Washington Courts

The witnesses for Morning Star Boys Ranch were, to a person, decent, forthright, and caring. They were people who did their work as care-givers to the young boys at Morning Star over the years in concern and simple dedication. They were people who cooked, cleaned, wrangled the horses, took the boys on outings, tutored them when they came back to the ranch after school and played games with them in the evenings.

Two of these innocents were people who came together in respect and love of one another, came together free of any sort of artificiality, as a result of meeting at the ranch. And, who in innocence began to make a life together. The two we learned about during the trial were Doyle Gillum and Tricia Gillum.

Tricia grew up in Washington in the Anacortes area of Puget Sound. She came to Spokane after high school and worked at a bank on the South Hill. Doyle had grown up in the Omak - Okanagan area just east of the Cascades – an area connected to Canada and surprisingly to Seattle, yet a farming - ranching area. Tricia enjoyed doing volunteer work. When she came to Spokane she began volunteering at Morning Star Boys Ranch after becoming aware of Morning Star at the bank.

Afer work, she went to the to the ranch 2 - 3 times a week to help with dinner, play games with the boys, help them with their homework. Doyle Gillum was there every time she was there. He was on the evening shift. They worked together. She came to know Doyle. They became friends and after she stopped volunteering, they started to go out. She went back to the West Side — “the Coast” we say over here.  Doyle visited her every weekend. Their love grew.

That Christmas she came over to Spokane and she and Doyle went horseback riding at the Ranch. It was then he proposed. And, they were married.

Doyle went into the Air Force. After Doyle’s training, they moved to Omaha, Nebraska. In late 1994 Doyle went bird hunting with a friend, a neighbor. The men were accidentally caught up in a train accident – Doyle was killed.

Tricia gradually put her life together again. She married and now has an 11-year old daughter. She teaches 3rd grade at a Christian school and lives with her husband and daughter in South Carolina where her husband, Michael Schmidt, works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

This person, Tricia, is a fine and good person. She loved Doyle Gillum. She was drawn to him because of his goodness, his love for others, his integrity and essential decency. There was nothing but good in Doyle. She knew, she testified. Even the darkest of souls would not have questioned the goodness and truth of Tricia Schmidt.

One wondered how could anyone pursue accusations against Doyle, against the goodness of this man, against what was the goodness of the choice Tricia had made in Doyle.

To those observing there was a strange unreality taking place. One wondered whether the plaintiff and his attorney were just trying to impress a lie on the jury, on the court, on the public mind – to gain what? Money? That could be it, but may be there was something more, it may be that it was an insidious desire to do injury. A desire to presume good people were bad people and to get a jury and a court to join them in what could only be false taking of money from a good institution and to get a jury and a court to indulge in some sort of great lie that decent people were instead – well, instead, – evil people.

Tim Kosnoff, the attorney for the plaintiff, the attorney advancing the absurd claims of his client, tried to besmirch the character of Tricia Schmidt. He tried to suggest there was something odd in Doyle Gillum’s going into the Air force and not seeing her more often than weekends when he was in training across the state from her. He tried to suggest there was something wrong in relocating to Omaha. He tried to raise suspicion as to Doyle’s tragic death.

I sat and listened in amazement to this slick lawyer as he tried to raise doubts. Somehow it seemed to me he must be thinking he could create some negative aspect by asking questions, as if there was something sordid behind the question – that all he had to do was to ask the question and somehow connect it to a public prejudice, connect it to some sort of negative spirits in the minds of the jurors. I shuddered.

There were no public responses to these efforts by Mr. Kosnoff. But, some were watching. Some caught up on what he was doing. Some did not think his conduct was appropriate –

In fact, it was not even appropriate as far as those who would use our judicial system as some sort of personal injury lottery – a lottery where you try to get a jury or a judge to join in plays for money.

This sort of law is the “legal enterprise phenomenon” of plays on “public prejudice.” Kosnoff and Company are masters of the process, it seems. Sad. What is the process of law becoming?

Despite the efforts of Kosnoff and Company, the jury saw the truth, the innocence and good will, of Doyle and Tricia Gillum.

To those who attended the Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch trial and who listened carefully to the story of the life of Kenneth Putman, a great sense of sadness for the young man was, had to be, felt. 

Kenneth Putnam is one of those people who, as a newborn, was rejected by those who should have loved him.  I sensed there was a great rift in his spirit, his soul – a great deep pain and an unrequited longing.  I sensed that the real cause of this was the rejection and the emotional and physical suffering he experienced in the “care” of his mother and father.

