The Questions Michael Haas Won’t Answer; State of Washington v. Patrick J. McAllister

by | Aug 30, 2018 | Politics

Michael Haas has refused to answer any questions on how he handled the case of State versus McAllister and the woman at the center of that rape case.  As reported previously, Haas dismissed the charges without ever first telling the victim.  He did not speak with her for eight months after getting the case, and then only ten days before her deposition.  He refused to meet with her beforehand, and, as our next report will show, failed to protect her from impermissibly intrusive questioning by an investigator who should not have been allowed to interrogate her in the first place.

Our last report will show how a competent attorney would likely have succeeded in convicting Patrick McAllister.  Contrary to Haas’ representations to the court, without his doing anything, his case had grown considerably stronger and not weaker.  He had much more to work with, thanks to McAllister himself and his attorney.  Instead, Haas dumped the case and dropped all charges against a man with a long history of violently and sexually abusing women.

It is our policy to always contact the subject of a story before publication.  When we receive written answers, we publish them verbatim.

We have twice contacted Mr. Haas with questions and an open invitation for him to speak.  We would say he might have ignored us.  But he has made it clear he is refusing to answer any questions.  On his campaign website, after we invited him to comment on our reporting, he issued a statement accusing us of “mis-stating” facts–but not stating what it was he contends we got wrong.  He also stated he would be answering no questions.

So that our readers know we have attempted to investigate this case fairly and thoroughly, while giving Mr. Haas full opportunity to tell his side, here are the questions we have put to him which he will not answer.  We have summarized then from two lengthy emails to Mr. Haas:

  1.  Has he ever spoken with SL to explain why he dropped the case even though he told her he believes that she was raped and assaulted?
  2. Why did he allow a non-lawyer to interrogate her, why did he require SL to travel 100 miles roundtrip to the defense lawyer’s office, why did he not insist she get a meaningful break during the over 4-hour interrogation and why did he not stop the investigator from asking questions prohibited by Washington’s rape shield law?
  3. What did he do to prepare his own case for trial?  Why did he not obtain assistance from the Sheriff’s office to investigate the defense’s claims and its witnesses?  Why did he not obtain expert help to assess the credibility and accuracy of medical experts the defense intended to call as witnesses?
  4. Did he ever speak with the detective who had conducted the investigation of the rape and assault charges against McAllister?
  5. Did he obtain the files of the federal conviction in which McAllister had admitted to lying to immigration authorities when he brought SL into the country?  Did he obtain the sentencing report which would have detailed McAllister’s full prior criminal history and his statements about his involvement with SL and his crimes?
  6. The defense contended that McAllister was physically unable to have raped SL.  What did Haas do to investigate those claims, such as obtaining evidence from McAllister’s five years in prison as to how he conducted himself or conducting surveillance to determine if McAllister were feigning his physical limitations?
  7. Had he attempted to contact the women before SL who were assaulted by McAllister?  McAllister had overpowered them and their testimony would contradict his claims of being physically unable to rape a woman, especially someone as small as SL.
  8. Lastly, why had he refused to meet with the woman whose rape case he was supposed to be prosecuting?

Our prior reports on this:

Dumping a Rape Case, and its Victim Part 1.

Dumping a Rape Case, and its Victim, Part 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reefer Madne$$

Reefer Madne$$

by | Aug 29, 2018 | General, Local Businesses

Reefer Madness is gripping America. I’m not talking about the 1936 cult movie classic that so many of us rolled our eyes at as teenagers. I’m talking about the billions of dollars that are flowing into U.S. and Canadian stock markets to buy shares of companies that sell legal marijuana and other cannabis derivatives. 

With news that Canada will be the first nation in the industrialized world to legalize recreational marijuana beginning October 17, there’s been a lot of attention paid to Canadian firms poised to enter this multi-billion–dollar market. Lately, this attention has been laser focused 

Stocks in cannabis companies have soared in recent weeks, sparked in large part by the August 15 announcement that one of the largest beverage companies on earth – Constellation Brands – was investing $4 billion USD in the Canadian cannabis company Canopy Growth Corporation. Since then, Canopy’s stock has risen more than 75%, making it the world’s largest legal marijuana company based on market capitalization. 

