Let us Assume says Becker

US Secondary Teacher (Retired) [Name withheld by request]

As an American citizen I would hate to think that justice is as poor in the rest of the United States as is reflected in this hearing in Seattle, WA. As a former secondary teacher, I am equally appalled at the quality of education as reflected by Judge Becker’s comments. Somebody in her teacher training missed the axiom: this is the problem, what is the issue.

Becker herself introduced and kept insisting on the “merits” of the case when there were, as Mr. Crittenden pointed out, no merits, as none had ever been allowed. She presses on - “Let us assume,” says Judge Becker, “that it is true that Mr. Trummel was wandering around, etc.” Why not “assume” otherwise? How can you “assume”, jail someone without discovery or legal representation, then place him in solitary confinement? She goes on to say that it “appears” that what Mr. Trummel would have done in response to a 3 am prohibition would have been to start knocking on doors at 2 am. Once again, she “assumes”. It is conjecture, never taking into consideration that possibly Professor. Trummel was not an elderly pamphlet happy senile person without a reason for walking the halls and distributing pamphlets. She goes further to say that Mr. Trummel was an “unpopular person” - unpopular with whom, possibly unpopular with the right people?

Now that the “non merits” of the case have been insinuated into the hearing by Judge Becker, Mr. Somerville feels free to state that Mr. Trummel was posting pamphlets on doors which personally harassed the tenants behind those doors. I never read any indication that was the case – more that the writing and distribution of the pamphlets were encouraged and approved by some tenants who claimed they were being abused. Professor Trummel is also a journalist. The six pamphlets were legally distributed to every tenant who, given the opportunity, did not “opt out” of receiving them and they were critical of Council House management in regard to some tenants’ welfare. The court completely ignored the possibility that it was tenants, in particular the subsidized tenants, who were being harassed by the administration; some were ostracized, some evicted, some illegally incarcerated, others died.

All in all, it seemed that the court was more interested in supporting Judge Doerty than they were concerned about the tenants. No one questioned the authenticity of the declarations that Council House had submitted; they simply accepted them. Where was the concern that something nasty might be happening to real people in that facility to the point of death, people whom they were obligated to protect? From what I have read, there was a serious problem at Council House, one which no one in authority wanted to address.

The court showed an absolute lack of concern for their citizens, which seems to me should have been their first priority. I’m not a judge, but I have been a teacher and administrator and I think the first thing I would have asked is “what is going on here and why is it happening?” Not one person tried to determine that -- not the police, not the government, not HUD, not the courts, not anyone in authority. The sole focus was to ignore the complaints of the tenants and to punish Professor Trummel, as a journalist, for complaining on their behalf.

I would rate this hearing as less than poor, Mr Crittenden excepted, in terms of law, education and general morality – a system failure. A person can fail, but the system should work. In this case it did not. The system from the beginning has appeared to be designed to protect the perpetrators, severely punish the informer, and it failed to protect the innocent: a modus operandi that continues in this hearing. What it seems to be to be is not a legal system, but rather a systematic cover-up.

Please do not use my name nor publish my e-mail address. The response to valid criticism in Seattle appears to be overt, and I might add violent, retaliation - some sort of an alternate world which I have not experienced and do not understand, particularly as it presumes to reflect United States law, education and civil society.