Things might have been different for Mr. Putnam if the state, as parens patriae, had stepped in at his birth and put him in the hands of loving people.  That did not happen. The state simply did not do that, though it could have.  It had the power, but it did not have the will.  I wonder if the state has the will to take such steps today?  One wonders how many children are terribly damaged due to the lack of real love from parents.

Is it possible for the broken soul of Kenneth Putnam to be repaired today?  I think it is, but I think it will only come about as a choice by Mr. Putnam.  The choice, if he is to make it, is a choice to see the substance of being in himself.   The choice will be made when he chooses to live and and when he chooses to stop denying the “death” he experienced as an infant, a small child.   The choice will have nothing to do with self-discipline or being tough.  It will have everything to do with a quiet, unspoken, acceptance of that which is transcendent.

Kosnoff and Company go through the state of Washington telling people who are alleged to have suffered as children at the hands of those who may have sexually abused them that they should sign contingent fee agreements to let them bring an action damages here or there against this or that “evil” entity — for example, the whole of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane or Morning Star Boys Ranch or some other organization which was 30 years ago or more  being taken advantage of by a bad person.  They say they will get justice, that their efforts will make their lives better.  

This, of course, is nonsense.  Money damages may be gotten but money is not going to repair the damage which might have taken place.  Kosnoff and Company pitch a falsehood, an impossibility.

And, in doing so they make millions.  One wonders how much of the $50 million paid out of the Bishop of Spokane Bankruptcy went to Kosnoff and Company?  Was it $20 million.   Maybe more?

Kosnoff and Company are running a money gathering enterprise by which they get a percentage of the money they can obtain.  This enterprise may be dressed up in the words of justice and so on but it does not provide true help to those who suffer.  And, the enterprise certainly does not help those who make false claims.

Tim Kosnoff has not helped Kenneth Putnam.  Not at all.

Kenneth Putnam and his attorney, Tim Kosnoff and Company, lost today.  The jury did not believe the false and fantastic claims of Kenneth Putnam.  But, though Doyle Gillum (deceased), Father Joe Weitensteiner  and Morning Star were vindicated, the frivolous action brought by Kenneth Putnam has surely cost Morning Star Boys Ranch hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For more on the verdict today see Kevin Gramen’s piece in the Spokesman - Review, Jury decides in favor of Morning Star.  After reading the piece go to the “Related stories” section over on the right of the page for many more of Kevin Gramin’s pieces regarding the case.

As we gain more knowledge of the Morning Star and Spokane Diocese so-called sex abuse cases one must begin to wonder a massive fraud may be taking place and may have taken place. A fraud of the system of justice and a fraud of Morning Star and Spokane Diocese and perhaps other institutions.

Today we read in the Spokesman-Review that an attorney for the Diocese is going to brought before the local bankruptcy court for contempt. S-R, Diocese lawyer faces court action. His alleged contempt is that he is, and has been, critical of the trustee in the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy. For what you may ask? For allowing new claims to be filed in the proceedings long after everyone had knowledge of the proceedings and for payments to which the trustee seeks to make regarding some of the claims. Id.

The Spokesman-Review, on November 3, 2009, did a story on the new claims. S-R, Diocese hit with 21 new claims. The paper reported that seven of the new claims had already been approved.

Mr. Arpin has been critical of this and has voiced his criticism to the bankruptcy trustee, Gloria Nagler, of Nagler Associates, Seattle.

I have the impression that certain people think the Spokane Diocese and Morning Star and perhaps other Catholic organizations are easy pickings. There is significant cause for concern the way things have been put together and how the claims so easily filed and approved in the bankruptcy proceedings and how the claims so easily get into court and before juries.

There is at the very need for some true light to be shown on what has been going on and is going on.

In the Morning Star cases many of the plaintiffs have spent time in prison. They have spent time in prison with other plaintiffs. Word gets around in prison. Plans get made. One prisoner does one thing, another prisoner joins in. The recent history of the attempts of prisoners to use the public disclosure act for fun, trouble and profit instead of true desire to see records is an example.

One must wonder whether Morning Star claimants have made claims, are making claims, in the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy. For example, one source told me that Kenneth Putnam has already received $300,000 from the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy.

In the Putnam case, Michael Clarke a former Morning Star resident and man who has spent significant portions of his life in various prisons in Washington came up, in the “final hour” of the Putnam proceedings with the claim that Father Weitensteiner has been paying him “hush money.”