Other marijuana stocks are also riding high, with investor speculation of similar deals and growth potential involving other cannabis companies. Tilray, Inc. debuted on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange in mid-July with an initial pubic offering price of $17 a share. As of August 28, it was trading at nearly $60 a share. Another company called Aurora Cannabis has also seen significant gains in recent weeks, as have other companies. These are gains that dwarf the returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, NASDAQ and other global indices. 

Much of this explosive growth is being fueled by institutional investors who see big profits to be made in cannabis. Wall Street suits are now buying tens of millions of shares in these companies. Marijuana has gone mainstream in the centers of finance. 

Some investors liken the opportunity to buying stock in Anheuser-Busch in the months before the 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933, ending the nightmare of the noble but doomed experiment of Prohibition. As with any other emerging trend, there’s no shortage of hyperbole and hype. Some financial writers have called Canopy the “Google of Pot,” while other headlines have referred to various cannabis companies the “Amazon of marijuana,” providing no shortage of click-bait for those who read financial news online. 

Set aside for a moment the issue of whether one holds a moral position regarding the legal use of marijuana, recreationally or medically. This industry sector is now a part of the macro-economy here, in Canada and around the globe. It is a very small part of the economy but nonetheless contributes to it. Over time, it’s contribution to the broader economy will only grow. 

Whether the industry is petroleum, consumer goods, restaurants or anything else, cannabis can only successfully contribute to the economy through adherence to applicable laws and regulations. Failure to abide by these legal strictures not only risks individual businesses but entire sectors. Decisions to not abide to the rule of law casts a shadow over individual corporations and, potentially entire business sectors. 

This is particularly true when it comes to new and emerging businesses like cannabis, which is already having a significant impact in Washington state. Washington state collected some $319 million in taxes and fees associated with legal cannabis in 2017 on sales of $1.3 billion. That’s not nothing and the only way to continue to grow this nascent industry is to make sure that every participant runs a buttoned-down operation. 

The only way to ensure that this new industry, like it or not, continues contributing to our economy, is to make sure that bad actors do not circumvent the law. Doing so harms growth, stifles job creation and creates a drag on an industry that is otherwise adding to our economy and tax base. Diligent adherence to law and robust enforcement are absolutely vital to ensure public trust and the future viability of the industry in Washington state and elsewhere. 

As a small-government guy, I’m no fan of bureaucratic overreach on regulatory matters. But we do need some degree of oversight to ensure consumer protection and responsible corporate citizenship. It’s critical in all industries and especially so for new industries like cannabis.

 

Dumping a Rape Case, and Its Victim Part 2; State of Washington v. Patrick J. McAllister

Dumping a Rape Case, and Its Victim Part 2; State of Washington v. Patrick J. McAllister

by | Aug 27, 2018 | Politics

This is the second installment in our investigation of how Jefferson County Prosecutor Micahel Haas handled the case of State of Washington v. Patrick J. McAllister.  Our first report is here:  Part 1.   Also relevant:  The Questions Michael Haas Won’t Answer.

The rape victim did not object to her accused rapist being released without bond.  Hard to believe this could come from the same woman who says that man had raped and assaulted her repeatedly and she lived in constant fear of him.

It made it sound like perhaps she wasn’t telling the truth about what had happened in that small Brinnon house in April 2010.

But that’s what Prosecutor Michael Haas told the court when Patrick McAllister was being arraigned in the Fall of 2017.  He had been convicted five years earlier of 31 counts of the rape and assault of SL, a young Filipino woman he had brought into the country to be his wife.  He was sentenced to 250 months imprisonment.  After a series of appeals upholding his conviction, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and sent the matter back to Jefferson County Superior Court. Haas assigned himself the retrial.  He knew the case.  He had lost the argument in the Court of Appeals.

Had SL’s fear dissipated that she cared so little about McAllister being released from custody?  We asked her.

She said when she learned from a victim advocate that McAllister had been released, “I felt like I was in the ocean, being taken out, away into the water.”

But had she told Haas she did not object to a no-bail release for McAllister?

“No! He never talk with me until a little before the deposition.”

That deposition, in which Haas allowed an investigator hired by McAllister’s lawyer to interrogate SL about her current boyfriend (eight years after the incident), a boyfriend in the Philippines before the alleged rapes and the age at which her menstruation began, occurred March 16, 2018.

