As Americans we believe we have many rights.
We believe we have the right to live relatively free of crime.
We believe we have the right to voice our opinions.
We believe we have the right to the pursuit of happiness.
We believe we have the right to recourse if we're wronged or victimized.
We believe the government will help us.
Perhaps more than any other, we believe we have the right to be left alone.
To some degree the government shares our belief in this notion. Law enforcement and the judicial system have laws in place which are designed to protect us from harassment, from stalkers, from those who would do us harm or even threaten to do us harm. As is often the case our government tends to run hot and cold on these issues, depending on its whim.
For instance, an attorney I once used in an unrelated matter described to me an incident where one warehouse employee asked another employee if, assuming that person ever got mad at the first employee, that employee would consider any kind of violence. The employee who'd been asked the question thought it was just about the dumbest thing he ever heard. Without a reply he turned and walked away. The first employee then swore out a complaint against the guy and had him served with an anti-harassment order. Nothing more than that described above was alleged by the petitioner. The order was temporarily placed into effect for two weeks, at which time both employees were directed to appear in court to figure out if the transgressions of the one employee were serious enough to warrant a semi-permanent restraining order him. The employee who'd been served thought the matter was beyond outrageous. But fearing what might happen in court (and with good reason), he hired an attorney and fought the order. He lost. For 5 years he was restrained from being within 1000 feet of the other employee. Because this meant he could not come to work, he lost his job. When he applied for new jobs the stigma of the order followed him and he went unemployed long enough to get evicted from his home. His wife wasn't about to take up residence in a refrigerator box under the viaduct, so she departed as well. At about this point the attorney lost track of the man. Suffice it to say this is an example of a government gone barking mad.
An isolated incident, you say? We say Nyet.
I am aware of another situation in which two men hated each other. One of the men, seeing the other man across the street and slightly down the block, waved. He made no faces; he offered no middle finger salutes. He said nothing. He did not move toward the other man. And none of these things were alleged to have happened by the petitioner. Still, the "victim" told the court he'd felt "threatened" by the one man's wave, and a semi-permanent restraining order was placed into effect against the errant waver.
An isolated incident, you say? We say Nay.
I have first-hand knowledge of a situation in which a truck driver quit a job because he was tired of illegal drug use by his employer. The employer was disappointed that the man had quit, and so wrote him a letter praising his work and asking if they could remain friends. The truck driver didn't want to be friends with druggies, so he didn't respond to the letter. This made the employer angry. Several months later the employee was applying for a job in a warehouse roughly six miles from his prior employer's office. The truck driver chanced upon an old friend and current employee with his old company. A few pleasantries were exchanged, and upon parting the truck driver asked his friend to "say hello to so-and-so back at the office; that's about the only person there I want to say hello to." This message was dutifully conveyed to the proper person in the office, but it was overheard by the driver's employer. That made the employer even angrier. One week later the ex-employee was served with an anti-harassment order. When the matter came to court, the employer cited this one incident as the most serious transgression. The order was upheld against the driver for 5 years.
These cases are fact. They aren't isolated incidents. This kind of terrifying insanity is carried out every single day by the machinery of Washington State's judicial system. This is how Washington state works. Welcome to Planet of the Apes.
The incidents above are petty and minor. None of them should have ever ended up in a courtroom. But people are people, lawyers are lawyers, and judges, sadly, tend to be not the brightest bulbs in the string. If the Washington State judicial system can so outrageously screw up and err so many millions of lightyears on the side of caution, does it also follow that Washington State's judicial system also allows legitimate cases in which a victim truly, desperately needs protection to slip through the cracks of incompetence and stupidity?
Yes. --Exactly as often as they feck up in the other direction.
Why? Because judicial proceedings in Washington State are carried out on a rudderless ship. Logic, reason, competence, professionalism, honor, intelligence--these things are becoming increasingly difficult to find in Washington State's judicial branch. Slippery lawyers know this and use it to full advantage, acting as "hired guns" in a system which allows most anything to occur, no matter how absurd, as long as the proper forms are filed.This site will document yet another such travesty.
Antiharassment issues are currently considered to be a "hot topic" in America. As usual, Washington State has taken its share of this hot topic, run it through the grist mill of its judicial system, and what has come out the other end ain't ground sirloin. It's a stinky, steaming substance, not vaguely reminiscent of an academic's feces---the one commodity Washington State has plenty of.
While we are no longer naive enough to believe that a website such as this enjoys even the slightest hope of improving the Washington State judicial system by even the smallest degree, we do believe Washington's residents need to know what to expect from their system before it crashes down around them. Residents who've not been to court have a right --a NEED-- to know what goes on in their courtrooms. Those who've already been to court in Washington State already know, and are frightened and disgusted. We offer the information and opinions in this website so as to help Washingtonians decide whether to continue to struggle in a backwards, backwoods area such as this, or whether to simply leave it behind, as we've decided to do.To that end:
This site documents our experiences with:
Carl Johnson (respondent)
3603 Oak Bay Lane
Port Ludlow, Washington
James Doros ("attorney")
3502 North Fremont Street
This website hopes to help answer the following questions:
If you're being stalked, harassed, threatened, should you:
Should you call the police? Will they actually provide any meaningful service or relief?
Should you file for anti-harassment or protection orders?
Should you hire an attorney? Will the cost be worth the benefit?
Should you hire a private investigator? What can they / will they do for you?
Should you confront the offender face to face?
Should you move, quit your job, and/or change your name?
Should you contact your local prosecutor directly?
As this case progresses we're working to answer those questions with our honest opinions.
Our sample case:
"Rhonda" is a serious, hardworking woman who runs a restaurant in Seattle, Washington. She's been at this profession for the same company for 25 years. She's earned every accolade, every raise, every award. She was promoted to "regional manager" and worked in that capacity for some years, but grew weary of the politics and asked to be employed back at the restaurant level. The company complied, though maintained her (much higher) regional manager salary. Her restaurants rank always in the top percentiles within the company for cleanliness, profit, etc. Rhonda is an honest, fair-minded, no-nonsense woman, as any of her bosses or co-workers will attest.
Rhonda is in her later forties now. Rhonda's most precious dream is to live a simple and honorable life, as free from problems as possible. To this end she does not own a car. She does not socialize. She has few hobbies. She is a quiet person who works, and works, and works hard, and otherwise simply wants to be LEFT ALONE. It's a "dream" shared by most Americans. It's too bad that, as America fills itself up with perverts and deviates and druggies and drunks and child molesters and kidnappers and stalkers and sociopaths and serial killers and psychopaths and criminals of every make and model imaginable, and many unimaginable, that the dream of leading a simple life and of being LEFT ALONE has become an almost Impossible Dream. But that's the Truth of modern-day America. The entire country circles the drain of chaos.
It used to be arguable that law enforcement and the judicial system were the usually successful barrier between decency and order, and chaos and evil. Too often, these days, it can be successfully argued that law enforcement and the judicial system are at the root of chaos and evil, and that they actually tend to promote it, wittingly sometimes, but usually accidentally.
Isn't it odd how, seemingly, the more a person struggles and strives to lead a quiet life and to be LEFT ALONE, the cockroaches and earwigs and stink-bugs of society zero in on such a person, and seem absolutely bent on causing them grief. It's a phenomenon. Many people, experiencing this very phenomenon in their lives, come to think of themselves as "sh*t magnets". --That is to say they attract society's turds. It seems to them they're cursed. And that may well be reality.
On December 21st and 22nd, out of the clear blue, Rhonda's restaurant began receiving hang-up calls. At first, this caused no great consternation, as restaurants do sometimes receive such calls. But these calls continued, and continued, and it soon became clear there was a problem. The following day the problem announced itself to the restaurant staff in a very big way.
Rhonda was on Christmas vacation, so she wasn't informed of the developments for about two weeks. When she was told what had occurred on 12-21 and 22, 2004, she was shocked, numbed, and plunged into an abyss of fear and terror. Her terror was compounded because she'd been taken to these depths once before in her life when, as a young girl of 15 in 1973, she'd been kidnapped by an insane ex-boyfriend and driven out of town into a wooded area, while her ex and his friend dawned leather gloves and told her in no uncertain terms what they were going to do to her. For that hour she experienced just about the most profound terror any human being can experience, and it scarred her for life.
Rhonda was recovered from this situation without physical harm, because the kidnapping had been witnessed by half a dozen of her loyal friends, and, by luck and happenstance and hard work, they had located the fleeing car outside of town and forced it off the road at gunpoint. I was the driver of the pursuing car. That's how I met Rhonda. Rhonda was lucky, where so many other young girls are not. We'll provide depositions from the original witnesses later in this document.
When Rhonda returned to work after Christmas of 2004 she was told that on 12-21 and/or 12-22 a highly agitated male caller had called repeatedly demanding her home telephone number, her home address, and a physical description of her husband so he could find him and "take him out". These kinds of threats were made numerous times in different forms with different wording. The calls occurred all through the day despite the restaurant employees yelling at the man to stop calling, each call becoming more demanding, more insistent, more bizarre, more arrogant, more threatening, and more graphic. The employee's statement submitted to the court is HERE. This is a greatly abbreviated statement, as the initial call alone was some 20-30 minutes in length.
This news rocked Rhonda to her heels. She had no known enemies. Why on earth would anyone act so insanely?