Mr. Clarke also has a claim against Morning Star. One wonders whether he made a claim in the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy.

I do not think we know the truth about the Spokane Catholic Sex Abuse Claims. One has to wonder whether it is not an enterprise, an industry, a combination. See my previous post, Morning Star: Are the Clarke allegations a massive shakedown?

What is to be done? I think the Spokane attorney should consider at least some action to start. See this letter to Prosecuting Attorney Steve  Tucker.  . At the very least, the prosecutor has to engage the power of his office to determine whether Michael Clarke or Father Joe Weitensteiner is lying. The prosecutor must also find out whether others are conspiring regarding the lie and if so who they are. Prosecution should proceed under the criminal laws.

If Mr. Tucker does not act, he will not be fulfilling the responsibilities of his office.

A man says another man sexually abused him in private over 20 years ago. The accused man denies the accusation and also denies he ever was in a private place alone with the man making the accusation.

The crowd hears of the accusation and the denial. The crowd has a presumption the accuser is telling the truth. The crowd also has a presumption the man denying the accusation is not telling the truth. Have I stated the truth about the crowd? I think I have.

I have tested this analysis. My experience of the crowd presented with the scenario is always the same. The accuser is presumed to be telling the truth. The denier is presumed to be telling an untruth.

The “presumption” is irrational. Yet, it is there.

The only way to work against it is to tell the truth. To do as much as one can to prove that the person who denies the accusation is trustworthy, sincere, that his character is such that he would not lie. To do everything which assists a person in making a rational decision about the truth or untruth of the accusation and the truth and untruth of the denial.

The purpose of a trial is to get at the truth. One would hope the presumption I have talked about above is not a part of the thinking and emotions of the jurors in the Putnam v. Morning Star case. If this irrational presumption is in the minds of some on the jury one would hope reason and facts will convince the persons holding the presumption to overcome it and to do the right and true thing.

It will take 10 jurors to go along with the claims of Kenneth Putnam and his attorneys.

What is the truth about the Kenneth Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch case? What is the case about? Is it about an innocent young boy at a group home for the care and nurturing of boys who was touched in inappropriate sexual ways? If it is about the boy suffering sexually inappropriate conduct it would seem the facts put in front of the jury at the trial would bear out, prove, these claims.

But, the facts, such as they are, do not prove the claims. The claims seem frivolous, at least border on the frivolous.

What was claimed? Kenneth Putnam says Doyle Gillum tried engage in fellatio with him but he fought him off. He says Father Joe Weitensteiner tried to do the same but he fought him off. There are no facts which would corroborate these claims of facts. And, to make the claims less believable, the story Kenneth Putnam tells is murky – it changes, it does not have ring of truth to it. The story on retelling seems to change. And, making matters even less convincing, Kenneth Putnam, who today is a man, simply has no history of truth telling.

The result is that one would have to be strenuously credulous to believe what is being claimed.

Another aspect of the case which might tell us about the real truth of the case has to do with the damages. Kenneth Putnam wants the jury to make Morning Star Boys Ranch give him money for the injuries he has sustained as a result of these alleged sexual attempts. But, one does not get to claim anything but nominal damages for wrongful conduct if he cannot show some sort of significant injury. Mr. Putnam has not shown he was in any way injured by the alleged conduct. He says he fought off the attempts. He maintained and protected himself from injury, from any effect. So where are the damages? There are none. Kenneth Putnam was what he was before the alleged acts took place and he was the same afterward.

The case seems to be frivolous. But, let us assume for the moment it was not frivolous. Even if not frivolous it was not based upon solid facts and the real damages, if any, were non-excitant, were nominal.

The case was not brought by Kenneth Putman in the sense that Kenneth Putman was putting anything into the case. The case was brought by Tim Kosnoffand his associates. Kosnoff and Company were making the investment in the case.

These men do not seek truth and nominal damages, they seek large amounts of damages – money. They are using the Kenneth Putnam situation to make demands on the system so that the system might award money to their plaintiff in their contingent fee contract with the plaintiff.

Does anyone truly believe this case is about Kenneth Putman? It is about what Kosnoff and Company can gain from getting the case into the court system and what they might get the jury to do for their plaintiff in the system. It looks more like gambling and manipulation than it does a search for truth and justice and money damages to compensate for wrong.