One Way Street to Dismissal

According to SL and a review of Haas’ emails, he let eight months pass before he spoke with her.  He refused her request to meet in person to help her prepare for a deposition about events she had spent years trying to forget.

But Haas had plenty of communication and friendly lunches with McAllister’s defense lawyer, John Cain of Tacoma. They hit it off after meeting at the Court of Appeals in May 2017.  Their relationship went beyond the professional respect of men who were supposed to be adversaries.  Haas gave Cain and his investigator a tour of the courthouse clocktower.  Cain offered to help Haas build a Wikipedia page.  They shared stories of their personal medical challenges. In an email dated March 23, Cain thanks Haas for a gift of cheese.

Cain offered to buy Haas lunch after SL’s deposition, “My treat.”  Haas joked, “I love to eat—probably too much.”

Haas once joked he hoped to kick Cain’s ass at trial.  Cain, who is decades older and more experienced, sent him a video clip from The Seven Samurai in which a master swordsman cautions an upstart novice not to challenge him with real steel, only to have to kill the fool when he did not back off.  The message was not lost on Haas.  He quickly apologized, saying he hoped he “had not come across as that arrogant.”

It was as though Haas were trying to please McAllister’s attorney.  He spent nearly a year filling defense requests, apologizing when he was tardy.  The correspondence fails to show a single instance of Haas building his own case.  He made not a single request of the defense.  He never objected to anything the defense wanted.  Instead, from the beginning he undermined the prosecution, telling Cain he doubted his case and would consider prosecuting SL for perjury—without ever having spoken with her.

Haas agreed to orders drafted by Cain that took effect unless SL came to court and filed her own objections to stop personal and intimate records from being disclosed.  He agreed to a defense request for Dove House domestic violence shelter records without bothering to first check with Dove House and learn domestic violence shelters were protected under a specific statute.  Dove House was forced to hire its own lawyer.  The executive director sent a letter to the court excoriating Haas for being poorly informed about Washington law.

Haas agreed to let the defense have photographs of SL’s genitals, taken at her sexual assault examination, without any prohibition against the photos being seen by her accused rapist.  SL only learned at her deposition that the photographs had been turned over.

When Cain got what he wanted he flattered Haas.  For instance, after Haas agreed to the order for disclosure of Dove House records—which put the onus on SL to bring her own motion if she objected—Cain told Haas, “The citizens of Jefferson County really do not know how luck[y] they are to have a prosecutor who cooperates with Defense on matters such as this.” “You’re too kind,” Haas responded.

Meanwhile, Haas never told SL or her sister, whom Haas listed as a witness for his case-in-chief, to make arrangements to come to Port Townsend for trial.  SL’s sister lives 3,000 miles away.

Cain worked Haas incessantly, insisting the McAllister was an innocent man who deserved to be left alone.  He attacked SL’s veracity and integrity, called Haas’ predecessor “corrupt,” and suggested that the Sheriff’s office was hiding information, not only from the defense, but from Haas as well.

Not once did Haas point out that McAllister would have a rough time if he took the stand and was anything but an innocent man.  McAllister had a federal conviction for lying to immigration authorities when he brought SL into the country.  He had pled guilty.  He had admitted to being a liar.  McAllister had denied assaulting two other woman only to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  He was subject to protective orders from four other women, was alleged to have raped three more he picked up at AA meetings, had been arrested for rape in Kitsap County, and had a string of other convictions for assault, theft and resisting arrest in Pierce County, Oregon and elsewhere. Only about a year had passed between McAllister pleading guilty to assault with sexual motivation and SL calling 911 for police to get her out of his house, the same house where that earlier sexual assault had occurred. (More on this in a coming installment).

McAllister’s house, as it appeared in 2015

March 6, 2018, Haas Finally Speaks with SL

With trial around the corner, when he finally did speak to SL, Haas discovered that she just might be telling the truth.  He emailed Cain that “she came across as very credible.”  Haas had been on the verge of dismissing.  Now he couldn’t.  SL would come for a deposition, even though he would not meet her beforehand to help her prepare.  “For better or worse,” he told his opposing counsel, the case was going to trial.