As she quizzed her assistant manager, Katie, about the calls, Rhonda's world was about to be rocked further still. The phrases used by the caller, the knowledge divulged by the caller, the mannerism exhibited by the caller, had all been seen and heard before. The caller was Rhonda's kidnapper from 1973. There was no question whatsoever. The phrases this caller used were verbatim. The nervous mannerisms were exactly the same. The phraseology was precisely, word for word that of the kidnapper's, 32 years before. There was absolutely no mistake: this was the same individual.
But this wasn't the first time the kidnapper had harassed and terrified this woman since the kidnapping in 1973. In 1997 we had just purchased a floating home and moved it to a new location on Lake Union, in Seattle. We'd been there about three weeks. We hadn't yet hooked up a telephone, but we had initiated a utilities account in our name. Not even our closest friends knew where we'd placed the home because the slip had come up unexpectedly and we'd literally moved the home into it late one night. As it happened I had to go out of the country on business for about a month just after we placed the boat in this new marina. One week after I left, Rhonda received a disgusting, suggestive letter. It was from her kidnapper. In the rambling two page script he called Rhonda his "sweetheart", and his "darling", and he asked repeatedly what it was he'd done to make her leave him.(!) He lamented that "I" had "stolen" Rhonda from him. The letter ranted that he had been "forgiven by God" (for what?), and that he had heard Rhonda had a son. Indeed she did have a son, who was then in his twenties, and who had been born several YEARS after the kidnapping and after Rhonda had last seen the man. He stated in this letter that he wanted Rhonda's son to become HIS son. He did not state that he wanted to know if Rhonda's son was also his son---he specifically said he wanted Rhonda's son to BECOME his son. He stated in this letter that he'd "had" Rhonda first, that he'd "kissed" her first, that he remembered what it was like to kiss her, and that his claim on her was "still valid". He stated that he'd gotten off drugs and alcohol and had "cleaned up" his life (right). He included his phone number and his address, assuming, perhaps in some Halcyon nightmare of arrogance and conceit, that Rhonda would want to call him up and.....discuss.....what? The KIDNAPPING? The letter was a rambling piece of nonsense. The author was clearly high when he wrote it. The curious thing is this: How did he find our address? Remember that we'd only been there roughly three weeks, and that we'd not had time to notify a single friend or relative of the new address. We'd had no contact whatsoever with anyone in Aberdeen for at least 25 years. So how were we tracked by this stalker?
In court records, the kidnapper was to subsequently swear, under oath, that he was given our address by "friends in Aberdeen". This was his first instance of criminal perjury. We have since come to know that he worked then and works now for an employer which has access to computer databases of residential electricity customers at the Port Townsend Utilities department. Well, what a surprise. More on this later in this document.
Rhonda scrawled a very clear two lines on the letter and sent it back to the return address. In her note she told the man, basically, to F-off and die, that she didn't remember him, and to never contact her again. The address she mailed her demand back to was, as best she could remember, on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington state. We used to have a copy of the stinking rag, but we've moved twice since then, and cannot find it. We're still looking, however, and if/when we locate it, we'll post it here. If we're unable to post the actual document, we'll recreate it from memory and post THAT.
Carl claims in court documents that he sent the letter to Rhonda via registered mail. He did not. It arrived via regular First Class mail. We're still trying to figure out what he thinks he has to gain by claiming he sent it registered mail.
After sending her retort, we figured we were done with this dirty little man forever. Rhonda implored me not to confront him in person. As I had done after the original kidnapping, I foolishly complied.
We sold the boat shortly after this incident. But we were informed several weeks after we moved into an apartment that a man had shown up at the marina asking for us. When he wasn't allowed through the security gate, he "threw a tantrum" according to witnesses, and had to be removed from the property. We are now searching for those witnesses to see if the man matches the letter writer's 2002 DMV picture. Unfortunately the person who informed us of this was murdered in that same marina about two years later. We don't believe there's a connection. Still, the witness went off the dock late one night in the vicinity of where our houseboat had been moored (but he had friends on a boat in that area also), and residents of nearby houseboats testified that they heard and/or saw someone in the vicinity at the time it happened and there was a scuffle which no one investigated. The murderer wasn't caught. Even considering this coincidence, we still don't believe there's a connection. We think it's just one of those "weird things". There were several witnesses to the person trying to get through the security gate, so this lead is far from dead, no pun intended.
Carl claims in court records that he received Rhonda's "cease and desist" reply "about a month later" (after he wrote to her). In point of fact Rhonda mailed back her cease and desist demand the next day. While it's remotely possible it took the letter a month to travel 50 or 80 miles, it's doubtful. We're still trying to figure out what Carl thinks he has to gain by claiming the reply took a month to reach him. ---Unless---and this just occurred to us --unless Carl really was the person who showed up at our marina shortly after we moved and had to be literally chased away by security. Perhaps he is thinking that if he claims he wasn't yet notified of Rhonda's disgust and revulsion for a full month after he wrote to her, he can't be accused of trying to physically get to her AFTER he was told to stay away, which would constitute a much more serious crime than if he'd tried to get to her BEFORE she told him to stay away. If that's the case, Rhonda's refusal to "be with Carl" this time must really be sending him into a tizzy. Perhaps we should take this threat even more seriously than we have, though it's hard to imagine how. Looking back over the court records just now we realize that Carl did not specifically deny trying to get into our marina in 1997. How curious.
Skip ahead to 8 years later, a happier time, when this man is utterly and completely out of our thoughts and, we assumed, out of our lives. How wrong we were.
I think it's impossible, not having experienced such a thing one's self, to even remotely understand Rhonda's horror at discovering her kidnapper had tracked her down YET AGAIN, 32 years later, and was repeatedly calling her workplace suggesting he would do harm to her family. It's the kind of thing that LITERALLY knocks a person to the floor. It's the kind of thing that makes one, frankly, no longer wish to be on this earth. That's the best description I can muster. That's how Rhonda has described the emotion to me. Read it again: It makes one wish to be NO LONGER ON THIS EARTH. Try to grasp that concept.
Rhonda came to me, her husband, tears streaming down her face, shuddering, shivering, and about all she could squeak out was "I'm so scared." When your best friend of 30 years comes to you in that state.......
The following day Rhonda went to the gun store and purchased two new guns. I had been out of any kind of law enforcement for over 25 years. That life was also 2000 miles away and long forgotten. Our lives had both moved beyond the perceived need to own or carry guns except in extreme situations. We don't particularly "like" guns, and we saw no need and had no desire to carry them anymore. In one fell swoop these threats snapped us back to reality, and we returned to the range to reacquire our forgotten skills. We can thank this man for forcing us into that, as well.
While Rhonda knew "who" the caller was, she didn't know his name. I didn't know his name either, though I certainly knew who he was. I had seen him around Aberdeen in the early Seventies; Up until the kidnapping I'd assumed he was a decent enough sort. But he wasn't. I knew who this sociological blank was because I was the person who forced the vehicle off the road at gunpoint in 1973 and with the help of Chuck Frazer and four or five others recovered a sobbing 15 year old girl from the floor of the backseat of the car. I knew who the caller was because I remembered his mannerism, and his comments and threats made to people in the Aberdeen area in the months following the foiled kidnapping. I also remembered that the comments he made in the letter to Rhonda in 1997 were exactly, verbatim, the same words and phrases he used in call after call after call to Rhonda's restaurant in 2004. The kidnapper, the letter-writer, and the Christmas caller are one in the same. No question. We guarantee it. Would we stake our lives on it? Absolutely, and without a microsecond's hesitation. Is that "just our opinion"? Yes. It's also "our opinion" that the sun sets in the west, that the world is not flat, that the moon orbits the earth---believe it or not there are still people who would argue all of these "opinions".
The words, phrases and mannerisms are identical in all three instances.
The same person is responsible for all three instances of domestic terrorism.
But try as we would, we couldn't remember the terrorist's name.
A period of brainstorming did produce a first name, though we didn't know if it was Carl with a "C" or Karl with a "K". We finally settled on Carl with a "C". Now we had to come up with a last name.
We spent the next week trying to locate old friends who had lived in the Aberdeen area and who either had known Carl or had witnessed the original kidnapping or who had at least had known witnesses of the original kidnapping. We involved the Aberdeen Police department, who were actually somewhat helpful. But in every endeavor we struck out.
We set about to solve the case on our own, lacking any effective law enforcement agency in our region (western Washington State). We spent the next four or five days, many hours per day, trying to figure out this person's last name. We finally found an Internet-based database which listed all residents of the Grays Harbor area in the 1973 era. There were tens of thousands of names. We converted the database to something we could work with in Excel, and separated out all first names of Carl or "C". Amazingly, there were many. Then we went through the list, one by one, trying to recognize a last name. Finally, a last name jumped right off the page: Carl JOHNSON, and we knew we had a lead.
Unfortunately, Aberdeen PD could find no Carl Johnson of the proper age living in the area, and they had no "white file" of any such person, indicating that he had not recently appeared on their radar. That meant we had to expand our search to the state level. Washington state, it turns out, is home to hundreds of Carl Johnsons. So we had to find a middle name which would narrow the search
We ended up searching through the high school yearbooks of all schools in the Aberdeen area. Rhonda's romance with the kidnapper was so short that she hadn't even been aware of what school he went to, she'd never met his parents, and never been to his home. We knew, however, that we would recognize his yearbook picture, assuming one even existed, and assuming he'd gone to school somewhere in the Aberdeen area. So the search began, and it was an epic in and of itself. Try it yourself---it's a daunting task.