There really is no great risk to Kosnoff and Company other than the time and expense to bring the case, “to take a shot” at trying to gain something from the system. They will not have to pay for any trouble they cause the defendants – they will not have to pay for the damage to the reputations of Doyle Gillum, Father Joe Weitensteiner, Morning Star Boys Ranch and others, Father LaVoy. They will not have to pay the hundreds of thousands in attorneys fees Morning Star has incurred to defend against the case, they will not have to pay for the tens of thousands Morning Star has spent on expert witnesses needed to present its defenses to the court and jury, they will not have to pay for the hundreds of thousands lost to Morning Star in charitable donations for the purposes of the ranch. They will not have to pay for the loss to the people of Spokane who have been benefitting by the charitable services provided by Morning Star and not having to be provided by government, by the taxpayers.

Maybe Kosnoff and Company will pay some statutory costs of $300 or so, but that is it.

It might be blithely contended that these terrible impacts are just collateral damages in the great march of Kosnoff and Company to gain “justice” for “survivors” of alleged bad acts many years ago from people who have money. What a war!

Some of you are asking, “How can this be?”

It is the way the system works. One can think of some things which might be done, but they will not get anyone very far, not the way the system is put together at this point in its evolution. (But see, RCW 4.84.185 and Superior Court Rule CR 11.)

Today, Judge O’Connor gave each juror a set of the final jury instructions.  At the same time she read the instructions to the jurors.  These are the instructions the jury is to follow in its deliberations and in reaching its verdict.  Here are the instructions.  Jury Instructions.

The jury was delivered to the charge of Ashley Koedding, Judge O’Connor’s Judicial Assistant, at about 3:15 this afternoon.  Ms. Knoedding is responsible for the jury. She took an oath to take charge of the jury and to protect it during its deliberations.  She took her charge quite seriously and with interest and pleasure, one could see that. 

One could also see that Judge O’Connor has great respect fot her.  Ms. Knoedding will deliver the jury back to Judge O’Connor and the court when the jury has reached its verdict – when the jury is ready to “return a verdict.”

The verdict form can be found at the end of the Jury Instructions.

One has to admire and respect this process.  It is a tribute to the evolutiom of human-kind.  we will make it even better as time goes on.

Jerome Frank in his book Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice (1949), describes three theories of of juries:

1.  First, the theory that the jury merely finds the facts and that it must not and does not concern itself with legal rules and instead “fully accepts the rules as stated to them the trial judge.” Ibid. 110.

2. The second theory is that the jury not only finds facts but in addition “uses legal reasoning to apply to those facts the legal rules it learned from the judge.” The notion here is that “a jury’s verdict should be regarded as ‘the reasoned and logical result of the concrete application of the law [I. e., the rules] to the facts.’” Ibid. 111.

This system has been the basis for criticizing juries because juries seemingly have the tendency to find facts in order to reach the result that desires. Ibid.

3. The third approach is the approach discovered by questioning average people who serve as jurors. That is to say that juries do just what juries do in the particular case where the jury functions. If a jury wants Jones to collect $5000 from a shopping center, or they don’t want pretty Nelly Brown to go to jail for killing her husband, they bring in their jury verdict, their general verdict, accordingly.

This third approach is the “realistic” theory. This realistic theory of the function of the jury is “that, in many cases, the jury often, without heeding the legal rules, determines, not the facts, but respective legal rights and duties of the parties to the suit. From the general verdict the court process results in a decision which determines the jury’s notion of the rights and duties of the parties. Ibid.It will be interesting to speculate, or perhaps discover, which theory the Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch jury utilizes in reaching its general verdict. (A general verdict is one by which the jury pronounce at the same time on the fact and the law, either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.)

Tim Kosnoff, plaintiff’s attorney closed his case by talking to the jury about the “little bird” it holds in its hands.  He talked about a poem by Emily Dickenson where “hope” is the “thing with feathers.”

Hope     

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune–without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I’ve heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me

I think he was trying to say the jury could keep hope alive, keep the little bird alive, if it ordered Morning Star Boy’s Ranch to transfer some its wealth to Kenneth Putnam (and Tim Kosnoff).

I had no idea how he was really using this bit about the “little bird.”  I think he was trying to get the jury to rule in his and his client’s favor because the little bird would be happy and kept alive.  I had the impression I was listening to a particularly bad and naive politician.  But then I shuddered, we all like to be flattered.  We all like to have the notion we have power and that we can use that power for a cause.  As I listened to Mr. Kosnoff, I thought of the novel Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis.