by Jim Scarantino | May 12, 2021 | General
First Amendment violations have been corrected. Policies have been changed so that Jefferson County’s on-line public forum complies with Constitutional protections of freedom of expression.
Last year I sued Jefferson County for violating my First Amendment rights by censoring my comments and blocking me entirely from its Facebook page. This is the county’s on-line public forum, a digital town hall. In a time when government officials were not meeting in person with constituents and conducting much of their public communications via the Internet, I felt it especially critical that the same constitutional protections that govern live, in-person, three dimensional public forums should be defended in the face of on-line censorship by the government.
Unlike a private Facebook page, the government’s page is a pubic forum. The actions of its administrator in censoring a comment, or blocking a citizen from participating, are “state actions” that must comply with the Bill of Rights.
I believe strongly in civil liberties and restraints on government power. In my final act as an active trial attorney I was named the New Mexico ACLU Lawyer of the Year. Now, instead of standing up for someone whose rights need vindication, I was that person needing a lawyer. I wanted to stop Jefferson County from making its on-line public forum a place where dissenting views and inconvenient facts where suppressed.
So I got me a lawyer. I engaged the services of Greg Overstreet. He has plenty of experience suing Jefferson County. He’s Joe D’Amico’s lawyer. He’s very good and brings to the fight a long career of pushing back against government abuses of power. He’s also a great guy to work with. We drafted a short complaint and filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington.
We thought we had a pretty clear-cut case and that the county would quickly rectify the situation, change its policies and practices and settle before we ran up significant attorney’s fees. (Under federal law, a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights case is entitled to an award of attorney fees).
But there’s always a dance at the start of just about every case, particularly when its a government being sued by a citizen. Jefferson County demanded a jury trial and sought to have me pay its attorney fees and costs. That basically said they considered my case frivolous and sanctionable. So we got to work.
Ironically, their answer clarified what was going on. We learned they had a practice of “hiding” comments that they claimed violated one of their rules, such as a comment being “off topic.” That is not an exception to the First Amendment and was used to “hide” my comment linking to a video that pleaded with Americans to never forget 9/11. By “hiding” a comment, only people who are FB friends with the sanctioned commenter could see the comment. The commenter himself would have no idea he had been censored as he could still see his comment. No notice is provided that state action had been taken to censor him. This adds a due process violation on top of a First Amendment violation. Only by sitting down with someone not a FB friend and comparing screens would he learn that his comment had been censored by the practice of “hiding.”
A comment I made about our county’s terrible meth problem, chronic poverty and shrinking job base was also censored.
I was completely blocked at one point from expressing approval or disapproval to any statements made by the county in its on-line public forum. That was done without any notice, statement of justification or ability to appeal–another due process violation.
I heard from another man that he had also been censored and blocked. I set aside a day and read every single post and looked at all the comments on the Jeffco FB page from the time it was launched. I found all sorts of evidence that would help us in the jury trial the county had requested. I found other people who likely also were being subjected to censorship. An enterprising attorney could make a nice piece of change off this situation by bringing a claim for every person and every instance of censorship. Government and government officials just can’t do that, as Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have learned.
They were both sued for engaging in censorship in how they managed their on-line public forums, principally their Twitter feeds. Trump lost in District Court and again in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. AOC folded when she got sued for doing just what Trump had done. The published opinions in the Trump case established clear legal precedents, and paved the way for lots of lawsuits. We submitted extensive public records requests for the activity log of the county’s Facebook page. Those records would reveal every instance of censorship and the identity of those censored, meaning many more claims and additional plaintiffs.
But Jefferson County has a very good attorney. Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, quickly saw the problems with the county’s position. He welcomed settlement discussions. Greg Overstreet and I prepared a short synopsis of the evidence and legal claims on our side. Mr. Hunsucker, I am certain, shared our presentation with the County Commissioners and Administrator in executive session. The case then moved quickly to settlement.
The county has agreed to cease its censorship practices and to adopt the following policy in how it will manage the public forum of its Facebook page:
Authorized agents shall not restrict individuals from interacting with County-sponsored social media accounts. For purposes of this policy, ” restrict” includes both blocking and hiding comments.
If an authorized agent feels it is necessary to restrict an individual from interacting with County- sponsored social media accounts, they must consult with the Director before doing so. In determining whether an individual will be restricted the Director may consider, among other factors, whether restricting is allowed under these procedures, applicable laws, the nature of the incident on the County sponsored social media account that prompted review, whether restricting would entail viewpoint discrimination, and whether other actions could be attempted to stop or prevent further violations without restricting an individual. If an individual is restricted on authority of the Director, documentation must be kept, such as screenshots of the data that prompted the restriction and the reason for the restriction.
The Director is responsible for conducting an audit of social accounts every six months, to ensure they are being maintained in compliance with this policy.
That is a vast improvement over the wide discretion and unconstitutional practices written into the county’s previous social media policy. There may be some conceivable reason for the county in the future censoring activity on its Facebook page. A threat of violence, for instance, or publication of pornography. Or outright defamation that could subject the county to liability for injuries and losses. The county may decide that censorship, the last resort under the new policy, is unavoidable and worth a possible lawsuit. But that decision will be made only at higher levels in county government and certainly only after consulting with legal counsel.
We withdrew our extensive public records request. We don’t need to and won’t be digging up other potential claims and claimants. That saved county employees a lot of work.