Eventually we did locate this guy's picture. The school, Weatherwax High School, was able to supply it to us, along with his full name: Carl Lee Johnson, date of birth 09/20/1955.
We filed a complaint with Seattle Police (SPD) and were assigned case number 05-3619 with Detective Rande Christiansen. We filed our complaint merely as a technicality, a formality. We knew from past experience that Seattle PD was, as a law enforcement agency, just about as worthless, as corrupt, and as lackadaisical as they come. We expected ZERO help or cooperation from them, and for the first week or two after filing the complaint, that's what we got--- Zip. Honestly, we didn't expect to ever hear back from Seattle PD. We proceeded as if they didn't exist.
Since Rhonda remembered that Carl had mailed her from somewhere on the Olympic Peninsula, we began doing Internet searches for a Carl Lee Johnson in that region. Amazingly (lots of things have amazed us in this case) the Olympic Peninsula is home to a number of Carl Lee Johnsons. We began looking at each one, using public Internet database records. This, again, was a daunting task requiring dozens upon dozens of hours. We incorporated the help of the Jefferson County Sheriff's office. While they were sympathetic, they were of no real value. They did, however, open their own investigation and assigned it case # 05-0135.
After a week or so in this pursuit we were unable to positively connect any of the Carl L. Johnsons in the area to OUR Carl L. Johnson from Weatherwax High School in Aberdeen. We did, however, uncover a very curious set of circumstances. We found that there was one Carl Lee Johnson residing in the Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock area who had lived in every single, bar-none, little community that WE lived in the Peninsula in the first 20 years of our marriage. Now stop and think about this for a moment: We had once lived in Aberdeen; The Carl Lee Johnson we were looking at through Internet records had once lived in Aberdeen. We had once lived in Port Townsend; This same Carl Lee Johnson had once lived in Port Townsend. We had briefly lived in Forks, Washington; We found an address for this Carl Lee Johnson in Forks, Washington. We had once lived in Port Hadlock; we found an address for the same Carl Lee Johnson in Port Hadlock. We had once lived in a tiny burg called Chimacum, Washington, population about fifty. We found an address for the same Carl Lee Johnson in Chimacum, and when we looked closer, we found that he'd lived 200 yards from us. We started looking up acquaintances of this Carl Lee Johnson; we found that he had associated with several local bar brawlers and drunks, many of whom we'd been aware of as trouble-makers in the area when we lived there. Was it coincidence that a Carl Lee Johnson lived in every little Olympic Peninsula town that we'd lived in? Consider this: We've not found a single address for Carl Lee Johnson having lived in any town we did NOT once live in on the Peninsula This revelation chilled us to the bone. What in The Hell was going on.
To our surprise we finally did hear back from Seattle PD's Detective Rande Christiansen. He seemed to be on the ball, professional, intelligent, and he seemed to actually care about this case. He met personally with Rhonda and advised her to file a Domestic Protection order against Carl Lee Johnson, assuming we ever found an address we could serve him at. He advised me to file an anti-harassment order against him as well. Rande didn't tell us we "could" do these things; he advised Rhonda TO do these things. Rande seemed to feel the case was serious, threatening, and just about as bizarre as they come. He advised us to be careful and to mind our personal safety. That went without saying.
We made Chritiansen aware of all we'd uncovered to date, and shortly thereafter he received Carl's school records from Weatherwax High School in Aberdeen. Within another few days Christiansen was able to confirm that the Carl Lee Johnson we'd been investigating was, in fact, the same Carl Lee Johnson we'd picked from school photos in the yearbook. Shortly after that Christiansen supplied us with Carl's current address at 3603 Oak Bay Lane, Port Ludlow, Washington, 98365. And shortly after that we filed both the anti-harassment and DV protection orders in King County, Washington court.
We were still at a loss, however, because here we had an individual who was clearly unbalanced, who was calling Rhonda's workplace stating clearly and flatly that he might harm members of her family, yet we had no clue what he looked like. All we had was a fuzzy black and white photocopied and badly scanned yearbook photo from 1973. Consequently, we spent quite a few weeks slipping our hands into our clothing to grip the butts of our armament every time any stranger acted oddly around us, or approached us, or seemed to be looking oddly at us. It's one thing to be unduly paranoid. It's another thing to know that an obviously crazy fruitcake has been calling and making threats. Imagine being afraid that any person you passed on the sidewalk, or in a mall, or in your own restaurant, might be the person who was telling people he might do you harm, and who had apparently been nurturing this bizarre fixation for a whopping thirty two years. The mere fact that he'd been building on this fixation for such a long time period gave the threats credibility. The stress of that takes a toll. Even in wartime, the enemy usually wears a different colored uniform. We likened Carl to a terrorist---nothing more, nothing less. That's how we saw him in those days, and that's how we see him today.
During this period Rhonda slept only a couple of hours per night. She'd wake up at the slightest noise. She'd get up every morning, red-eyed and punchy. She couldn't eat. She couldn't focus; her mind wandered. Her work suffered. I escorted her to and from work most every day. On days I couldn't, we arranged with friends to do so. All are well armed and steady in a difficulty. This practice continues today, and will until either we leave the country or Carl leaves this earth, regardless of any orders issued by some court..
We also paid for a formal background check from "Background Checks NW" based in Seattle, Washington, interacting with a "Gary". We wanted to know as much as possible about Carl Lee Johnson. We needed to know just how much of a threat he was. In an early conversation with "Gary" we mentioned that we'd been using public databases to uncover what information we'd found so far. Gary made the comment that customers who try to use those services generally come back to him. Convinced, we paid him hundreds of dollars. In the end analysis, we uncovered far more information by searching the Internet on our own, than did "Background Checks NW" on our behalf. In fact, Gary provided us no useful information whatsoever. Absolutely none. We quoted Donald Trump and fired the company.
Two weeks after filing for a temporary anti-harassment order my case came up for a hearing in the King County Courthouse, rm # E942, under Judge Barbara Harris. We have ordered the tape of that session and will make it available as a downloadable .mpg file when it comes in, by clicking HERE.
This seemed a simple, cut-and-dried case:
(1) Carl Johnson was calling Rhonda's restaurant, repeatedly, even after being told repeatedly to cease and desist, and
(2) he was telling Rhonda's employee's he was trying to figure out if he could "take me"
(3) that he had a "prior claim" on Rhonda (from 32 years before when they'd dated a hand full of times), and that
(4) the restaurant employees could not keep him from getting Rhonda's personal information because he had a RIGHT to it.
If that isn't harassment, then the act of harassment has never been carried out in the history of the world.
As proof that Carl was the caller I brought along the employee who had fielded most of Carl's calls, the restaurant assistant manager, Katie. Katie was positive she could identify Carl's voice and his distinctive "twitchy" mannerism when he got nervous, as he had been in several of the calls to her. He'd become highly agitated when she repeatedly refused to give him Rhonda's home phone, address, or to tell him specifically where Rhonda had gone on vacation. No one expected Carl to show up in court. He knew what he did, he wasn't (at that time) being charged with a crime, we merely wanted a court order directing him to stay the hell away from us. What did he have to gain by showing up?
Katie and I were surprised to see Carl sitting on the bench adjacent to the courtroom. He looked 15 years older than his DMV photo from 2002. He appeared to us to be one of those individuals in the world who were cursed with the kind of looks that made it impossible for them to EVER appear really clean, or presentable.
We followed Carl and his wife into the courtroom and sat behind them. When court was in session Carl's "attorney", James Doros, arrived and presented us with Carl's rebuttal to our allegations. See copy HERE.
Carl did not write the text of the affidavit. It was written for him, presumably by his attorney, and presented to Carl to sign, which he did. The document purports Carl to be of the highest possible caliber, honest and hard working, pure as the driven snow. Yada Yada. We'd love to see what Carl might have written on his own.
Carl states (1) He was never involved in any kidnapping of Rhonda in 1973. This constitutes an instance of criminal perjury, which we intend to prove.
(2) Carl admitted to writing to Rhonda in 1997, except that his version of the letter is night and day compared to what we actually received. Surely, had he not been worried we would produce a copy of it in court, he would have lied about that as well.
(3) Carl states that he wrote Rhonda only to discover if her son was, in fact, Carl's son! I've not seen or heard anything more outrageous in my life. Rhonda's son was born YEARS after she last saw Carl. And perhaps Carl didn't pass sex-ed, but he should have figured out by this stage in his life that fathering a child first requires SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. This statement by Carl is another instance of criminal perjury, because this is not what Carl asked in the 1997 letter ANYWAY. He had asked if Rhonda's son could BECOME his son (suggesting that as soon as they were "married" he'd like to adopt the little guy). We believe Carl felt that while he had to admit to the letter, if we did produce a copy in court which showed the true tone and nature of it, he could just say he had forgotten exactly what he did say. No perjury there if he could pull it off.
