Washington Courts

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.

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.

Every witness in Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch must give an oath to tell the truth.

The oath is to impress upon the witness, commitment, loyalty to something which transcends, and at the same time, grounds us all. It is the basic commitment to the deepest good, truth. To the ground of being.

Washington Evidence Rule ER 603 Oath or Affirmation says:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.

The oath is “calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience” the duty to tell the truth.

Plaintiff’s case is built upon a foundation laid by Kenneth Putman, Michael Clarke, Paul Baggett, Stephanie Miller, William Knapton and Mike Call. Each of these people have histories of not telling the truth, or not acting truthfully toward their fellow beings. The oath, for these people, does not have the meaning it has for others, for those who are law-abiding people.

 The character of these people, as they have shown by their own testimony, is not a character which is committed to truth.

What these people say is certainly not to be accorded as truthful under the oath each has given. Conscience is not something which animates the beings of these people, of these witnesses.

The foundation Tim Kosnoff has laid may gain him and his client some money in this litigation, but it will not gain him or his client participation in the world of truth.

The system of justice will have been used.  And, for what?  — simply, sadly,  for money.  Ah, the world of the “Super Lawyer.”

Years ago, Spencer Hampton was in trouble. He pled guilty to a crime, a business financial crime, and went to federal prison. He spent seven months at Leavenworth Camp at Leavenworth in Kansas. When he was released on probation, he was obligated to perform 3,000 of community service. He began working at Morning Star Boys Ranch in 1984. He continues to work at the ranch today.

Mr. Hampton is about 70. He has two adult children, spent four years in the Air Force and has an honorable discharge, the trouble he got into was related to his work in a mortgage brokerage effort in the Omaha area.

At Morning Star, he worked on maintenance and groundskeeping. As time passed and as he became more acquainted with the work of Morning Star, he found his calling, he enjoyed the work and goals of the ranch. He trained, learned what had to be done to help the boys and keep records and protect the boys from themselves when they were having difficulty. He worked with Doyle Gillum, was trained by Reese Hall, was supervised by Lyle O’Neal and Father Joe Weitensteiner, and others.

He became and still is a Shift Supervisor – he is with the boys all the time and supervises and keeps records of the work of the staff workers who are in constant contact with the boys.

He testified to his knowledge of Doyle Gillum, Father Joe and others at the ranch. Questions were asked as to whether he had any knowledge of sexually inappropriate contact, words, etc. The answers were always a clear calm “no.” He was asked whether he ever saw or heard of Father Joe striking a boy,  “no,” striking Kenny Putnam, “no,” hacking a boy, “no.”

He remembered Kenny Putnam. He described Kenny as an assaultive, vulgar, disruptive, “particularly angry young man.” He said Kenny liked being with the horses; that he could express himself around the horses.

He spent a great deal of time with Kenny. Kenny would act out and had to be kept from hurting himself, others and property. He talked about the progress of restraint and the reasons for it. The progress of discipline or restraint consisted of kneeling, time outs, chores, and if necessary, when the boy was out of control, actual physical restraint.

This physical restraint is more in the nature of a person being behind the boy and embracing him, having him lean forward, or sit down and waiting as he held the boy for the boy to calm down and come back into his self-control.

He spoke of many difficulties Kenny Putnam had adjusting to the ranch, being with other boys.

He spoke of his constant efforts with Kenny, his care for Kenny and the work at the ranch.

He was forthright, content in his work and his life at the ranch. I had the sense that Spencer Hampton found redemption and a calling at the ranch. It was obvious that he had experienced grace and that he was doing what he could to pass that grace onto the boys he worked with at the ranch.

The attorneys for Kenny Putnam would like the jury to think that Morning Star did not do enough to help Kenny Putnam in school. Mr. Putnam testified that he had a tutor by the name of Buck Rogers. He laughed when he said the name as if to say Buck was a joke. He said that Mr. Rogers did not do very much to help him, if anything, and as best he could remember, all Mr. Rogers did was to let him play a computer game called The Oregon Trail.

He has been a teacher for many years. He also worked in Ashland, Oregon with the Shakespeare organization in that city. In the 80s, he came back to Spokane and Gonzaga University to get his PhD.

He became a tutor in District 81. This work took him to Morning Star Boys Ranch where he took over the tutorial educational responsibilities at the ranch.