But he was soon back to undermining a case he had not prepared for trial.  In moving for dismissal, he told the court he “could not ignore” a polygraph examination of McAllister that showed him passing, even though the results could not be admitted into evidence and he had been cautioned by the Sheriff’s polygraph expert not to rely on the results in making any decision (something Haas did not share with the court).  On April 25, by email, he notified SL he was dropping all charges against Patrick McAllister.

When a victim advocate reached her with the news, SL remembers asking, “Can I have another prosecutor?”

Next:  Alone and Unprotected

To read the full series, here all the installments:

Part I of Dumping a Rape Case and Its Victim

Part II:  Just read the story above

Part III Alone and Unprotected

The Conclusion on how Haas threw away evidence that McAllister’s defense was a fraud

Also: The Questions Michael Haas Won’t Answer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowing “The Homeless”

by | Aug 24, 2018 | General

When we see a homeless person “flying a flag” (panhandling with a cardboard sign), we react with sadness and empathy, followed by a gift of money.  It may make us feel better.  But are we making things worse?

We live in a society with plenty of opportunity. Employers are desperate for workers.  So why are there 500,000 homeless in our nation?

First, we must know “the homeless.”  Who are they?

The Down and Out

A major life event such as illness, divorce, domestic violence or loss of a job can cause a temporary inability to be self-sufficient. This is the smallest group and comprises those with the best hope of being helped. Sometimes we lump all homeless in this category, which worsens the problem by misusing resources and failing to distinguish the truly violent and dangerous transients.

Life Style Homeless

These people choose to be homeless.  “Travelers,” they often call themselves. Some live in cars, RV’s or old school busses. Many carry packs and tents. You see them parked at night on Port Townsend’s streets.   They consider themselves tourists or Bohemians.  They do nothing to support our community but use expensive and vital resources.  Their drain on public resources shortchanges those who are not on the streets by choice.

The Mentally Ill

 This group can be dangerous to themselves and to others. Often addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and often with criminal records and open arrest warrants, they are the most visible. A culture that elevates the rights of the individual above the needs of society, good or bad, has let them run wild on our streets. They are frequently transported to hospitals at great expense to taxpayers, only to be set back on the streets without treatment. Laws have been passed to deal with this problem, but laws with no means of enforcement are useless. Politicians in Olympia and Washington can say ‘we did something’, but that is not ground truth.

“Ricky’s Law” is a great example. The state claims that first responders can involuntarily commit a person for debilitating substance abuse. But this law provides little to no legal support for our first responders and no beds or treatment centers.

Addicts and Alcoholics

This group could be considered part of the Mental Health group. Addiction is often a response to an inability to cope with life. These people are self-medicating.  Our society has turned them into victims, with no accountability. We tell them and ourselves that it is not their fault.

This group is dangerous and commits the highest amount of property and violent crime.  Washington State has no law against public intoxication and, worse yet, no drug possession laws based on consumption. Possessing a syringe full of heroin is a crime until it is injected, when it becomes a medical issue. The hypocrisy of a legislator claiming that unused drugs are a criminal matter, but using those drugs is not is mind-bending. Look at the mess in Seattle where police no longer arrest low-level heroin dealers.  They must view them as addicts supporting an addiction. But how many people are introduced to heroin by these “non-criminal addiction supporters”?

Criminals

We can identify a fifth group, the criminal element.  They are found in the Life Style, Mental Illness and Addicts and Alcoholics groups. The chicken-or-the-egg question arises:  are they criminal due to homelessness, or is their criminality the driving factor? The question is immaterial.  No circumstance should excuse behavior that hurts other people or their property . Society has a primary duty of protecting its citizens from those who would do them harm. And once we excuse criminal behavior we have abandoned accountability.

We can “know” the homeless.  What next?

Not much can be done until we start funding mental health beds and using and enhancing our involuntary commitment laws.  Until then, we will continue to see growth in all groups listed above, except the small number of “down and out” who can be helped by other means.

If we believe in the individual rights and worth of the homeless, we must let them suffer the fate they choose when they break the law. A society that respects them holds them accountable for their actions.  That means real consequences.

What can I do?

