Senior Citizen Activist Jailed For Internet Rant

Newsbytes via Rense ^ | Michael Bartlett

[Sir Gawain]

Senior Citizen Activist
Jailed For Internet Rant
By Michael Bartlett
Newsbytes
3-28-2

SEATTLE, Wa. - A man who posted on the Web details of what he asserts is an investigative report into alleged improprieties at a Seattle residence for senior citizens has been in jail for a month - with no end to his incarceration in sight, his attorney said today.

 

Paul Trummel, 69, was for approximately two years a resident of Council House, a residence in the Capitol Hill section of Seattle whose construction was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

 

Trummel, a former professor of journalism at the University of Washington, had frequent run-ins with the administrators who managed the facility.

 

He detailed his complaints in a newsletter, which he published and distributed to residents of Council House.

 

According to Robert Siegel, Trummel's attorney, Trummel first appeared in court in April 2001, when he asked Superior Court Judge James Doerty to issue an injunction against the administrators of Council House, who were trying to halt the distribution of his newsletter.

 

"Judge Doerty took an immediate dislike to Paul," said Siegel. "Not only did he turn down his request for an injunction, he told the other side that if they asked him, he would issue an injunction against Paul."

 

Two weeks later, on April 19, 2001, Council House obtained a restraining order against Trummel. Siegel said the order not only told Trummel not to "harass" the administrators, it said he could not even go into the building - making it a de facto eviction.

 

"The judge said he can't have any contact with anyone at Council House. That means not just the people he had a problem with, but also the residents, many of whom were his friends and acquaintances."

 

Since April 2001, there have been four or five contempt orders based on the original anti-harassment order, said Siegel.

 

Some time last year, Trummel created a Web site he called ContraCabal.net. On this site, Trummel continued to bash the administrators of Council House, as well as Doerty. Council House's attorneys brought the site to Doerty's attention, asserting that it violated the judge's order that Trummel cease his "harassment."

 

"Most of what Paul was putting on the site was public information that is available at the Secretary of State's office," said Siegel.

 

Eventually, Trummel complied with the judge's order and edited many items from his site. However, Siegel said Trummel put up what he called a "shadow" Web site at ContraCabal.org that contained all of the non-complying information. Trummel asserted that since the second site was based in Holland, Doerty had no jurisdiction over it, said Siegel.

 

"On Feb. 27, Doerty ordered Paul placed in jail for contempt," Siegel said. "He ordered him held until he is in compliance with an Oct. 26, 2001, order to remove content from the Web site."

 

The problem is, Trummel has no Internet access in jail, and the judge's indefinite sentence rankles Siegel.

 

"I don't know how he is to comply from jail. That is the dilemma," he said. "The judge has not set a date for an arraignment, a hearing or anything. It is civil contempt, so he is not guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. Had he been arrested for murder, he would have had to be arraigned."

 

James Chadwick, an attorney not involved in this case who is an expert on free speech law, believes Trummel has a solid First Amendment defense.

 

"The judge's order to take down statements is classic prior restraint," Chadwick told Newsbytes.

 

Chadwick said he looked at Trummel's Web site and it seemed to him that some of Trummel's statements had been removed.

 

"Trummel makes several accusations on his site against the administrators of the building, but if those accusations are false, they are defamatory," he said. "You cannot enjoin speech because it is defamatory, at least until you have a conclusive judicial determination that it is defamatory - such as a trial or a summary judgment."

 

Chadwick said the judge in this case has enjoined speech "that appears to enjoy First Amendment protection."

 

"Speech can be enjoined, but only in very limited circumstances," he explained. "Examples would include a pattern of threats of physical violence, incitements to violence or child pornography."

 

"But even in categories of speech not protected, such as speech that is defamatory or obscene, you cannot enjoin the speech," he added.

 

Siegel said Trummel's legal troubles are exacerbated by his health issues. He said Trummel suffers from four types of arthritis and prostate problems, and is forbidden under jail rules to take the supplements he normally takes to treat those conditions.

 

This week, Trummel tested positive for tuberculosis, Siegel added.