He has vivid memories of Kenny Putnam. He detailed all of the efforts that he and other staff at the ranch engaged in to help Kenny. It was difficult to help Kenny because he had such difficulty remaining in control. He spoke of efforts to work with Bob Waite (sp) at Sacajawea Junior High School where they had a special program for boys with difficulties like those Kenny was suffering from. He spoke of how difficult it was for Kenny to adjust to a school environment and how frustrating it was trying to come up with ways to help him.

He spoke at length about how distraught Kenney would be after he spent weekend visitations at the home of his mother and his aunt. He said that when Kenny came back from a home visit, he would be “pretty wound up.”

His testimony about the sadness, rejection, and anger Kenny felt, displayed after visits with his mother is repeated in the testimony of other witnesses. The distinct impression one has is that Kenny was living an ongoing deep pain at having been so brutally rejected by his mother and father when he was just a baby, a little boy, and that he deeply wanted to experience love from his mother.

As far as the computer game is concerned, The Oregon Trail, Mr. Rogers said the game, even though an educational game, was a “popsicle” for the boys he tutored, for Kenny. After boys completed their school work for the afternoon, they would be allowed to use the computers and to play The Oregon Trail computer game.

Buck Rogers was certainly not the person Kenny Putnam attempted to describe in his testimony. He was a man, who at the time, did everything he was hired and trained to do for Kenny and yet he did more. It was obvious that he cared for Kenny and tried, along with others, to find ways to help Kenny grow and adjust to himself.

Buck Rogers radiated a goodness, an essential goodness. As I listened to his testimony yesterday, and as I reread my notes of his testimony and reflected, it seemed to me (it seems to me) the plaintiff and his attorneys (or is it the attorneys and their plaintiff client) are attempting to paint a picture of general evil at Morning Star Boys Ranch. A picture that all of the people at Morning Star Boys Ranch shared a dark secret of an evil and neglectful spirit. It seems as if they are trying to say that there is some sort of authority out there and that the authority is not good.

From the testimony of the witnesses for the defense, from the obvious personal characteristics the witnesses emanated from their beings, the picture emerges of a people all working together in goodwill to do what they could do as human beings to help the boys who came to Morning Star Boys Ranch – To help the boys become better human beings. The picture is of people who, to a man or woman, were dedicated to helping others.

Buck Rogers is clearly one of those good-hearted people.

Something has been bothering me all day. The something is a dissonance in the Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch case and the recently alleged facts. The alleged facts come from two sources – Kenny Putnam and Michael Clarke. When I say dissonance, what I mean is that the facts from Putnam and the facts from Clarke do not ring true. They are inconsistent, at least inconsistent from my perspective. Let me explain –

Putnam says Doyle Gillum (”Doyle” is also the name of Putnam’s very unloving and rejecting father and his brother) tried to suck his penis one night when he was in his room and was asleep. Gillum is dead. He was a young man who was on night duty in the dorm that night where Putnam had his room when he was at the ranch —  the night of the alleged sleepy fellatio.

Putnam says he and  Father Joe another boy were on Father Joe’s boat on Lake Coeur d’Alene and he was seasick (on Lake Coeur d’Alene?, – please give us a break, the lake is a lake) and in the front bow area. He says he woke up finding Father Joe trying to fondle his penis. He says he  fought him off and ran and jumped into the lake and was rescued by another boat and at the end of the day went back to the parsonage in Hillyard where Father Joe was living at the time because he was also ministering at the Catholic Church Parish in Hillyard with the other boy.  He again alleged Father Joe did something he should not have done. What he supposedly did is very unclear.  Again, he said he fought off Father Joe.  No word obout the other kid.

Putnam presents himself today as a sort of tough guy, a guy who knows his way around prisons, who knows nobody is going to mess with him. It is interesting that this is just how he describes himself when he was a kid — before, during, and after his stay at Morning Star Boy Ranch.  This is how his friend, Shane Mayfield, describes him.

So now in the 11^thhour, Michael Clarke —  a very surprise witness —  is presented. The court is having difficulty getting him to the courthouse because he is in prison at the Airway Heights Correction Facility.  Counsel for Father Joe, Jim King and Bob  Sestero, are surprised by all of this. The man was only mentioned in the testimony of Stephanie Miller, formerly Carl Smith. And now, just at the end of plaintiff’s case, Tim Kosnoff is going to call Mr. Clarke and he is supposedly going to say he groomed boys for Father Joe and that Father Joe paid him $2,000 cash to keep his mouth shut. At least that is what Tim Kosnoff, the attorney for Kenny Putnam, says he is going to say.