(4) Carl stated to the court under oath that he had been given Rhonda's address on the houseboat in 1997 by "friends in Aberdeen". But remember that the houseboat had only been in that slip for three weeks prior to receiving Carl's letter. Our closest friends didn't have the address, and, in fact, didn't even know we'd bought a houseboat. And we'd had no (zero) contact with ANYONE in Aberdeen for nearly THIRTY YEARS. Carl's claim that he was given our address by "friends in Aberdeen" is yet another instance of criminal perjury. Carl seems to think he can "play" the courts as he has played everyone else in his life, including, we submit, his current, apparently highly gullible, wife. Carl is employed now and was employed in 1997 by the "City of Port Townsend Department of Public Works". THAT is Carl's conduit to tracking us down. It's clear to us he merely accesses, or has co-workers access databases showing our utilities accounts wherever we live. At some point we will look into obtaining records from the City of Port Townsend Department of Public Works which may show accesses to those databases. --Assuming, of course, those records don't "mysteriously disappear", something we've come to see pretty frequently in the backwoods of Washington State.
(5) We are informed now, by our attorney via Carl's attorney, that "Carl's wife" now claims she was present when Carl wrote the letter of 1997, and that it was "tasteful and polite". We don't know which wife this means---the first one or the current one. But whoever it meant, we submit that, if the woman were telling the truth, she would have to have been one rank, nasty piece of work to have endorsed the letter that we received in 1997. Or she is lying, and she was not even remotely present when Carl wrote and mailed it. This is the most likely scenario. We are working on the timeline of this aspect and hope to be able to demonstrate that neither wife could have been present when Carl mailed the letter, due to their not being in his life at the time. We can only hope this assertion from Doros is turned into sworn testimony---that will allow us to go after the wife for perjury as well.
(6) Carl states, under oath, in writing, to the court, under penalty of perjury, that he never once called Rhonda's restaurant. Not ever. Not one time. This is another instance of criminal perjury. We now have subpoenaed records which suggest otherwise, and more records are on the way.
Carl's statement to the court, under penalty of perjury, is HERE.
As we sat behind Carl in the courtroom in Seattle, his attorney, his wife, and one "John Merchant", the "Operations Manager for the street/sewer/storm water division of the City of Port Townsend", we listened closely for Carl to speak so that Katie could identify his voice. Yet in that roughly THREE HOUR SPAN, before our case was called, we did not once see or hear Carl speak to anyone in his group. He remained resolutely silent. When someone spoke to him, he nodded his head, or he shook his head. Sitting barely three feet from him, we did not once hear him utter a word.
When our case was called I was asked to present my case. It consisted, simply, of the fact that Carl had kidnapped Rhonda in 1973, that he had (now admitted to in writing) sent her a letter in 1997, that he acknowledged to the court under oath that Rhonda had told him in no uncertain terms to cease and desist, but that he had STILL begun calling her work place suggesting he was going to do harm to her family in 2004. If the judge didn't believe that it was Carl who'd made the calls, Katie was sitting right next to me, ready, willing and able to identify Carl's voice. All she need do was hear him speak. It was a simple case which could have been dispatched by a competent judge in four minutes flat. But I will not say this judge was competent.
Carl's attorney, Doros, got his turn and argued that I had not made the case that Carl in fact made the calls. I retorted that we could certainly remedy THAT if the court would simply direct Carl to speak. The judge refused, and Carl was exceedingly, exceedingly careful to not even whisper to his attorney---he again communicated ONLY by nodding or shaking his head. I don't believe there's a person in the courtroom who didn't see through it.
Doros then argued that Carl didn't want this order to be upheld against his client because Carl didn't want the "stigma" of the order (we say: you do the crime, you do the time and it's just tough cookies if there's "stigma"), and Doros also said that Carl didn't want the order against him because----and read this carefully----"Carl wouldn't be able to buy any more GUNS". Read Doros's argument again if you need to, because it's in the record: Doros was defending his client from an anti-harassment order in which it was alleged that his client was a kidnapper, a stalker, a deviate of sorts, and was currently, after 32 years, harassing his victim and threatening to "take out" her family!! And Doros's argument that the order should not be upheld is that his client won't be able to BUY ANY MORE GUNS. Our opinion is that Carl is not an entity who should EVER be allowed to own a gun, yet our investigation shows that he has two handguns currently registered in his name. Isn't that ducky. And he wants to buy more.
But it was a moot point because an anti-harassment order does not prevent one from buying "any more guns" at all! Only a Domestic Violence Protection order accomplishes that, and we weren't at a DV Protection hearing---we were at a simple anti-harassment hearing! Rhonda's DV Protection hearing is a separate proceeding, and was not even scheduled on that day or in that court!
The judge tried to explain to Doros that he was not currently attending a DV Protection hearing, but an anti-harassment hearing, which, if upheld, would not prevent his client from buying "any more guns" at all. But Doros didn't get it. So, for the sake of clarity and in hopes of simply moving forward, I tried to mention to Doros across the table that this was the anti-harassment hearing, and that the DV Protection Hearing was scheduled in the future. Doros STILL didn't get it, but the judge immediately jumped on me with all claws, testily admonishing me for speaking out of turn. It was at that moment I knew we'd be ruled against no matter what evidence I supplied or how accurately or eloquently I argued my case.
Doros then argued that since I had been in law enforcement, I must have had "all sorts" of people "out to get me", and that the current harassment therefore had nothing to do with his angelic client. That my law enforcement days were over 25 years in the past, and 2000 miles distant were somehow "forgotten" by Doros. But it was a sleazy attorney's trick which scored points with the judge. Frat-house camaraderie, and all of that.
Doros didn't need to argue his case any more. The judge then took up the cause of arguing it for him. I interjected once more that we needed to hear Carl SPEAK, so Katie could identify his voice, so we could document that Carl was the caller making the threats. This seemed to piss the judge off even more, and she seemed to simply take on the case on Doros's behalf. He didn't have to say another word. He simply sat down and allowed the judge to make his case for him.
In the end, to moot my repeated attempts to get Carl to speak, the judge said that even if I could could prove beyond all doubt that Carl was the caller and had made threats against me, it wouldn't matter. She said she STILL wouldn't uphold an anti-harassment order against Carl because, in her words, that Carl even made the threats was hearsay. I countered that it wasn't hearsay at all, because the person the threats were made to was sitting right next to me, willing, able and anxious to testify. After all, Carl had spent an entire day harassing HER as well! She was nearly as sick of the guy as we were! The judge poo-poohed that too, and wouldn't make Carl speak, nor would she allow Katie to testify, and she finally ruled that even if I could prove that Carl made the calls, and even if I could prove to the court's satisfaction that the threats had been made against me by Carl, I wasn't entitled to an anti-harassment order because the threats weren't made TO me, only ABOUT me. The judge concluded by saying maybe I HAD been harassed, maybe I HAD been threatened by Carl, but since Carl had not made the threats TO ME, specifically, I would not be entitled to an anti-harassment order against Carl. It's in the record. Look it up. Can we guarantee that this position can be shown to be ridiculous and not in any way an accurate interpretation of the law? I believe we can take that bet.
--More barking madness from Washington State judges.....
Consider a scenario wherein a lunatic runs down the middle of the street yelling that he's going to kill the President. How do you think the Secret Service would react? The definition of harassment does not require that any threat be made specifically TO the victim. I'll provide a copy of the statute later in this document. This judge's ruling does more to erode the confidence and respect of the citizenry than all the crooks and robbers in Seattle. We don't need, and we don't want, people of this sub-standard intellect on the bench. Honestly, with judges like these, who needs criminals.
The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, which means that I can re-file it at any time. I am just about ready to re-file it at this time, and that fiasco, because it is certain to BE a fiasco, will be appended to this page as an UPDATE.
As I was leaving the courtroom I told Doros that he had done his client a huge disservice. In response Doros gave me one of those "terrified" looks that those who've accumulated no life experiences outside academia do so well, a hapless variation of Righteous Indignation. In truth, Doros HAS done his client a huge disservice. Carl knows full well what he's done. Only an imbecile of an attorney would not be able to see through Carl's perjuries. I don't think Doros is the brightest bulb in the string, but I don't either think he's an imbecile. I think he simply DOESN'T CARE if his clients are lying. Think of it this way: If, in the original interview with Carl Johnson, Doros came to believe that his client was lying, then there's really only one way in which to advise that client, assuming of course that you're an honorable attorney, and God knows there must be one somewhere. The advice would be something like this: Don't even go to court to fight either order. The orders will be upheld, you'll not be able to buy "any more guns" for five years, you won't be able to make any more harassing or threatening calls for five years, and that will be that. You're not facing criminal charges. You've done a bad thing. Choke it down and live with these VERY lenient consequences, and simply don't do it again. This option would have cost Carl nothing. He would not have been charged with any crimes. Maybe he would have learned something from it and even, just maybe, decided to stop harassing and threatening people. It's a win-win situation for Carl. But it's a lose-lose situation for Doros, as Doros doesn't make a dime.
Had Doros actually taken a hard look at his client's case, Carl would not be facing our absolute crusade to get him out of our lives; he would not be facing the very real possibility of perjury charges; he would not be facing criminal charges for harassment, and make no mistake---if the prosecutor refuses to file the charges we'll do so ourselves using "due process". Carl would neither be facing a civil suit to recover our expenses in this mess. He's facing that now that he's lied and cost us so much money unnecessarily. All of these consequences and potential consequences constitute the disservice we contend that Doros has done for his client. We wonder how Doros and people like him can sleep with that. We think they sleep quite well, and THAT is the problem.