The county is also paying Mr. Overstreet’s fees. I never sought monetary compensation for violation of my civil rights, but my lawyer does need to be paid. We kept our fees and costs down. Punishing the county economically was not the goal. Changing policy to bring it into compliance with the Bill of Rights was the reason for the lawsuit.
The county will pay Mr. Overstreet $12,500. He reduced his fees to facilitate quicker settlement and avoid litigating a higher fee claim–which would have cost the county even more. He would have been awarded not only the higher fee amount to which he was entitled, but also fees for his time in seeking that amount. The county would also have paid for our expert witness. That was not what we wanted and the costs of battle were avoided.
I did a lot of legal and investigative work, as though I were Mr. Overstreet’s associate counsel. I did not seek compensation for my time, though I believe I may have been entitled to an award.
We got want we wanted. Both attorneys did a good job. The county commission wisely listened to their lawyer. This case has set a precedent in Washington that other state, county and municipal governments are likely to follow. It did not produce a judicial ruling, but the example it set shows the way to conduct the business of government on-line while upholding the rights of citizens to engage freely in discussing and debating matters of public interest, even if government very much dislikes what those citizens may have to say.
Related: My First Amendment Lawsuit Against Jefferson County: Update
by Jim Scarantino | May 10, 2021 | General
Four years and $2.3 million in the rearview mirror. And still not one square foot of “affordable” housing out of the Cherry Street Project.
The Jefferson County Republican Party commemorated the project’s fourth anniversary, “and the benefits of one-party rule by Democrats,” with a little ceremony, a cake and a video on Saturday May 8, 2021. They gathered on the grounds of the decaying 1950s building barged here at great expense and trouble from Victoria, B.C. in May 2017.
I was there to cover the event for the PT Free Press.
I learned the place is not completely uninhabited. I saw the rats. A neighbor a couple years ago told me of the “really big rats, lots of them,” but on May 8, 2021, I saw them myself. The racoons, too. In the middle of the day they scurried about, disturbed by the presence of a couple dozen human beings milling around and taking pictures.
The homeless camp in the trees appears to have been abandoned. But a forest of poison hemlock has moved in. Stalks well over six feet tall cover about a quarter acre of land. On any other Port Townsend property, such a prolific display of uncontrolled noxious weeds would draw an army of inspectors, unpleasant, threatening letters and a bombardment of citations.
But the rules under which everyone else struggles never seem to apply to the Cherry Street Project. Not when it was in the hands of the bumbling and untrustworthy Homeward Bound Community Land Trust (Kate Dean, Chair of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, has been a member of HB”s Board since the start of this tale). Nor now that the City of Port Townsend has reclaimed ownership of the asbestos and lead-contaminated hulk after Homeward Bound took taxpayers for a ride. They spent hundreds of thousands and defaulted on their super-generous loan from the city. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the more than $1.4 million charge the city carries on its books.
Taxpayers don’t even get a t-shirt. They just get to pay down the loan for twenty years with nothing to show but receipts and the inescapable cost of eventually crunching and clearing the building and reclaiming the land.
We’ve reported that the total cost of this thing so far tops $2.3 million. (See our articles below.) The last estimate predicted at least another million would be needed before the first “affordable” basement apartment could be occupied–by human beings.
Happy birthday to you, Cherry Street Project. But not everyone wants to acknowledge the anniversary. Not one city councilor responded to invitations to attend the celebration and talk about their contributions to this stunning achievement in addressing PT’s affordable housing crisis.
But almost four years earlier to the day, on May 10, 2017, city councilors and other local leaders gathered in the beer garden of the Pourhouse to watch the old Carmel House roll off its barge and begin its journey to its resting place on wooden blocks on a hillside overlooking the golf course. There it became “The Cherry Street Project.” There it sat for over two years on those wooden blocks. There it sits still, worse for wear as it falls apart, bit by bit.
The doors and some windows have been open for four years. Construction debris is still scattered around the property. The stucco is falling off. The rain spouts on the back are down. The weather protection for the plywood has mostly peeled away. As we reported previously, a city inspection found holes in floors and walls big enough for people to fall through.
The Jeffco Republicans were having fun. They had a bakery paint a digital icing photo of the glorious Carmel House on a cake.
Sure, they were rubbing the uniformly Democrat/liberal/progressive/inept city councilors’ noses in it. But they do have point.
This is what you get with decades of incestuous one-party rule. Nobody in the Democrat monoculture asked a hard question at the beginning. Questions such as, “How much will this cost and may we see a budget from a licensed general contractor before we write the first check?” Or, “Hey, maybe before we bring this thing here, ya think maybe we should get, like, an inspection to see if there’s any problems in the building?” Or, “If this is such a great building, why doesn’t Victoria want it?” Or, “How can we be sure Homeward Bound will get this done and not just dump it back into taxpayers’ laps after they’ve wasted a lot of time and money?”
Nobody asked any questions. It was jump on board the bandwagon and meet you at the Pourhouse.
City councilors responsible for getting taxpayers into this mess don’t publicly talk about the Cherry Street Project. My query for an update last month was ignored. The last time this boondoggle was discussed publicly at one of their meetings was in September 2020 when they instructed the City Manager to hand it over to Bayside Housing, free and clear of all debt, along with more than $300,000 in cash. They don’t even talk about the City Manager turning down a $1 million cash offer to bail the city out of this fiasco. (We reported on that offer from the Marzans of Port Townsend last October).