 Start with this little thing:  Don’t give money to panhandlers.  Give to the local shelter or food bank.  The resources available to the homeless are abundant, but often come with conditions requiring behavior they don’t like but which is beneficial to the them and the community. Giving money that can be spent on booze or drugs hurts everyone.  (Giving goods or vouchers only means your gift may be sold cheaply to raise cash for drugs or booze).

Respect the homeless by expecting them to be law-abiding citizens. Respect them by believing they can do better. Give help that lifts them up, not help that holds them down. Stop giving to make yourself feel better when you are most likely making the problem worse.

 

Answering Criticism About Brinnon Group Column

Answering Criticism About Brinnon Group Column

by | Aug 22, 2018 | General

One of my favorite responsibilities as a news executive was to serve as an ombudsman. When readers express complaints about a news organization’s coverage of an issue, it is the ombudsman’s role to publicly and constructively respond to these complaints, and explain how news and commentary are prepared.

The Port Townsend Free Press commentary of July 31, entitled ‘Now Showing – Desperation Over Pleasant Harbor,’ generated a good deal of response on Facebook and elsewhere. While much of the response to that commentary was positive, the criticism merits discussion.

Jeff Maloney, writing on the Brinnon Community Page on Facebook, expressed a concern echoed by other readers. “It strikes me as confrontational, an attack on this Brinnon group, a lot of it irrelevant, petty, like how much money the group has, an error in the address, it was about the group, not about the issue (sic).”

The column raised questions about the Brinnon Group and its finances, a practice well ensconced in journalism. When a party inserts itself into a debate, it is in the public interest to scrutinize that party. One role of journalism is to explore and explain the motivations of parties engaging on an issue. The public knows what the Brinnon Group says but does not know how its efforts are funded nor who is providing this funding. These are valid questions.

As for the location of the Brinnon Group, the group says it is working for the people of Brinnon yet there is evidence that it isn’t located in Brinnon or even Jefferson County. If the people who say they are working on behalf of local interests are located nearly 100 miles away, as the Brinnon Group’s Kitsap Superior Court filing and IRS correspondence reveal, it is reasonable to ask whether it is really a local grassroots organization.

Sara Harvey, also writing on the Brinnon Community Facebook page, lamented, “metaphoric slanders against a group of people who are trying to prevent a massive shift to the rural village that is Brinnon.”

Slander is a legal term that applies to spoken falsehoods that damage another party. Falsely accusing a party of wrongdoing or some other malfeasance may rise to the level of slander but presenting facts, posing questions and expressing opinions do not. People are not entitled to their own facts. Factual inaccuracy was not among the complaints about the column.

The Brinnon Group is trying to prevent the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. But there is nothing to suggest the group speaks for all or even most of the people in Brinnon. The recent primary election results in the race for District 3 county commissioner indicate otherwise.

Of the 551 votes cast for all four county commissioner candidates in the Brinnon Precinct, 32% were cast for a candidate who opposes the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The remaining 68% were for candidates who publicly expressed support for the project. While the Brinnon Group may speak for a third of the people of Brinnon, their position appears to represent a small minority, further legitimizing questions about it. When a party takes action on an issue that contradicts the wishes of two-thirds of the people of Brinnon, it is reasonable to ask why.

The greatest number of complaints involved the tone of the commentary. Brinnon Group spokesperson Mark Rose described the column as, “a hit piece,” “nasty,” expressive of “anger,” and he articulated dismay that the commentary did not delve into, “the merits of our appeal,” to block the MPR. Other readers voiced similar complaints.

The column expressed no opinion on the merits of the appeal because that is the role of the courts. The column expressed no opinion on the Pleasant Harbor MPR, but did disclose the group’s prior statements on the issue, which is appropriate.

As for the tone of the commentary, that is a license granted to all opinion writers. The term “conga line of buffoons,” is an admittedly less than cordial means of describing the Brinnon Group and purely subjective. Mr. Rose admitted during an on-the-record interview that he falsely accused two public officials of suppressing information and said earlier that his group was unable to inform a “shocking,” number of Brinnon residents about the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Whether these actions and inactions rise to the level of buffoonery is open to debate. Reasonable people can conclude they are inconsistent with organizations wishing to do good.

The feedback was instructive and the opportunity to respond to critics is appreciated. It is our responsibility and we are wiser for that opportunity.

Scott Hogenson is a resident of Jefferson County.