartnik). Both Lynn Wartnik and Sheila Sternberg have a personal stake in denying due process and frustrating an appeal. They hold ultimate responsibility with Mitchell and others for egregious resident abuse and misappropriation of federal funds at Council House. They have known the facts for more than eighteen months, however, instead of mitigating damage they have tried to kill the messenger who reported those facts to government authorities.

Wartnik and Sternberg, with Council House directors and their management staff, have allegedly: filed a bogus cross-petition; suborned senior citizens; abused residents; misappropriated federal funds; falsified documents, promoted thuggery; discriminated racially and religiously; procured unlawful eviction; denied due process of law; thwarted appellate action; practiced search and seizure; and attempted to jail a reporter to silence him.

Council House directors have crowned those crimes with a cover-up condoned by Martha Dilts, HUD Secretary’s Representative in Seattle. Both HUD-Bremerton and HUD-Seattle continue unlawfully to conceal public records available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). HUD attorneys has even claimed privacy exemptions for deceased residents despite the dead having no expectation of privacy.

The case, now subject to discretionary review⁽²⁾ in the Washington Supreme Court, involves usurped jurisdiction and judicial misconduct that support a cover up of unlawful activity. The irrational Doerty has shown neither an understanding of First Amendment law nor the principles involved in electronic communication. Moreover, he has repeatedly denied the basic right of due process of law.

Doerty has considered neither legal opinion nor pleadings. He apparently lives in ignorance of the US Constitution as it relates to freedom of expression. He does not understand the basic premise that truth depends on a balance struck between two sets of conflicting reasons and investigates only one side of a proposition. Consequently, his findings contain very little truth and his statements border upon insanity. Furthermore, his ego and arrogance do not allow him to reconsider his decisions or the consequences of them.

Doerty does not in any sense follow the practices that the law requires. He has ignored established rules of conduct both in letter and spirit. He has found several times in favor of Council House directors who follow or condone an unlawful ideology designed for self-enrichment.⁽³⁾ In particular, he has shown an abysmal ignorance of the complexities involved in electronic communication by claiming that he can retain jurisdiction over Internet content and censor it.

Internet Jurisdiction and the First Amendment

Medium-specific jurisprudence has always provided less protection to new media than to traditional newspapers. None has received as much protection as "the virtually insurmountable barrier between government and the print media" covered by the First Amendment.⁽⁴⁾

The press gets specific mention in the Constitution. Courts have interpreted downward from the original First Amendment language by restricting speech in network television, radio, telephones, and even billboards. The ostensible justification for this one-way slide relates to a focus on the "differing natures, values, abuses and dangers" of each medium. Thus courts have found that radio broadcasts and scarcity of bandwidth justified regulations that did not apply to print media.⁽⁵⁾

Traditional local or national community standards do not apply to the Internet because it spans many jurisdictions, globally. Moreover, legal arguments go strongly against national standards that would also apply internationally. Consequently, any existing standards regarding regulation of language permitted by the First Amendment now need new law to meet the realities of Internet speech.

Freedom of the press remains a central tenet of the First Amendment. That should help achieve a more democratic society through news gathering and publication that serves as a check on official and private power. The ubiquitous publishing power of the Internet has transformed the traditional press. Freelance journalists and independent content providers have burgeoned and now play a crucial role in preserving democratic aspirations. Their role has become especially important as control of the mainstream media has increasingly fallen into the hands of large corporations.

A New York Supreme Court judge recently established case law that addresses some freelance writer issues. The ruling in that libel case extended for the first time the same speech protections to online journalists that their print, radio, and TV colleagues, have enjoyed since the Sullivan decision (1964).⁽⁶⁾ Now, all First Amendment protections accorded newspaper and magazine journalists apply to online journalists.

That ruling means that states, politicians, and corporations, will have a much harder time taking online journalists to court in the United States for statements that they have made globally. It gives First Amendment protection to online, freelance journalists also web site publishers subjected to libel suits (or defamation suits in the guise of harassment motions) in US courts.⁽⁷⁾ It overcomes the chill that has deterred some online journalists from reporting important issues particularly those who write about unlawful activity.

Now, anyone suing online journalists has to prove, using the same standards applied to traditional media, that the journalist knowingly lied or acted maliciously. That means that freelance online journalists now have the same protections enjoyed by full-time journalists employed by newspapers like New York Times, Washington Post, and Christian Science Monitor no matter how small their web sites. Ethically, they must show that they reported a matter of public concern without malice with the burden of proof remaining the responsibility of the person or corporation bringing suit.

Harassment of Journalists

Harassment lawsuits place an undue burden on online journalists and publishers by violating their First Amendment rights. If a court applies different legal criteria to Internet harassment claims from criteria applied to offline libel claims then it ignores crucial distinctions between media. Those lawsuits unduly interfere with Internet journalism. They force some online journalists to have second thoughts about using spirited investigative journalism techniques. Understandably, they wish to avoid the retaliation and legal costs involved in defending themselves.

Doerty should have dismissed Council House directors' frivolous action under forum non conveniens rules. He should have recognized that he did not have jurisdiction over journalism issues and that he could not retain jurisdiction over them. Instead, he chose to violate journalism First Amendment rights by using kangaroo court tactics.

The cost to comply with Doerty's censorship of this web site now exceeds $50,000 without attorney fees and court costs. In addition, Council House directors have spent more than $20,000 to bring that censorship about. They continue to spend even more money trying to remove details of their unlawful activity from this site and to deny due process of law. However, the Washington Supreme court will soon have a motion before it that addresses the real issues.

The independent press stimulates free discussion and focuses public opinion on issues and wrongdoing as a potent check on arbitrary bureaucratic action or abuse. In evaluating the various claims against Contra Cabal, the court should have considered the societal importance of independent online journalists. It should also have considered the implications that a decision would have upon dissemination of investigative news stories. It did not.