I can’t tell you what is going on behind the scenes now. I am still waiting for a response to my latest public records request. Getting the files and emails and memos has been the only way to get any accurate information on this deal.
What’s in those files proves that what the public is being told is not true and far, far from the whole story.
As far as I can tell, that transfer to Bayside has not happened and the Cherry Street Project starts its fifth year with its deterioration accelerating.
Other than making fun of Democrats’ gross incompetence and political inbreeding as symbolized by the Cherry Street Project, Republicans point out the truly unfortunate ramifications of this failure. “Since the city did this,” says Craig Durgan, chair of the Jeffco Republicans, “the city has done nothing else about affordable housing. All the dollars are tied up in this.”
He had more to say in a video about “Port Townsend’s one and only affordable housing project.” It’s fun to watch, and maddening at the same time. “For $2 million the city could have built a really nice place,” he argues. “Instead, people are having to camp at the Fairgrounds.” It’s pretty well done and something new from Jefferson County Republicans. As Durgan has argued in articles contributed to this site, much of the area’s affordable housing crisis has been caused by regulations enacted by the same crowd that that gave us the Cherry Street Project as an answer to problems they created.
You can see the video at this link: Cherry Street – YouTube
Here are previous articles on The Cherry Street Project. Just click on the title and you’ll get the article in full:
Latest Cherry Street Giveaway Hits Taxpayers Harder | Port Townsend FreePress
“Completely Bogus” Numbers–More Problems and Delays for Cherry Street Project | Port Townsend FreePress
Multi-Million Dollar Fraud on Taxpayers: The Cherry Street Project Unmasked | Port Townsend FreePress
Cherry Street Project Handover “Not a Done Deal” | Port Townsend FreePress
Cherry Street Handover: Red Flags About Bayside Housing | Port Townsend FreePress
Accomplished Developer Will Donate Time and Services for Cherry Street Project | Port Townsend FreePress
Cherry Street Project Welcomes First Tenants | Port Townsend FreePress
What’s Happening With the Cherry Street Project? | Port Townsend FreePress
The Tragedy of the Cherry Street Project | Port Townsend FreePress
CHERRY STREET “AFFORDABLE” HOUSING TO COST MORE THAN $2 MILLION | Port Townsend FreePress
by Jim Scarantino | May 1, 2021 | General
Calling police to arrest one of its co-owners for trespassing has put the The Food Co-op on trial.
On April 5, 2021, Rachelle Merle, one of the Co-op’s member-owners, refused to wear a mask while shopping in the store. The store’s manager told her she would have to leave. Mrs. Merle said she would not. During the episode she asserted religious, scientific and political reasons for her stance.
The store’s manager called police. Mrs. Merle told the responding officer that she would not wear a mask and gave him her reasons. She also informed him she was “a member.” He informed her that he would arrest her if she did not don a mask or leave. She repeated her refusal to wear a mask and insisted she had the right to be in the store. He handcuffed and arrested her and walked her outside to his patrol car. She continued to state her reasons for refusing to wear a mask and to tell him that what he was doing was wrong.
She was placed in the back seat of his patrol car. A second patrol car arrived. The officers consulted. One went to the street, away from the people observing events, presumably to confer with a supervisor. He returned and stood by the car holding Mrs. Merle while the arresting officer went inside with a clipboard, presumably to confer with store management. He returned and told Merle she was being charged with trespassing and that, at the request of The Food Co-op, she was being “trespassed” from the store for a year. If she returned during that time she would be in violation of the order to stay off the property and arrested.
Merle was arraigned on April 26 on a single count of Trespass in the Second Degree. This is a misdemeanor criminal offense with penalties of up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $1,000. To understand the offense one must first know what constitutes Trespass in the First Degree: “A person is guilty of trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.” Trespass in the Second Degree is when “he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.” (Emphasis added for reasons that follow.)
Merle was not charged with not wearing a mask inside a public place of business, which would be a gross misdemeanor under the Governor’s emergency order. It remains to be seen if the Governor can unilaterally dictate new criminal offenses that could put a citizen in jail for up to a year. Merle’s case does not raise that question.
Mrs. Merle is represented by Caleb Vandebos of Chehalis, Washington. He specializes in criminal defense. Mrs. Merle will be demanding a jury trial.
Eyewitnesses for Good Reason
Merle had told people at the Freedom Rally in downtown Port Townsend the previous Saturday that she would be shopping in The Food Co-op without a mask. Freedom Rallies had been held every Saturday in recent months at the Tyler Street plaza to protest the Governor’s lockdown and masking mandates and distribute information about the vaccines.
I was there that day playing guitar with other musicians.
Merle wanted observers because she was afraid of being assaulted. She said she and, if I recall correctly, an older man had been verbally assaulted and physically intimidated for not wearing masks outside in the Co-op’s parking lot.
I decided to observe and take video for Port Townsend Free Press. I posted a video of her being escorted in handcuffs out of the store. (You can see it at our Facebook page). Shortly afterwards, in comments to the same video posted on my personal FB page, a Co-op employee attempted to start a false narrative that Mrs. Merle “literally took off her mask and coughed on an employee.” I responded that this was false and let the employee know that Mrs. Merle had been watched by a half dozen witnesses, several of whom had video evidence that his statement was false. The Co-op employee attempted to erase his attempt to smear Mrs. Merle, but it was captured by another reader before he could take it down.