What I believe Doros saw when he first interviewed Carl was a mini gold mine. Here was a client who was obviously one of life's f*ck-ups, one of society's "genetic blanks", prone to making all sorts of stupid life-decisions, but with the arrogance to want to deny them and shift the blame elsewhere, and with also a steady job with which to support the ministrations of an unscrupulous attorney. Who could ask for more? All Doros had to do was sort of "look the other way", and to "pretend" to believe his client. He probably even encouraged his client to fight this and that, to go to court, to try to spin the case somehow so that it was "all our fault". Because the more of that kind of chaos and nonsense that occurs, the more confusion an attorney can inject into any case, the more money he makes. And the more money he makes for his competitors (who are still his comrades at the end of the day), because the opposing party now has to go hire an attorney and fight the lies. THIS scenario is WIN-WIN for the attorney, and every attorney knows this painfully well. It's what pays their rent. Are there some attorneys who will try to actually solve a case without going to court? Who actually have their clients' best interests at heart? Yes. But they're few and far between. And I do not for a New York second believe James Doros is one of those honorable types.
There's one more perk Doros has earned for his client: In the beginning, while Rhonda had nothing but loathing, hatred and contempt for Carl, I actually felt pity for him. In the brief time I'd known him in 1973, he'd appeared to me as a lost, incapable, almost semi-retarded kid. Rhonda's assessment of his intelligence level was a "2" on a one-to-ten scale. I might have been content simply to obtain the orders against Carl, and to hope that he finally got the message and was, once and for all, out of our lives. But now that he has come to court with this arrogance, these lies and has literally wiped out Rhonda's meager savings in this insane fight to retain some right to harass her in the future---my empathy level for Carl has fallen to that I might hold for an Al Qaeda terrorist, for that's exactly how I see him now. I see James Doros as personally complicit in Carl's evil endeavors. I do not care if other attorneys are appalled at that sentiment or not. Someone, somewhere, sooner or later must take responsibility for allowing evil people to undertake and complete evil tasks. In this case, I feel Doros is responsible for a large portion of the guilt. If I had anything to say to the man it would be this: GET. TO. THE. TRUTH. Then act responsibly. I hold Doros to some degree personally responsible for our continued safety and well-being. Take that any way you like.
The result of Carl's "win" in court is that he feels empowered. He feels emboldened. He feels the system is on his side. He feels the system likes him. He feels he smarter than everyone else. He feels that now he really CAN go out and do these kinds of things to people, to plunge their lives into fear and despair, to cause them to lose their savings, to cause them to leave the country or change their names or at least to live in fear. The courts and the attorneys have PROVEN to Carl and to all the evil little scum-suckers like him that they can do these things with impunity. Carl is happy.
We showed up for Rhonda's DV Protection hearing the following day. Neither Doros or Carl showed. In their absence they left a hand-scrawled note saying Doros had conflicting business in Superior court in Port Townsend (near where Carl Johnson lives). Rhonda's typed complaint to the court may be read HERE. Rhonda's handwritten complaint to the court may be read HERE.
Now what could Doros be doing up there on spur of the moment? It was whispered to us by an anonymous source in the courthouse that it was thought that Doros had gone there to seek anti-harassment orders against Rhonda and I. That's exactly the kind of sleazy tactic we'd expect from such a man. --Turns out that wasn't the case. So what was it? Likely he was trying to seal either Johnson's divorce records or some other piece of information he wanted to make difficult for us to retrieve. In any case, his purpose will probably come out sooner or later, and we'll report it here.
A few days after the hearings, Doros apparently spoke with our attorney-to-be and it was suggested that a "deal" could be arranged. Carl would agree to a "mutual restraining order" if we'd stop investigating him and just let the whole matter slide. Couldn't we all just <sniff> get along...? But after Carl's lies in the courtroom, we were in no mood for "deals" from the likes of Carl Lee Johnson or his slippery, and in our view utterly amoral attorney, James Doros. This case will go the distance now. Period. That's Carl's doing and his "attorney" shares 40% of the blame. We turned the other cheek when Carl kidnapped Rhonda. We turned the other cheek 24 years later when we received Carl's disgusting, outrageously inappropriate letter. We only have two cheeks and Carl has abused them both with no signs he'll ever stop. There. Will. Be. No. Deals. We understand Carl was "saved" from his drinking and druggie life by some biker's religious group in the Jefferson County area. We can't help but wonder what that group---assuming any of THEM possesses one molecule of decency or honor themselves, would think of Carl's actions. We encourage them to encourage him to, for once in his miserable life, step up to the plate, act like a man, apologize profusely and humbly to Rhonda, reimburse her for her lost savings, allow the orders to go through unchallenged, and take his chances with law enforcement. THEN we'll agree the matter is settled. We suggest that nothing short of those actions will save Carl's soul if, indeed, he has one. And nothing short of those actions will stop us from seeking legal remedies.
We hired attorney Steve McConnell (Seattle) the following day. Steve McConnell was fired shortly thereafter.
But in the weeks he represented us, the following evidence has been uncovered, which has prompted us at the last minute to continue with our cases with a new attorney:
Consider that most people who own telephones have been harassed at one time or another. Sometimes that harassment has become serious enough that they end up calling their local telephone company to ask what they can do about it. They're told to buy a caller I.D. device first. If the caller doesn't show up on that, they're advised to try other tricks like *69, which will return to or show the last caller. Usually these things don't work, and after the victim has fooled around with them for awhile, the caller has tired of the game and goes off to bother someone else. Sometimes, however, you get some cowardly little shit who keeps it up, and keeps it up, or whose message is SO outrageous that you have no choice but to actually call the police. The police will tell you to call your telephone company and have them put a "trap" on the line. This is basically the equivalent of caller I.D. on steroids, and it can help in cases where the caller is stupid enough to keep calling for some period of time. Even then, however, it may not work.
In our case against Carl Johnson, we went through the usual steps. Seattle PD Detective Christiansen told us there was no way to retrieve any kind of record of incoming calls to a number unless you knew the calling (originating) number. In Carl's case, we didn't have that.
Rhonda's restaurant employs an automated switchboard. The customer calls the main, advertised number, and the call may be carried out on that line. But the first call is transparently switched to another number (line), and the main line takes any new call. Calls are handled on the main line, then always switched off to another line within a minute or two, sometimes three. This happens with this particular brand of switch even if no new calls are coming in. We were hoping this electronic switch recorded the originating numbers of incoming calls, using some sort of caller I.D. We still can't say it DOESN'T do that, but if it does, we haven't figured out where the logs are stored. We continue to research.
At first we thought this meant we were out of luck in back-tracing the calls to Carl Johnson. But we kept thinking that, in this electronic world where logs are kept of EVERYTHING, (including the number of times a toilet is flushed in some buildings) there must be a way to at least produce a log of long distance calls coming in to a phone line. We didn't really pursue it, because we'd been told it couldn't be done. Detective Rande Christiansen specifically told us that every time he'd tried it, he hadn't been able to. Most victims of stalkers have been told that as well, over the years. Still, we kept thinking there MUST be a way.
Finally I spent half a day talking to Qwest techies, and I was eventually told that there is, in fact, a procedure that will accomplish exactly what we needed. For future reference you may wish to write this down, as it stands to virtually revolutionize the tracking of stalkers. You must subpoena your local telephone company and request a "Super AMA Dump" (often referred to as "AMADUMP"). The subpoena will cost you whatever---an attorney will take his time and charge for nearly an hour at two hundred bucks per. A paralegal can write one up in ten minutes flat for a cost of about $20 (then have your attorney serve it). Your attorney will usually fax it to the telephone company's "subpoena line". They receive lots of subpoenas, because America has lots of stalkers. It's running short on honest, mentally healthy, productive human beings, but it has lots of stalkers and telephone companies process these requests all day long.
You'll request (as stated before) a "Super AMA Dump" (or just "ama dump") for the line which RECEIVED the harassing and/or threatening calls. In our case that number was in area code 206. You'll pay for the subpoena, and you'll pay the telephone company up to $150 for each 24 hour period you want searched. What you'll receive, however, is more than worth the price.
In many cases, even though the victim is only aware of one or two calls, it may be that many more were made as hang-up calls, while the caller made "practice runs" and "got up his nerve" to actually speak to someone .