Instead, Doerty declared this reporter non bona fide because of his freelance status. He placed him in contempt of court, threatened him with imprisonment, then fined him $100.00/day until he censored the Contra Cabal web site. Moreover, he had him locked out of his office/home without due process of law, contrary to federal, state, and municipal eviction laws and regulations. That lockout has restricted him from using his research material and databases for more than nine months. Contra Cabal now publishes from a mobile laptop computer using limited databases.

Broad Jurisdiction

Doerty adopted a "'where viewed" doctrine that broadened his jurisdiction to anywhere in the world and to every case involving a web site - not bad for an elected judge with less than one year service. However, a contractual relationship with a particular Internet Service Provider (ISP) insufficiently warrants retaining jurisdiction by any judge. Other courts have found that a contract by itself does not automatically constitute sufficient cause to support personal jurisdiction.⁽⁸⁾ The fact that the publisher signed a contract for Internet services with a Washington ISP does not mean that he purposefully availed himself of the benefits of Washington State enough to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction.⁽⁹⁾

Litigation did not arise between Contra Cabal and its ISP. Instead, litigation resulted from Council House directors and managers apparent need to silence a reporter and publisher to cover up their alleged crimes. The publisher did not purposely avail himself of privilege by conducting international activities within a forum state. Thus, he did not invoke the benefits and protection of its laws enough to warrant personal jurisdiction in Washington state.

If any tort exists at all, then the "place of wrong" embraces many jurisdictions in the US and abroad. The geographic location of an ISP has no bearing upon jurisdiction internationally (despite Council House blackmail used to try to force the Washington ISP to remove the whole Contra Cabal web site, permanently).

Contra Cabal content evolved internationally - written in various countries and uploaded from several locations. The fact that readers (listeners) can access the Internet from Washington State does not allow Council House directors to bring harassment lawsuits against a journalist or online publisher to silence him. Council House must neither try to evade restrictions placed upon them by state and municipal defamation and eviction laws nor evade federal laws that naturally govern when the issues involve federal financing and reporting. However, Doerty has deliberately encouraged Council House to do precisely that by suggesting from the bench that they file a cross-petition.

Despite an obvious advantage that Council House directors obtained through judicial bias and apparent "judge-shopping" they must not litigate under a more favorable law than the one that naturally governs. Moreover, they must neither repeatedly bring contempt motions and use unethical legal tactics to try to intimidate and silence journalists nor make false financial declarations to cause them financial hardship - actions that Doerty has condoned.

Online journalists should not have to bear the expense and spend time to litigate in jurisdictions that do not apply. The burden unduly suppresses online free press rights. Courts should dismiss those lawsuits on both procedural and constitutional grounds - grounds that will probably become central to the future of independent, online journalism.

The Future of Online Journalism

Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson recently noted the importance of independent journalism. He said that: "If the big fish can then pursue the journalist around the world and threaten the website wherever it emanates from, that's potentially harmful to spirited investigative journalism. And that, I think, has significance." He went on to say that the New York case⁽¹⁰⁾ has essentially become the New York Times v. Sullivan of the Internet. The court decided that online journalism deserves the same First Amendment protection as the mainstream press.

Online journalism ranks similar to print, radio, and TV news, when it comes to free-press protection against libel suits. Recently a court ruled that statements by online journalists reporting on matters of public importance, like their colleagues in other media, can only classify as libelous if deemed malicious. U.S. Supreme Court codified that higher standard for defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) which did not deal with Internet journalism because the Internet did not exist then. However, the New York court has now effectively decreed that sauce for goose should also season gander.

Dean Paton, past National Vice President for the National Writers Union (United Auto Workers Local 1981) and a regular contributing journalist to Christian Science Monitor testified in the Contra Cabal case. He reminded the court that the rights to free expression and publication enjoyed by and protected for Contra Cabal rank no less than those enjoyed by New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, or any other periodical published and distributed in the United States. He said that: "In some ways, these Constitutional guarantees are even more important for small publications like [Contra Cabal], because if the courts fail to protect the solitary voice they have failed all of us, as well as our national principles. [Contra Cabal] is following in the tradition of Tom Paine and other American media pioneers who used simple pamphlets, tracts, and newsletters to fight what they saw as tyranny. As I'm sure the court knows, all of us in this country have the right to publish journals of fact and opinion, and to properly distribute them. For as long as there has been an American republic, the courts have upheld and championed these rights." Doerty completely ignored what Paton and others with similar testimony said.

If a local court usurps power to arbitrarily introduce community standards for the Internet then in short time the US Supreme Court will probably curtail that state's right to enact any local Internet regulations. Meanwhile, state law could inadvertently burden Internet activity outside its own state and chill Internet speech internationally if not constantly challenged.

Nmesis accepts that challenge.

Nmesis.

1. Seattle Police Department Report #01-603452 - 29 Dec 01.

2. Washington State Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP 13.5).

3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.), 1974, 65, 95-101.

4. Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 259 (White, J. dissenting).

5. FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 748.

6. New York Times co. v. Sullivan 84 S,Ct. 710 (1964).

7. Banco Nacional de Mexico, s.a.v. Mario Renato Menéndez Rodriguez, Al Giordano and the Narco News Bulletin, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York: IAS Part 47, Paula J. Omansky (#603429/00)

8. Ellicott Machine Corp., Inc. v. John Holland Party Ltd., 995 F.2d 474, 478 (4th Cir.1993).

9. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958).

10. Banco Nacional de Mexico, s.a.v. Mario Renato Menéndez Rodriguez, Al Giordano and the Narco News Bulletin, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York: IAS Part 47, Paula J. Omansky (#603429/00).