Mr. Woolf did not respond to my question. Nor did the President of the Board of Directors respond to my questions about the incident. As a member-owner of The Food Co-op and editor of this site, I wrote him to receive clarification on the rights of member-owners to shop in the store.
I would like to know how a member-owner can be charged with trespass and excluded from the property without a 2/3 vote of the Board having occurred as required by the By-laws. Are members owners or not? How can they be trespassing, during regular business hours, on property they own? Did Co-op employees on their own tell the police to file charges against Ms. Merle, or did they consult with you or any members of the Board? Can an employee deprive a member-owner of their property rights without action by the Board that meets the requirements of the By-laws? Was it necessary to summon men armed with deadly weapons to address Mrs. Merle’s actions? Why were not less violent, or implicitly violent means pursued?
The President, Owen Rowe, who is also a member of the Port Townsend City Council, did not respond. I received a vague and noncommittal response from the secretary, Claire Thomas, who said it was her duty to correspond with members. She wrote:
“As you can imagine, the Board of Directors has gotten several emails regarding the incident involving you and Mrs. Merle last week and we want to read all concerns from our member-owners and have thoughtful conversation about them as a group as well as with our General Manager at the Co-op. I will be answering emails in the order in which they were received and I truly appreciate your patience while we discuss your issue as a board. We take all comments and concerns from our fellow member-owners very seriously and we want to give each person the time and attention they deserve. I will follow up with a more detailed email soon.”
That was April 14. I had written Mr. Rowe on April 7. On April 26 Mrs. Merle was arraigned on the charge of criminal trespass. I still have not received the “more detailed” answer promised by the Co-op. The fact the case is going forward apparently is their answer.
The Food Co-op On Trial
How can the Food Co-op justify having one of its owners arrested for trespassing in a store she co-owns? The definition of criminal trespass requires that the property be “premises of another.” The Food Co-op is her property as much as it is the property of the employee who ejected her, as I am sure all Co-op employees are also member-owners. This will most definitely be a key point of Mrs. Merle’s defense.
Mrs. Merle’s case is not analogous to that of a member-owner caught stealing from the store. The charge would be some level of the criminal offense of theft. The Co-op’s governing documents give its member-owners the right to shop in the store, in addition to voting rights and some other ancillary benefits. Shopping means paying for what is taken, not stealing.
The By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation set forth the rights and responsibilities of being a member-owner. The Articles of Incorporation create a single class of membership. Members of the corporation have the right “To purchase goods from the Corporation at prices generally available to members and otherwise to benefit from participation in the activities of the Corporation.” That right most definitely includes the right to shop in the store during the hours the Co-op is open to other patrons. This right can only be taken away involuntarily, “[f]or reasonable and sufficient cause, including willful violation of the Corporation’s Articles or Bylaws, by a two thirds’ vote of the Board of Directors, after a fair hearing at which the member has had the opportunity to speak and present evidence.”
The By Laws are more expansive on how a member’s ownership rights may be terminated: “Membership may be terminated involuntarily by a two-thirds’ (2/3rds’) vote of the Board for cause after the member-owner is provided fair notice of the reasons for proposed termination and has an opportunity to respond in person or in writing. Cause may include intentional or repeated violation of any provision of the Co-op’s bylaws or policies, actions that will impede the Co-op from accomplishing its purposes, actions or threats that adversely affect the interests of the Co-op or its member-owners, willful obstruction of any lawful purpose or activity of the Co-op, breach of any contract with the Coop, or failure to patronize the business for more than five (5) years.” If a member shoplifts, they could be arrested for shoplifting, but they would not be trespassing and they would retain their ownership rights until revoked by the Board on a 2/3 vote after due process had been provided to the member.
Mrs. Merle was not only charged with trespassing on a property she owns, she was handcuffed and forcibly (although professionally and gently) removed from the store against her will. Furthermore, the Co-op store manager had her “trespassed” from the Co-op, meaning she is denied all of her rights to enter a store she still co-owns. That was done without any due process or action by the Board, as required by the Co-op’s governing documents.
Somebody from the Co-op is going to have to explain themselves at trial and be subject to cross-examination. The Co-op’s actions and internal communications are also fair game for discovery by Mrs. Merle’s defense counsel. Their discussions with the arresting officer and any subsequent communications between Co-op leadership, the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney, police and the Jefferson County Health Department, if they occurred, must also be disclosed to the defense, and will be subject to examination at trial.
Did they intentionally disregard Mrs. Merle’s rights under the Co-op’s governing documents to make an example of her? Are they proceeding knowing they could well lose, but with the belief that the deterrent value of taking Mrs. Merle to trial is somehow “worth it”? Are they disregarding Mrs. Merle’s member-owner rights out of malice because of the religious or political beliefs she has asserted in her refusal to wear a mask?
It would be interesting to examine any other cases where the Co-op has called police to remove and arrest a member-owner, and those instances where it might have followed its governing documents in terminating the rights of a member-owner instead of calling police and “trespassing” the member-owner.
Ammunition for the Defense
The Co-op in unambiguous terms tells members they are owners. It has an entire section on its website entitled, “Ownership.” The Co-op provides an “Owners Guide,” that prominently proclaims, “Welcome, Owner!” It goes on to say, “As an owner of The Food Co-op of Port Townsend, you’re part of a community of over 6500 people on the Quimper Peninsula who believe in the value of owning our own grocery store.”