We received a 39 page print-out -- very small type -- which detailed every single call that came in to the restaurant on 12-21 and 12-22, 2004. There were hundreds of calls. We had requested the ama dump on only the main incoming line, so the dump did not show the final durations of the calls that were automatically switched off to another line, nor did it show any calls that may have come in on one of the secondary lines because the main line was busy. In the case of this particular restaurant, all calls are first answered by a recorded greeting. The caller must wait from one to three minutes for any live person to pick up. So unless the caller hangs up before a live person even comes on the line, the calls will always show a duration of at least one or two or three minutes. But once a live person DOES answer, the call is almost always immediately handed off to another of the restaurant's lines, so that no calls incoming to the main number will show a duration of more than that time period---a minute or three. This means that if a caller called in and spoke to someone for, say, 20-30 minutes, an ama dump of the records for the main line will only show that calls as being a duration of one to three minutes. If we were to request an ama dump on all the other lines, we would be able to trace long-duration calls that had been handed off to any of those lines, and that dump data would show the true duration of the call. Since we didn't much care about the duration of the call but were more concerned with who made the calls or from what region they originated, and due to the fact that an ama dump on all the other lines would have been too expensive, we didn't request a dump for any line but the main advertised number. And the dump didn't show any calls that had been originally routed to any of the other lines because the main line was busy when they came in. Still, the dump shows the originating number (the stalker's), the terminating number (the victim's), as well as the duration of the calls before they were switched off to an alternate line, some cryptic routing info, and a whole bunch of other fun stuff. We submitted our subpoena on one day, and had the results the next working day. Simple. And cheap at twice the price. We can go back and request the dumps for all other lines at any time if that becomes necessary.
For those requiring this service on multiple lines, it may help to know that, at least in the case of Qwest, you can pay the initial $150 for a 24/hr dump of one number, and if you order a dump of any number of additional numbers at the same time, all additional numbers are dumped at the rate of $50 for each additional number. --Quite a savings if you know in advance that you have to check a bunch of numbers.
What we found was revealing. There were a plethora of calls made from local numbers (yes, the ama dump shows ALL incoming calls, whether from cell phones, phone booths down the street, whatever). We had to sort through 39 pages of tiny type, and this took us about eight hours. Finally, however, it paid off. The ama dump had recorded 17 calls made from a cell phone in the 360 area code. That's where Carl lives---smack in the middle of the 360 area code. But that in and of itself wasn't enough to cement the case. After all, maybe 17 different people really DID call in via long distance to order take out food. Rhonda's restaurant doesn't deliver 100 miles away, but maybe they'd called in just the same. --Not likely, but in the court's eyes, maybe at least technically POSSIBLE. I've no doubt that had we come to court armed with just that, Carl's attorney, Doros, would have GUARANTEED the court that he could PROVE those callers were really ordering take-out linguine from 100 miles away, and that Carl was, still, as pure as the driven snow.
Unfortunately the ama dump didn't show the actual number of the phone that had done the calling. Qwest says that sometimes the trace doesn't go back all the way to the actual phone itself, just to some point in between. We thought we were dead in the water. But in for a penny, in for a pound: We subpoenaed records for the number that WAS shown in the ama dump. Lo and behold, the number is owned by Sprint Spectrum Communications, of Port Angeles, Washington, which is just a hop and a skip from Carl's home in Port Ludlow, Washington. Still, Carl's irritating attorney would certainly argue that this harassing caller, whose message and mannerism and sentence structure was IDENTICAL to messages Carl admits to having delivered in the past, MUST be some OTHER person whose messages were verbatim, word-for-word the same as Carl's, and that it was only a COINCIDENCE that the calls came through a wireless communications company that serves Carl's home area. It would be about as convincing as a bank robber saying he was in the vault because he'd been on his way to rent a movie and just got lost. But we've no doubt Carl's attorney would try it. After all, the courts seem to appreciate a good story far more than they do those pesky things called FACTS. So we went one step further.
It turns out that the originating number in the ama dump is registered to a cell tower owned by Sprint Spectrum PCS in Port Angeles. Those cell calls came up in our ama dump 17 times over 48 hours. In the next few weeks we'll be serving Sprint with another subpoena to divulge the latitude and longitude of that cell tower, and we'll post a map here showing the relationship to Carl's home. Still, Carl's attorney will argue that this isn't enough evidence either. So be it. There's plenty more to come. Once again it strikes us as ludicrous for Carl's attorney to force us to amass enough evidence to possibly put his client in jail. Had Carl simply accepted the no-contact orders, we would have had no need to dig this deep. We wonder if Doros will ever "get" what he's done.
We did subpoena Sprint to supply us with the name of the person(s) who held the cell phone account(s) at the time the calls were made to Rhonda's restaurant, routed through their cell tower. Unfortunately, Sprint only holds this data for 45 days, and because we hadn't known about the ama dump for almost two months after the calls were placed (because Seattle PD told us it couldn't be done), we were now beyond that time frame and the records had rolled off.
The ama dump also showed two more interesting calls---both from Aberdeen to Rhonda's restaurant. We have the identity of the caller; we're checking to see if there's a connection to Carl. It's possible it's just a coincidence. After all, lots of Aberdeen residents order take out food from 140 miles away in Seattle, right?
For awhile, again, we were disappointed. We thought Carl had slipped through the cracks yet again. Indeed, God protects the stupid, and the vicious, but he makes the honest work hard for their due.
We finally came up with another way to subpoena records which do NOT roll off after 45 days. They're maintained for years. In the next few weeks we'll serve Sprint with a new subpoena worded in the proper way, which will produce those records.
Sprint has cautioned us that the caller may well have been using a pre-paid $9.95 phone from Safeway or 7-11. That's true. He may well have done that. But even if he did, the call data that was sent through the cell tower when the calls were made will show the serial number of the phone. Through the serial number we can track the manufacturer. The manufacturer will be able to tell us to what area that specific phone was disbursed for retail sales. We're betting it was sold from a store on the Olympic Peninsula. Once we have the store name we can go at the buyer from two angles: We can subpoena the store to find out if Carl Johnson, his wife or his friends ever shopped there, and what they bought. If they bought a pre-paid cell phone, the connection will be made to Carl. Similarly, we can subpoena Carl's and his wife's and his employer's credit card records to see if they've purchased a pre-paid cell phone. If so, we'll almost certainly be able to finish our case against Carl.
We can now document that Carl lied about the kidnapping. We can demonstrate to the court that 17 calls came in to Rhonda's restaurant from a cell tower in the region of Carl's home. We hope to be able to prove that none of his wives assisted him in the writing of the outrageous letter of 1997 (which he's already admitted to). We hope to be able to positively connect the calls that went through Sprint's equipment, to a phone used by Carl Johnson, whether it was owned by Carl, borrowed from a friend, or supplied to him by the City of Port Townsend for work related uses. Even if we never do positively connect him to the actual phone that was used, we will sooner or later get a recoding of his voice (we will be suing him in small claims court and he'll be required to speak on his own behalf there), so we'll have Katie's testimony against Carl's that he is in FACT the caller, and we have no doubt Katie will hold up a hell of a lot better on the stand than will Carl. We can also demonstrate to the court that Carl lied throughout, that he has perjured himself, and that he has made a mockery of the court. Judges, in their supreme arrogance, don't take kindly to that.
And that's where we're at as of 3-6-05.
It continues to amaze us to realize that if James Doros would simply TALK TO HIS CLIENT and GET AT THE TRUTH we could all be saved this time, trouble, expense and stress. But then James Doros wouldn't in that case line his pockets.
All further developments will be appended to this text and marked with a big, red UPDATE.
NOTE: NO where in the following code does it say that if the stalker/harasser doesn't make the threats directly TO the victim, it isn't harassment. The judge in the proceeding described above actually began to read from this document when she was trying to make the point that the threats must be made TO the victim, but she stopped short as she couldn't find what she wanted (because it doesn't exist). She then decreed anyway that I wasn't entitled to an antiharassment order even if I proved to her satisfaction that Carl was the one making the threats, because he hadn't made them directly to me. And judges wonder why they don't, as Rodney Dangerfield used to say, "Get no respect". It's because, so often, they haven't earned it and don't deserve it.
Washington State Law
This page lists the most applicable state crimes addressing stalking. However, depending on the facts of the case, a stalker might also be charged with other crimes, such as trespassing, intimidation of a witness, breaking and entering, etc. Check your state code or consult with your local prosecutor about other charges that might apply in a particular case.
Rev. Code Wash. Â§ 9A.46.110. Stalking.
(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and
(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and
(c) The stalker either:
(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.
(2) (a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person; and
(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person.
(3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendant is a licensed private investigator acting within the capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165 RCW.
(4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. "Contact" includes, in addition to any other form of contact or communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the person.
(5) A person who stalks another person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor except that the person is guilty of a class C felony if any of the following applies: (a) The stalker has previously been convicted in this state or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a protective order; (b) the stalking violates any protective order protecting the person being stalked; (c) the stalker has previously been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under this section for stalking another person; (d) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in *RCW 9.94A.602, while stalking the person; (e) the stalker's victim is or was a law enforcement officer, judge, juror, attorney, victim advocate, legislator, or community correction's officer, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim for an act the victim performed during the course of official duties or to influence the victim's performance of official duties; or (f) the stalker's victim is a current, former, or prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim as a result of the victim's testimony or potential testimony.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "Follows" means deliberately maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person over a period of time. A finding that the alleged stalker repeatedly and deliberately appears at the person's home, school, place of employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or physical proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged stalker follows the person. It is not necessary to establish that the alleged stalker follows the person while in transit from one location to another.
(b) "Harasses" means unlawful harassment as defined in RCW 10.14.020.
(c) "Protective order" means any temporary or permanent court order prohibiting or limiting violence against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another person.
(d) "Repeatedly" means on two or more separate occasions.
Rev. Code Wash. Â§ 9A.46.020. Definition -- Penalties.
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or
(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or
(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.
(2) A person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that the person is guilty of a class C felony if either of the following applies: (a) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; or (b) the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
(3) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.