 

Trummel's plight is attracting international attention. Because he is a British subject and permanent resident alien, the British government has written to the judge. In addition, organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) are trying to rally support.

 

"Paul has been an investigative reporter all his life, and he is a member of several journalism groups. SPJ said they were going to file an Amicus Curiae brief on his behalf."

 

Siegel said it is possible that Trummel could ask him to take down the Web site on Trummel's behalf, but "Paul wants to stand by his guns on principle."

 

"He says every thing he wrote is satire or the facts," said Siegel. "If Council House thinks they have damages, they can sue for defamation and try to prove it. They don't need the extraordinary protection of an anti-harassment order."

 

Trummel's Web site is at http://www.contracabal.net .

 

The "international version" is at http://www.contracabal.org .

 

Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .

 

Press contact:
Robert Siegel, defendant's attorney 206-624-9392

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I wonder who the judge is in bed with? Council House or somebody connected must be buying the judge a lot of steak dinners or supplying him with coke.

[Kerberos]

Is this another nail in the coffin of the 1st amendment?

[genefromjersey]

Where is the ACLU ???

[101st-Eagle]

1st-4th and other facets.

And Habeus Corpus can be a joke with a selfish enough judge. We are at the mercy of these self-righteous thugs anymore and the lackeys at the PDs. To think everything I so admired about my country as a school kid turns out to be spit upon by these bad apples and helps set morally wrong precedent is sad. This judge should be ashamed. 1984 is right around the corner-oops its here.

[ArneFufkin]

This is the World Wide Web ... we could all be A+Bert. No, we couldn't.

This week, Trummel tested positive for tuberculosis, Siegel added

SURPRISE! TB??? Isn't that a sticky wicket ... nice, nothing better than a foreign national with TB.

[Kerberos]

I was reading a law review last night on the 2nd Amendment at one of the law school sites. On line in particular really caught my attention.

"Rarely do we focus predominantly on the text, on original meaning, on tradition, on constitutional structure, on claims of changed circumstances, and on other forms of interpretive argument. 3 We know that in reality, to practicing lawyers, the Constitution is indeed what the Court says it is. And influenced by this reality, we mostly teach and critique the Court's pronouncements."

I found this particularly interesting in light of the fact of all the rants I see here on FR as to what the Constitution means.

[VA Advogado]

A+Bert? I didn't think he was so young.....

No, this is CTD territory.

[texlok]

Always remember, you cannot bash HUD!

That judge seemed to be a little one-sided..oops, is he going to put out a restraining order against me?

[CDHart]

Interesting quotation. Do you have title, publisher, etc.? Thanks!

Carolyn

[Kerberos]

"Interesting quotation. Do you have title, publisher, etc.? Thanks!"

Yes, it is just a professor's outline of a law school course in Constitutional law, But it can be found here.

And yes I am aware that it comes from the UCLA law school, which is not generally thought to be a bastion of conservative thought, but it still pretty much says the same thing that every attorney I have ever talked to says about Constitutional law.

[CDHart]

Thank you! Very scary stuff, IMO!

Carolyn

[Kerberos]

"Very scary stuff, IMO!"

Not really. I suppose you have to ask the question that ok, if they courts should not interpret the Constitution and decides what it means, then who should.

Anyway, I found it to be an interesting read and presents some interesting points.

[Kerberos]

"To think everything I so admired about my country as a school kid turns out to be spit upon by these bad apples and helps set morally wrong precedent is sad. "

Yes, but keep in mind that it didn't happen overnight, so it can't be fixed overnight. But I am still an optimist. I still think it can be fixed.

[Alissa]

I swear when I first saw this headline I thought it was a joke about the new format.

[Kerberos]

"I swear when I first saw this headline I thought it was a joke about the new format."

LOL. Yes there have been a few posts recently from the onion.com, which has tripped some people up.

However I am not really familiar with newsbytes, but with every other encroachment the government has been doing it does not surprise me.

[CharlieDarwin]

I wonder who the judge is in bed with?

Probably owns stock in the company. What a sorry excuse for a judge.