Two important people in the Co-op’s origins and history agree with the view that Mrs. Merle should not have been charged with trespassing. Stephen Schumacher served as Co-op President for two and a half years, was Secretary for four years, and served on the committee that reviewed and revised the Co-op’s governing documents. He is also an expert and published author on the principles of food co-ops. He was a witness to Mrs. Merle’s arrest. He wrote in protest to the acting chief of the Port Townsend Police Department, Troy Surber. His letter is quoted at length:
“I believe the police were misunderstanding the situation when they arrested Rachelle, because as a member-owner of the Co-op she was not and could not have been trespassing while exercising her rights as owner on property she co-owns. As explained in my [attached] article, member-owned cooperatives are a special kind of organization operating on different principles than standard shareholder corporations.
“The Co-op’s attached Bylaws make clear ‘1.2. The Co-op shall be owned by its members’ and its Articles of Incorporation state ‘3. Members of the Corporation shall have the right: (a) To purchase goods from the corporation at prices generally available to members and otherwise to benefit from participation in the activities of the Corporation. That is precisely what Rachelle was peacefully doing when staff illegitimately called in a trespassing complaint against one of their storeowners.
“As Rachelle attempted to explain to the arresting officer, the situation with a cooperative is analogous to a wife asking the police to arrest a husband for trespassing on his own property; if the husband is doing something else wrong, he can be arrested for that, but not for trespassing. Unfortunately Rachelle’s status as co-owner was not made clear, so the arresting officer waved the matter aside along with any grounds for separate offense, saying ‘They can ask you to leave because you are wearing a purple shirt, and you have to leave.’ But that is not true for owners exercising their ownership rights guaranteed in the Co-op’s governing documents.
“This was in fact a matter that should have been handled internally among co-owners without involving the police. Staff had many options, including refusing her check-out at the register, or arranging a meeting to discuss the underlying issues per cooperative principles. The Co-op’s Bylaws themselves provide that ‘2.6. Membership can be terminated non-voluntarily by a two-thirds’ vote of the Board for cause after the member-owner is provided fair notice of the reasons for proposed termination and has an opportunity to respond in person or writing’, after which Rachelle would have been legally subject to a trespassing complaint.
“Given that police were misinformed about how the Co-op’s governing documents make member-owners immune from trespassing complaints, please summarily drop the inapplicable trespassing charge against Co-op co-owner Rachelle Merle and remove it from her legal record. Moreover, it would be good if you could advise the Food Co-op that police will not respond to any future calls from them about member-owners trespassing on their own property.
“If this matter ever comes to court, I would be happy to testify as an expert witness on Rachelle Merle’s behalf that as a co-owner she did not and could not trespass by exercising her ownership rights to shop at the Food Co-op.”
Ana Wolpin was a founder of the Co-op, its first General Manager and a member of its Board of Directors. She also wrote to the acting police chief, likewise citing provisions of the governing document she believes the Co-op violated. She wrote:
“As a member-owned operation, the owners jointly possess the store and its assets. An owner cannot be charged with trespassing on their own property. Ms. Merle was not trespassing, she was challenging an internal Co-op policy. It appears that by involving your department in this dispute, the Food Co-op is in violation of its bylaws. The proper procedure would have been for management to initiate a Termination of Membership through the process described in those bylaws.
I have been a member of the Food Co-op for 46 years; its first General Manager in 1975 and a member of its Board of Directors some decades later. As someone who does not mask, I have not shopped there since the masking policy was put in place nearly a year ago. I have no desire to support an operation where I am no longer welcome. While I choose not to confront this policy as Ms. Merle did, I support her effort to initiate a long-overdue conversation that the Co-op board and management should be having with its member-owners.
It would appear that the Port Townsend Police Department has been erroneously involved in this dispute. The Food Co-op needs to follow its bylaws, and trespassing charges should be dropped.”
Mr. Schumacher and Ms. Wolpin have contributed articles to the Free Press. They provided copies of their letters to the chief, and his response. They also provided copies to the Co-op Board. Former Acting Chief Troy Surber similarly responded to Schumacher and Wolpin. “I understand,” he wrote, that “the Co-op has nuances” and that Mrs. Merle would have the opportunity to present her arguments if the case proceeded to trial and that the prosecutor was aware of the issues they raise.
If the Board reached the 2/3 vote against her, she could then be “trespassed” as the Co-op has trespassed other non-members, principally transients. It would have complied with its governing documents, respected the rights of member-owners, and put Mrs. Merle in a position where, if she returned to the property after being trespassed, her attorney would have little more to do than try to negotiate a plea. But because the Co-op acted in violation of the very documents that brought it into existence, Mrs. Merle’s attorney will have significantly more to work with in her defense.
by Stephen Schumacher | Apr 22, 2021 | General
Front-page health coverage by The Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader returns this week with news that, “The third fatality to coronavirus in the county late last week happened at Jefferson Healthcare – the first coronavirus death at the facility. The patient had been critically ill, Locke said, but the coronavirus caused the man’s death. The resident, a man in his 60s, passed away Saturday. ‘COVID was, we believe, the cause of death. Had it not been for the COVID infection, that person would have likely survived,’ Locke said.” [“Locke” is Dr. Thomas Locke, Jefferson County’s Public Health Officer.]
That may be, but there’s room for doubt in the case of this already “critically ill” patient, given special CDC instructions “that COVID-19 be recorded as the primary cause of death even if the decedent had other chronic comorbidities. These special instructions exclusive to COVID-19 skewed death certificate results, effectively reclassifying many deaths from a variety of causes, now classified as COVID-19 deaths.”