Rev. Code Wash. Â§ 9.61.230. Telephone harassment.
Every person who, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass any other person, shall make a telephone call to such other person:
(1) Using any lewd, lascivious, profane, indecent, or obscene words or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act; or
(2) Anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, whether or not conversation ensues; or
(3) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household;
shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, except that the person is guilty of a class C felony if either of the following applies:
(a) That person has previously been convicted of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or member of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or
(b) That person harasses another person under subsection (3) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
We've received a letter from Carl Johnson's attorney in which he threatens to seek a court order to stop us from investigating his client. The letter and our reply are HERE
We've received a call from Verizon in New York regarding the cell tower in question. It appears the calls MAY have come from a Verizon account using a Sprint-owned tower. We won't know for sure until next week. If we can pin the calls down to one company (i.e. Sprint, Verizon, etc.) it will save considerably on subpoenas.
Situation as it stands at this moment: The proof we need to take this matter back to court, to obtain an anti-harassment order, a Domestic Violence Protection order, to obtain criminal charges and convictions for stalking, harassment, telephone harassment, perjury, and others, is so close and yet so far. We need more detailed phone records from Sprint Spectrum and/or Verizon. We also need a tape recording of Carl's voice so we can have our witness try to identify it. There are three law enforcement agencies with an open case file in this matter. Any of these agencies can easily obtain a warrant for the phone records, and one or two of these agencies is in a position to bring Carl in for questioning and record the session. What remains to be seen is whether any of these agencies will do their jobs. Washington state isn't exactly known for competent, professional or proficient law enforcement. Hopefully one or more agencies will make us retract that observation. If no agencies will act, then we must open our own case in order to have "subpoena authority". An open case might be in the form of a re-filing of either of our anti-harassment orders; in those cases we're only given two weeks in which to tender subpoenas for information that will make our case to the courts. Two weeks is a short period of time when dealing with the likes of Sprint and/or Verizon, both of whom operate mostly on "Mañana Time". We could file a civil suit against Carl, in which case we'd enjoy several months of "subpoena authority". We had been planning to sue Carl in small claims court for our expenses in this mess---but unless we're proven wrong, we don't believe a pending small claims suit entitles the petitioner to subpoena authority. It would actually be in our best interests if Carl's attorney, James Doros, would file some cockamamie thing or other against us. That would be an open case for him and also for us. There's nothing he can file that he can win; but whatever he filed would give us a period of subpoena authority, and in all likelihood we'd have enough time to finish this up. If law enforcement doesn't do its job, and if we can't convince Doros to file something against us, our plan is to continue amassing evidence which does not require a subpoena, such as statements of the original witnesses to the kidnapping in 1973---that will certainly establish Carl as a liar (and a kidnapper). That alone will boost our case considerably, and it should be enough to bring perjury charges against Carl in at least that one instance as well. We can also work on ways to legally obtain a recording of Carl's voice. A small claims suit, as mentioned before, would accomplish that. Our witness's identification of Carl as the caller will help our case considerably as well. Once we've collected these data, and a few other tidbits, we'll re-file for both protection orders, and in that two week period before the hearing, we'll subpoena the remainder of the phone records. If Carl didn't use a pre-paid cell phone from Safeway (or maybe even if he did), that evidence will be enough to complete all cases against him. For the time being, we are continuing to urge law enforcement to do its job, while at the same time obtaining whatever evidence we can with the help of our new attorney. We say again: We turned the other cheek when Rhonda was kidnapped, we turned the other cheek when the kidnapper wrote to her in 1997; we're fresh out of cheeks. This time it goes the distance.
We have been informed that the Seattle Police department is investigating us. For what? We haven't a clue. They have not as yet mustered the simple decency to ask US any questions---but they are sniffing around asking everyone we know questions. As we've done nothing even remotely wrong, they're welcome to sniff to their heart's content. The irony, however, is this: Seattle PD performed almost no service whatsoever on our behalf to stop a mental case from calling us and threatening bodily harm. Detective Rande Christiansen started out with what seemed like good intentions, but fell flat on his face. When we asked him, formally, in writing, repeatedly, if he would consider re-opening the case if and when we could offer more evidence, he refused to reply. So much for simple professionalism. At the suggestion of our attorney we then appealed to Lisa Johnson in the King County Prosecutor's office. We painstakingly laid out the entire case, and begged for help. Nearly sixty days later, Lisa Johnson has not mustered the simple professionalism to reply IN ANY WAY. We then sent the case to the Port Townsend Police department. We dealt with the assistant chief, Conner Daily. At that time Daily complained to us that Rande Christiansen of Seattle PD would not even return HIS department's calls. Again, so much for the professionalism of the Seattle Police department. Since then we've written to Daily several times. Daily now refuses to reply to US.
And yet, out of all this, Seattle PD DOES have the time and energy and resources to actively investigate us, telling those they speak with not to mention their inquiries to us. Fortunately, everyone we know has endured this same brand of insanity at the hands of Seattle PD, and are quick to inform us of every interaction.
Anyone who's ever been the victim of a problem in this region can attest to the bizarre, peculiar logic so often adopted by local law enforcement. In our case, you have two people who were going about their lives, so far removed from any thought of Carl Johnson that they didn't even recall his name. Yet out of the blue, this dirty little piece of shit pops up for the THIRD TIME in 32 years and begins harassing us and making threats. A slippery, amoral attorney gets him off. We begin trying to build a better case against him. Seattle PD responds by utterly ignoring our repeated, insistent pleas for help, but then tries to somehow make us out to be the aggressors. Seattle PD can, honestly, go fuck itself. We have never, ever seen a more screwed up or counter-productive agency.
Near the beginning of this website we posed the question: If you're the victim of harassment (or almost any other crime for that matter), should you call the police? We'll address the issue at significant length at the conclusion of this case, but it seems the Seattle Police department has already answered the question. Answer: What would be the point?
We were speaking with our attorney only hours ago, and the thought was tossed around that since we hadn't had any more trouble from Carl since Christmas, maybe we should just let the matter slide. We let it slide twice before and both times it was a mistake. But maybe, it was thought, we should let it slide again. Then 30 minutes later we're informed that Seattle PD is investigating US. No doubt Carl and/or his idiot attorney have stirred this up. So be it. We'll have Carl Johnson back in court within four to eight weeks---which is, no doubt, exactly what Carl's attorney wants. We have absolutely had enough of this mindless bullshit. NOTE: The reward is herewith increased to $3000.
If the Seattle Police department is looking for a way to get the attention of the mainstream news networks and advertise their stupidity, incompetence and counter-productivity, this is exactly how they should go about it.
We've gotten to the bottom of this mystery (above) to our satisfaction. Here's the gist of it: It seems "someone" on the Olympic Peninsula reported to police that they felt they were being "surveilled" by someone else with a web cam. No one will tell us who the complainant was, but we have no enemies on the Olympic Peninsula other than Carl Johnson, and it was Carl's imbecilic attorney who first conveyed fear that his precious client might be "surveilled", so we leave the reader to their own conclusions. What transpired was this: "some" police agency was given an Internet address (URL) of a webcam, and it was suggested to them that this webcam was somehow being used to watch the movements of the complainant. Police went to the URL, which was not associated with any webcam or website we've ever owned, maintained, hosted, viewed or heard of, studied the picture on the webcam and ascertained that it did not surveil anyone, and was, in fact, located in the Seattle area anyway. End of investigation.
Our reward to bring this piece of shit to justice stands at $3000. We will increase it as finances and contributions allow. We're not going to live like this.
At this time we are reconsidering our efforts to continue to use any type of law enforcement or criminal judicial remedies to stop our stalker problem. It is simply and utterly a waste of time---as we knew it would be, and as we predicted publicly that it would be, months ago. We may, instead, consider civil and other remedies which we can control. Since we know the problem originates in Port Ludlow and Port Townsend, and since no established media in that area is willing to tell this story, we are considering a mass-mailing to every Jefferson County resident and business, asking for tips, leads, and information. Our reward still stands for information which will produce an arrest and/or conviction. But it appears now that even if irrefutable, black and white evidence were presented to law enforcement in this case, nothing would STILL be done. Law enforcement in this region is simply like that. Indeed, Washington state's law enforcement is an embarassment to the country.
We've spoken at length to a new attorney and have gone through this case from top to bottom.
We do have the option of suing Carl Johnson in civil court. However, since Washington state makes it virtually impossible to recover punitive damages, our best-case award would be around $5000 -- and there's no guarantee we could recover the attorney's fees required to win the suit, which could be in the neighborhood of $5000 - $10,000. Even with a judgement, could we make Carl pay? It's doubtful. We cannot by law take his home, and that's about all he seems to own outside of some junk motorcycle parts. We could take a portion of his wages, and that's worth considering, but it's doubtful the courts would let us garnish more than a couple hundred per month. He would probably quit to avoid paying us. It's also easy to imagine him being fired, given what he's put his employer (the City of Port Twnsend, Washington) through of late. In either case we'd have a hollow judgement, impossible to enforce or collect on.