OK, I know your are saying – what?

Well, here is the dissonance. If Father Joe is the sort of man who needs to have boys who are groomed for whatever, why would he be forcing himself on Kenny Putnam? It simply does not fit. The behavior alleged by Clarke is completely inconsistent with the Father Joe behavior alleged by Kenny Putnam.  But there is more, more in the nature of common sense:

Do you, dear reader,  really think homosexual men go around trying to engage in fellatio while a person is asleep or worse . . .   sick?  Let me ask you, do you try to engage in such active sexual contact with your wife, husband, or loved one under such conditions?  I doubt it, I really doubt it.

The first witness in Day 2 was Paul Baggett. — When he was 9 or 10, his mother, who worked at The Spokesman-Review, sent him off to, and paid his way, at Morning Star Boys Ranch. He was there for two to three years. He says he has no clear recollections of the Ranch. He said he was small and that a bigger boy named Tony molested him on several occasions. He said he told a certain nurse. He also said he told Father Joe Weitensteiner, but that Tony’s efforts continued.

He said he was in a boxing program and that Patrick O’Donnell introduced himself to him and that they became friends. O’Donnell did not work at the Ranch. He said that O’Donnell engaged in sexually inappropriate contact with him at an outing at Priest Lake. He also said that this contact took place in Mr. O Donnell’s car in the Spokane area. He said there were 4 or 5 times that O’Donnell and he were together. He said he told Father Joe of this at the Ranch. He said that about the time he saw O’Donnell in the hallway and that he went in to father Joe’s office. He said the sexual contact continued.

The plausibility of this testimony seemed to fall away as Jim King, the attorney for Morning Star, conducted cross examination. At one time, Mr. Baggett had provided a therapist with information about his sexual history. He said he was heterosexual, that his first sexual relationship was when he was 11 and that was a positive experience, that the touching was not uncomfortable, that he was promiscuous.

He described a long history of using a variety of drugs including heroin, amphetamines by injection, methamphetamine at age 15 and daily marijuana use.

Back to O’Donnell — there were only two occasions. The other boy was Tony Thornton.

The nurse he said he talked to was not the one he said – at another time under oath he designated a different person.

Mr. Baggett hears voices. He met the Devil in Portland in 1987, he was black and wearing a baseball cap. The Devil told him about himself but did not say anything about Morning Star Boys Ranch. He said the Devil told him he was the Devil’s son. Mr. Baggett speaks matter of factly when he describes his relationship with the Devil.

Next came Robert Duggan, a former board member at Morning Star Boys Ranch.

Then Shane Mayfield, a friend of Kenny Putnam. Mr. Mayfield is an interesting young man. He grew up in broken home and spent a good deal of time in trouble. But he turned himself around when he met his wife and went to community college and learned how to repair automatic transmissions. He says he is fascinated by the hydraulics and what one can make transmissions do. He has a transmission repair shop in northeast Spokane.

He has known Putnam for years, along with some other people in Spokane who have come from tough family situations. He spoke of Putnam’s moods, his outbursts, his difficulty with women, his love of his daughter, his drug use. The picture one has from the testimony is that Kenny Putnam is aggressive at times and assertive at others; can also become quite withdrawn and has no trouble speaking up for himself.

Then another witness, Edmund Braune, was called about his work as a Board Member of Morning Star Boys Ranch.

The first witness in the afternoon was Sharon Saito, Putnam’s attorney when he went to Morning Star and after. She became quite close to Putnam and saw him on many occasions. Putnam never mentioned being abused to her.

Awhile ago, she said she saw a newspaper article about Morning Star and the allegations of sexual conduct and mentioned the article to Putnam. Putnam acknowledged he was a part of the case.

It is odd he did not say anything to her when he was supposedly abused given the character Shane Mayfield described and the close relationship he had with Ms. Saito.

Father Joe Weitensteiner took the stand after Ms. Saito. His testimony will continue this morning. When it is finished, Kenny Putnam will be called to the stand, probably in the afternoon after court reconvenes at 1:30 P.M.