Even if COVID-19 was the culprit here, this should actually be considered just the first COVID-19 death in the county, given that the other two supposed deaths were a 90+-year-old in hospice and an 80-year-old suffering from surgery complications in Seattle, who was infected in a hospital wide outbreak and hadn’t been near Jefferson County for two months. See “Jefferson County Still May Have No Deaths from Covid.” Port Townsend Free Press, 1/14/21.
The Leader article continued to say that “The death comes amid a week marked by a steady increase of coronavirus cases nationwide…. In Jefferson County, health officials said the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases rose by 11 over the weekend. Of the 11 new cases, six females and five males tested positive for the coronavirus. The total countywide number of positive COVID-19 tests in Jefferson County Monday was pegged at 374.”
This reporting confuses cases of the disease COVID-19 with positive test results for the virus SARS-CoV-2. Detection of a virus does not constitute a “case” of a disease in lieu of any symptoms, otherwise anyone testing positive for the HIV virus would also count as a full-blown case of AIDS. Moreover, given Jeffco’s unreasonably-high 45 Cycle Threshold for its PCR testing, most of these positive test results may well be false positives. See, “Is Jefferson County Health Department Overstating Covid Case Numbers?” Port Townsend Free Press, 1/25/21.
[Editor’s Note: Our condolences to the family of the deceased. As this death and other deaths being counted as “Covid deaths” are being used to justify restricting the lives and liberties of others it is appropriate to raise questions about whether it is, in fact, a death caused by Covid, and whether it should serve to bolster arguments for extending lockdowns and masking mandates.]
by Jim Scarantino | Apr 20, 2021 | General
“Wow. You people at New Life Church go all out,” said Mike Johnson, who runs Port Townsend’s homeless shelter.
“That’s what Jesus does for us. We just want to spread it around,” replied Melannie Jackson, Executive Pastor of New Life Church as she delivered the days’ hot food and a special treat of “You are Loved,” “You Matter” and “One Day at a Time” cupcakes.
Why do people go out of their way to help the homeless? They don’t know the people they help, who may or may not be responsible for their circumstances in life. Some of the beneficiaries of these acts of kindness may not be the nicest people, or they may be sweethearts simply broken by the weight of a life they cannot shoulder.
The Christian churches that prepare hot meals for residents of the shelter do it because they believe Jesus loves them and wants them to share His love with others.
There are other reasons people help the homeless, other motivations and other agendas. We have a worsening housing affordability and homelessness crisis in Jefferson County that is fast becoming a miniature of Seattle’s situation. More public funds are being chased by groups for building projects, material and salaries. As Christopher Rufo observed in his excellent analysis of Seattle’s example, “Seattle Under Siege,” this creates a perverse incentive: those groups do better when things get worse. Things are getting worse in Seattle, though it annually pours more than $1 billion into the organizations that are supposed to be ending homelessness. That’s nearly $100,000 a year for every homeless individual man, woman and child on Settle’s streets. Yet there are many more people making less than that who are not homeless and hold jobs and build families. They have hard lives, health problems, addictions, and other vulnerabilities. But they have not let themselves or their loved ones join the ranks of the homeless.
Rufo divides the landscape of Seattle’s helpers into four groups. We have the same groups in Jefferson County. I am sure you will associate the names of local activists and officials with each of these categories:
The socialists. “Using homelessness as a symbol of ‘capitalism’s moral failure,’ the socialists hope to build support for their agenda of rent control, public housing, minimum-wage hikes, and punitive corporate taxation.”
The compassion brigades are “the moral crusaders of homelessness policy, the activists who put signs on their lawns that read: ‘In this house, we believe black lives matter, women’s rights are human rights, no human is illegal,’ and so on. They see compassion as the highest virtue; all else must be subordinated to it.”
The homeless-industrial complex are the social service providers who receive the staggering amounts of public funds dedicated to “ending homelessness.” Rufo writes, “When their policy ideas fail to deliver results, they repackage them, write a proposal using the latest buzzwords, and return for more funding. Homelessness might rise or fall, but the leaders of the homeless-industrial complex always get paid….Ultimately, the homeless-industrial complex is a creation of public incentives, constantly on the hunt for bigger contracts.”
The addiction evangelists are “the intellectual heirs of the 1960s counterculture: whereas the beats and hippies rejected bourgeois values but largely confined their efforts to culture—music, literature, photography, and poetry—the addiction evangelists have a more audacious goal: to capture political power and elevate addicts and street people into a protected class. They don’t want society simply to accept their choices; they want society to pay for them.”
Whatever their motivations and methods, whether they get another $100 million or only $1 million, these groups are not producing positive results for Seattle. That city is in a worse crisis every year even though these groups gain more power, influence and resources. None of what they do, Rufo writes, can end homelessness because homelessness is not caused by anything they address as the cause of the problem. It is necessary to quote Rufo at length:
“[T[he reality is that homelessness is a product of disaffiliation. For the past 70 years, sociologists, political scientists, and theologians have documented the slow atomization of society. As family and community bonds weaken, our most vulnerable citizens fall victim to the addiction, mental illness, isolation, poverty, and despair that almost always precipitate the final slide into homelessness. Alice Baum and Donald Burnes, who wrote the definitive book on homelessness in the early 1990s, put it this way:
Homelessness is a condition of disengagement from ordinary society—from family, friends, neighborhood, church, and community. . . . Poor people who have family ties, teenaged mothers who have support systems, mentally ill individuals who are able to maintain social and family relationships, alcoholics who are still connected to their friends and jobs, even drug addicts who manage to remain part of their community do not become homeless. Homelessness occurs when people no longer have relationships; they have drifted into isolation, often running away from the support networks they could count on in the past.”