We also have the option of filing suit against Seattle PD for failure to investigate. Even the dimmest bulb in the string can clearly see that SPD's effort in this case was halfhearted at best -- certainly not even close to the effort the law mandates. Let's say we won that suit and the judge ordered SPD to go back and re-investigate the case, only this time to actually do their jobs and follow through (a novel concept for SPD). In that case SPD would humbly apologize to the judge, would officially begin a new investigation, and would make sure it flopped, just to spite us. If there's one way to guarantee a Washington state law enforcement agency not do its job, it is to insist that it do its job. These are petty, lazy people, as any number of Internet sites have already attested.
A third option is to file charges against Carl Johnson using the due process laws for a citizen's complaint. We'd then hire an ex- or retired prosecutor to push the case through the system, independent of the prosecutor's office. In this scenario we could bring forth enough evidence to make it an open and shut case of harassment and threats, stalking and perjury. The trouble is, like Washington's law enforcement agencies, Washington's judges are mostly petty, lazy, vindictive, very often incompetent people, and regardless of the amount of evidence brought before the court, the fact that we had tried to MAKE the courts do their jobs would cause most Washington state judges to work overtime to find some way, any way, of thwarting a conviction. After all, the judicial system certainly can't have the public FORCING them to do their jobs, can they? Set a precedence like that, and who knows where it might lead.
Some new options have been presented, none of which utilize either law enforcement or the judicial system or the civil courts, and none of which are in any way illegal. One or two of these options seems to us to be far more effective than any method explored thus far. We are exploring these options.
In the meantime, our reward continues to stand. We will continue to welcome new evidence, which we'll pass to law enforcement merely to fulfill our legal obligations, but also to post on this website. Trying to get any law enforcement agency in Washington state to actually do what the taxpayers pay them to do is a complete and utter waste of time, and we should have been intelligent enough to have known that in the first place.
So.....will Carl Johnson get away with this in the end? There's only one aspect of this case we can safely say we guarantee, and it is this: He. Will. Not. --Not even a little.
On this date we were contacted by an "online website tracking service". This is one of many services online which offer to track any given website and send an email to the subscriber notifying him/her of any changes that have been made to the target website. This particular company stated that someone had subscribed to that service targeting this website, and that if we wished, the name and email address of the subscriber would be provided to us -- for a nominal fee, of course. We declined their kind offer as we record all IP addresses (and much other data) incoming to this site in any case. The subscriber is probably Doros---but who cares. We can only hope he's convinced his client that his counter-productive services continue to be necessary and that he bills Carl Johnson every time he accesses this site. There would be something poetic about that.
We note that "someone" does frequent searches for the above phrases; we suggest it may well be Doros trying to find out what other sites are saying about him. Perhaps, if true, a preoccupation with this activity will give him less time to use trickery and deceit to protect other criminals
On this date also we have concluded a long series of conversations over the past weeks with a cellular engineer. We have concluded that the telephone number to which all harassing calls traced back MAY be a number that is inserted into the database field when the caller turns off the function on his cell phone which sends caller ID info to the recipient. The cellular company's computer still records the origin of the call, but instead of inserting the caller's number into the field which is later retrieved by the ama dump, the computer inserts a "benign" company internal number, merely because the field space must be filled with a value, and almost any value will do. If accurate, this is good news. It means that the calls were probably made using a cell phone in which the caller had turned off the "send caller ID info to the recipient" function -- because, of course, he was worried about the calls being traced back to his number. This indicates that he was probably using a phone for which he held an account, and which could be traced back to him, personally. Why go to the trouble of turning off a caller ID function if you're using a pre-paid phone from Safeway? We stress that this is just a theory put forth by a Sprint engineer whose line of expertise is in slightly different areas. We are still actively researching this issue.
Again, however, we're at an impasse, because we don't have an open case which would give us subpoena power. With subpoena power we'll subpoena every wireless company doing business in the US and will sooner or later find a thread that leads back to Carl Johnson. Of course any law enforcement agency could do this as well, in the matter of a few hours-- if any competent, effective law enforcement existed in Western Washington, which it does not -- not unless it chooses for its own arbitrary reasons to be effective. We're on our own here, as we always have been. We need an open case, whether filed by us, or by Carl Johnson or his dim-bulb attorney, Doros, in order to launch the subpoenas and obtain the information we need to put this guy in jail where he belongs. Oops---there we go again, "assuming" that even if we had more proof, law enforcement or the judicial system would actually do its job and put this guy away. We really need to get out from under this unfortunate naivete. We'll handle this case through the "citizen complaint" process, and through other means and methods, thereby circumventing the complete and utter wasting of time that virtually any contact with law enforcement produces.
We have subscribed to a service which will shortly send a notice to nearly every resident in Jefferson county, making them aware of our problem and our current offer of a growing reward to solve that problem. Perhaps that will shake something loose. This mailing will be repeated automatically at intervals. We haven't yet decided the interval---perhaps once per year, perhaps every two years.
We do know that it is a complete and utter waste of time to hope for a resolution to this or most any other problem by using any law enforcement agency in western Washington. That's a given. We know also that it's usually a waste of time to try to go through the courts, judges and "attorneys" being what they are. We vacillate over which method(s) to employ to bring closure to this case. One day, or week, or month, it seems best to pursue the remedies afforded by the citizen complaint process. The following day or week that too seems like an exercise in futility. The following month it might again seem like a viable option. This indecision is caused by a screw-ball law enforcement and judicial system.
The method of resolution we finally end up employing will depend in large part on what type of evidence eventually presents itself. Until such time as we're able to decide on a course of action we'll continue to vacillate, and our indecision will be reflected in this website.
If law enforcement and/or the judicial system in this region were effective, competent, engaged.....this case would have been a slam-dunk. The evidence to convict our stalker is available, it is EASILY obtained by law enforcement, and once obtained, it is easily processed through an intelligent judicial system. It's too damned bad that, because of laziness, stupidity, incompetence, corruption, that straightforward option isn't available to the citizenry. We submit, tongue in cheek, that if every judge in western Washington was jerked off the bench and a duck was installed in their place, and every detective and prosecutor in western Washington was replaced by a donkey, "the system" would continue on without much change in efficiency or effectiveness. There's probably a cartoon in that for some clever social activist.
We've spent the past three months trying to distance ourselves from this case a bit, in order to dissipate a small fraction of our anger and thereby be capable of more logical thought. We have succeeded in dissipating a small fraction, but no more. We've also consulted yet another "attorney" (my God what a four-letter word that has become). We're advised to file two perjury complaints against Carl Johnson, both of which can be proven far beyond any doubt. Once those complaints are filed we'll have "subpoena authority" once again and we'll begin anew trying to bring this matter to a logical conclusion. --We say conclusion, but what we actually mean is to another level, since it is clear that after 32 years of harassment and stalking, Carl Johnson will never leave Rhonda alone, at least not this side of his grave, and that his demise, or Rhonda's, is the only way this harassment will ever be concluded. The complaints will be filed within the next several months. They will be accompanied by a polygraph taken by Rhonda attesting to the kidnapping by Carl Johnson in 1973. Polygraphs aren't admissible in court (usually) (because that would rob "attorneys" of 75% of their cases), but polygraphs sure as hell are admissible to the police and to the prosecutor as an investigative tool. Said polygraph will be posted on this website as well (watch for the link). Remember that there were some 18-20 people present when Carl Johnson forced Rhonda into a car in 1973 and sped away with her in the backseat. Roughly 8-12 of those individuals were so alarmed by this event that they ran to their cars and took up the chase. One of those individuals is, we know, deceased. That leaves at a bare minimum 7, and as many as 19 individuals, who will remember the case clearly. Perhaps we can only locate 3 or 4 of them after all these years using subpoena authority--- that's plenty to convict Carl Johnson of perjury.
We have also finally arranged for a mass mailing to Jefferson County residents asking for help in solving these crimes. We'll allow the mailings to go out probably after the polygraph has been posted here.
The complaints won't be investigated by Seattle PD because, honestly and frankly, Seattle PD is lazy, incompetent, and corrupt. We positively guarantee the complaints will not be properly investigated. Neither will they be passed up to the prosecutor's office because, honestly and frankly, the Seattle and King County prosecutors are lazy, incompetent and corrupt. It's documented a thousand times over---just do the research. Once SPD has refused to do its job we'll consider whether it's worth it to force the issues as citizen complaints. We've seen cases in the past, however, where law enforcement and the judiciary become so enraged at the audacity of a citizen who actually demands justice, that they will work overtime to stonewall the cases, and judges will often actually break the law to make sure the cases are either dismissed out of hand, or are dismissed on dubious technicalities. We herewith make the public prediction that this is exactly how our complaints will be handled in this region. Still, while the cases are pending, we'll have subpoena authority, and that will allow us to dig much deeper into Carl Johnson's behavior in this case.
We believe wholeheartedly that James Doros knew, that he knew Carl Johnson was lying when he stated under oath that he had not kidnapped Rhonda in 1973 and that he had not harassed her workplace in 2004. We believe James Doros knowingly assisted Carl Johnson in committing perjury because he (Doros) wanted the case. If Carl had simply accepted the restraining order against him, Doros could not have billed him for much. We believe that it would take a semi-retarded individual to not realize that Carl Johnson was lying under oath. Unless Doros wants to admit to being semi-retarded, then we see him as a willing co-conspirator in Carl Johnson's perjury.
To help the victim, click HERE
Updates will be appended here..