Missing from the homelessness power and money map Rufo sees in Seattle are churches. They are there, working. They’ve always been at work. But with the annual billion dollars thrown by government at Seattle’s homelessness epidemic, churches seem to have been edged out of the picture, even though what they have to offer may more directly address the forces feeding Seattle’s crises on its streets and public spaces.
It Will Take More Than Cupcakes, or Socks
Food for Port Townsend’s homeless shelter is provided by four or five church groups. They prepare the meals off-site and for the time being just drop it off. There is little more they can do with Covid restrictions in place. The food is set out on tables and residents pretty much help themselves. Before all of the current restrictions, there was more interaction between the Christians and the residents. They made friends, stayed over night, brought residents to church services and classes, took them out for coffee, gave them rides, tried to find answers to their problems. I got to know some of the Shelter’s residents when Marica Reidel, former president of COAST, the coalition of churches supporting the Shelter, invited or brought them to Sunday services.
If what is behind our homelessness crisis is broken people and broken relationships (which comes first?), churches will tell you this is right up God’s alley. Jesus is in the business of fixing brokenness. The Holy Spirit can and will lead people to healing and wholeness.
Those are strange, perhaps offensive statements to many ears, and certainly not the words one hears in the meetings of elected officials or the task forces they have created. We live in a town that is not reluctant to show contempt for Christians and their faith, especially traditional and conservative Christians. One does not have to search long to find local officials mocking Christians on their social media.
But government can’t get it done. Exhibit 1: Seattle.
Our greatest homeless problems seem to be concentrated in the most unchurched cities and areas of this country. That is a reflection of the disaffiliation and disengagement Rufo cites as the driving force in Seattle’s out-of-control homelessness tragedy.
Government, and government-funded programs run by social service agencies, won’t fix the decades of disaffiliation and disengagement that have produced today’s homeless, mental illness and addiction tidal wave. Indeed, as many scholars have shown, government in many ways has created or exacerbated those problems. Vibrant, healthy, sound churches can do much more to address the problem of broken, isolated people than people on government contracts or payrolls.
It would be great if we had a mega-church or even a large church here that could support its own Adult and Teen Challenge Center, a highly successful organization that loudly proclaims its vision of “seeing all people freed from life-controlling issues through the power of Jesus Christ!” The organization has developed a less costly model for areas that cannot support a full residential center, a possibility that may be within reach of our local churches. An energetic Celebrate Recovery program–a Christ-centered 12-step recovery program–is sorely needed in Port Townsend (one has been going in Quilcene for a number of years). Our rural area would be perfect for something like Hope Farms, a residential recovery program for women, many of whom have been victims of rape, sexual abuse, and sex trafficking. These programs work.
The churches behind these programs will insist it is not them producing results. It is God working through them to transform lives. If we truly want to see progress in reducing homelessness and stemming the flow of new recruits to the streets, our secular society needs to put aside its antipathy and respect such statements.
In my limited experience, I’ve seen the benefits of Rescue Missions, a venerable ministry to the homeless operating in many cities. I remember Mark, a young man we found one morning on the loading dock at the back of our church in downtown Albuquerque. He was tweaking terribly. Meth had kept him awake for days. The church brought him in, washed and fed him, gave him some clothes and took him to the Rescue Mission a couple blocks away. I don’t recall exactly how he was enrolled so quickly in their program, but I remember what happened afterwards. He became part of our church family, participated in choir and helped with the weekly feeding of 400 people. The Rescue Mission’s residential program of rigorous Bible study, worship, prayer, life skills training and educational courses was demanding. But it worked. He defeated the streets and worked his way up through an entry level job at a high-rise hotel to be entrusted eventually with the entire operation.
It would be great if we had something like the efforts I’ve described here.
I’ve seen marriages saved, families kept intact, families reunited, children put on the right path, and friendships for life formed in churches. I know of suicides prevented, addictions overcome, and of the lonely and isolated finding a new family that loves them in churches. Government programs don’t and can’t do this. Government doesn’t love. The people you meet in church do because, as Pastor Jackson explained above, they believe Jesus loves them and they want to spread it around.
Revival
Disaffiliation and disengagement have risen as churches have declined. Some churches in the area have dropped their youth and children programs as they’ve failed to attract or keep young families. It may be a revival of healthy, doctrinally sound churches and greater collaboration among the faithful of different denominations that could be the answer to Port Townsend’s growing homelessness, addiction and suicide crises.
Take a look at Seattle. Don’t ever not learn from Seattle. We are still small enough, not yet locked into the errors of that troubled city, that we might still have a chance.
This is not to say government should wrap its arms around churches and fund them. That would be a death embrace. Dependency on government money and the strings that come with it would lead to churches being compromised and losing their truths and power. Look at what European governments have done to churches on that continent. But government can welcome and encourage churches in other ways and pull them more into their discussions and committees. Most churches already have food pantries, homeless outreach and Agape programs–unconditional gifting to help families pay utility bills, rent, buy medicine, etc. They could and should be at the table as respected partners.
Perhaps our small to medium-sized churches could pool resources, or jointly approach one of the national providers of the very successful Christian recovery programs. Or simply come together to buy a car for someone when the cost of the vehicle would exceed the reach of a single congregation.
The excitement about the Port Hadlock Community United Methodist Church welcoming a tiny homes village to its property is a wonderful development. County government showed a willingness to accommodate a unique experiment that did not precisely fit within existing land use regulations. City and county regulations, however, continue to stand in the way of churches doing more. Government could make it possible for churches to provide more services and material support for the homeless by loosening land use regulations. Many Port Townsend churches with large tracts of land are zoned out of doing multi-family or temporary housing. Perhaps a special zoning category for churches/religious organizations could unlock some of that land for very low income and residential recovery program development.
A Fifth Column
Alice Cooper once said that the most radical, rebellious thing he has ever done was become a Christian. Yes, that Alice Cooper.
In a disaffiliating, disengaged society that is producing our rising population of homeless, addicts and the hopeless, a Fifth Column of churches, working behind those enemy lines, sabotaging the forces that push people into despair, building and repairing the bonds that prevent the ups and downs of life from putting someone on the street, this secret weapon may be the only thing that will stem the tide. But it can’t be too secret. It can’t be secret at all.
There’s a lot happening in our local churches already. More is coming. There are many good people here who want to spread the love they profess they know from Jesus Christ. That is the reason they go “all out” for the homeless and others in physical and spiritual need. They’ve watched government try and fail. And it will continue to fail. For government is no substitute for the family and community or the fellowship and friendship of believers that can keep a person afloat in the roughest seas, or pull them out of the water when they are sinking to dark depths below.
(Disclosure: The conversation related at the start of this article came from announcements about the New Life Church homeless ministry. I am a member of that church. I do not intend to suggest that our congregation in any way is doing more or is any better than any other church family. We have much to learn and much, much more to do. Always.)
by Brett Nunn | Apr 16, 2021 | General
For years I have been making the Port Townsend to Coupeville ferry crossing often on a weekly basis. I call it the last great adventure on the west coast available to all. Wind, fog and tides often conspire to make the trip unpredictable.
Yes, it can be an adventure, but it has always been easy, even with the Wuhan virus, until two weeks ago when, on the Coupeville side, I pulled up in my vehicle and found an unfamiliar state employee in the ticket booth. He refused to scan my pre-paid card because I didn’t have a piece of fabric covering my mouth and nose.
I’m not asking for sympathy and I don’t feel the need to explain myself to anyone anymore. I do feel the need to shine a light on how we are being conditioned to give up our freedoms through dictates from state and federal government that are not laws, have not been debated by our political representatives, aren’t supported by scientific research even though the wording in the orders says they are, and often are based, if you bother to look, on nothing more than proclamations made on high by whomever the appointed “expert advisor” of the moment may be.
So what changed on the Port Townsend to Coupeville Ferry route other than the familiar friendly faces in the ticket booth?
You might remember a few months back, with the installation of the new occupant in the Oval Office, a flurry of executive orders. One of these was titled, Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing. It is a ponderous document ideal for curing insomnia and was pretty much forgotten by most of us as soon as it was signed on January 20. Unnoticed by many, under the authority established with the ruling, Washington State Ferries and the corresponding terminals were identified as part of the federal transportation system.
I read the order and noted that it requires all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands to wear masks, maintain physical distance, and other public health measures. Think about that for a moment, all Federal buildings, all Federal lands.
Besides the vast areas that this dictate covers, I will remind you that at the start of this national panic it was wear a mask if you can’t physically distance. Now the executive branch orders us to wear a mask and physically distance. Oh, and one other thing. There is no sunset clause. No end date. So unless someone else is installed as president in the next four to eight years and bothers to rescind this order, we can be required to wear masks forever anywhere the Federal Government and it’s petty tyrants have any influence.
This is only one example of how mass media marketing of China virus fear has been wildly successful in eliminating our freedoms. Think of all we have given up, most of us willingly; family, friends, health, fitness, education, income, jobs, travel, FDA approval of vaccines, and so much more that we have yet to comprehend, for a virus that has been proven to have a 99% plus survival rate,.
You may have thought that living way out on the Olympic Peninsula would insulate us from what happens in the other Washington. I offer my experience as evidence to the contrary.
I was eventually able to board the ferry, but only after a heated back and forth. I played by the rules and stated that health reasons preclude me from wearing a mask. The booth attendant stated that didn’t matter and refused to scan my ticket a second time. I repeated my statement. The attendant threatened to call law enforcement. I shifted my car into park to await the authorities. He made the call and the person on the other end of the line suggested he might scan my ticket from six feet away. He would not extend his scanner outside the confines of his booth. Upon stretching my arm out of my window as far as possible, the scanner read the ticket. I thanked him. He sent me off with the threat that if I persisted in not wearing a mask while seated in my car at the ticket booth, I could be charged with blocking a federal highway.
The whole experience was so completely ridiculous that it should be something to laugh about. It should be, but I am not laughing.
I leave you with this quote from Peter Skurkas writing for The American Thinker.
So today it’s “you shall wear a face mask.” What will the dictate be tomorrow? Perhaps the real story here is that the elites are conditioning Americans for proper behavior under a Harris/Biden administration. That behavior can be summed up in one word. Obey.
