.. [ day twenty-six ] ..

Today I got a letter in the mail, it said:

'Mr. Homelessness, ..., was tried and convicted of rape of child in the third degree and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes based on his sexual relationship with a young teenage boy. Mr. Homelessness now files this personal restraint challenging his convictions under King County ... on a number of different grounds.
.
Accordingly, the petition should be transferred to the Washington Supreme court for review and consideration....'

Is there justice? Well, this is what I personally feel. The first statement curdles my skin! Give it up folks. This young man was raped by the lover of the states witness who pointed at me to protect his lover, then the state did the same to protect this conviction.

Enough now.

Now that we are potentially moving into a phase where the Supreme Court, may elect to hear or not hear my arguments; that the prosecutor in this case, had no legal ground to demonize a gay recanter, anymore than she does to impeach a heterosexual female one (rape shield laws).

This case has the smell of a tragic one; where the prosecutor in her own zeal, not only created many new victims, but by protecting the very people who raped this young man, she empowered them to keep control of a young mans psychological life and ruin another's.

When America government was founded it built into it strict protections against, Star Chamber, type of governmental persecution.

I interject two feelings of thought here: First a statement made by a women activist in an article I read over a year ago, a concept I was formulating in my head while tracking the history of sex crimes legislation in Washington, the article titled "Impact of false rape complaints Jonathon Harper [published in The Press Saturday February 4, 2006.], quotes:

'Back in 1996, a writer in Feminist Review, Camille Guy, criticized the feminist movement for becoming ‘chauvinistic’' to the extent that criticism was not countenanced of the violent and notorious abduction of playwright Mervyn Thompson, “Feminist reframing of sexual abuse has served to bring the abuse problem into the open,'' Guy wrote. “But it has also contributed to false allegations and over-zealous interventions which have destroyed lives just as cruelly as has abuse. It is time we opened our eyes to that.''

Second, the reasons we give prosecutors such great power and discretion is that we expect them to be above the law, not just kind-of-above it but greatly above it, and surely never ever below it!

Besides that, Calvin Cline's new line is amazing, the colors make me cry ...

Peace.

..[ day one ].. letter is to direct you to not e-mail any DOC personnel

"So your a quasi-whistle blower type?", a preacher type told me last night at my new UGM home. "Yeah, it sounds like they are punishing you."

Technically speaking, this is the beginning of day 2, since it is past noon, but it feels like day one. Maybe that is how it feels when you are homeless, everyday turns into one long nightmare.

Today, I received my final email from my CCO. I had to report to the DOC office at 8:30 am downtown. I guess I have to sign another new DOC imposed "directive." I can not imagine that anyone has more of these than I do!!!

This one states:

"Michael, This letter is to direct you to not e-mail any DOC personnel. We do not accept service of paperwork via e-mail. If you have any concerns or issues to discuss, please do so with me in person or over the phone. As you are aware, you are free to use the grievance procedures at any time to contact my supervisor via a letter or the phone to discuss issues you feel you can not resolve with me. Sincerely, ..."

So when I went to sign the letter with my usual M signature, which I use for these types of DOC documents, along with me usual tailored objection statement, the CCO took the document and told someone to come over and witness that I was refusing to sign the document. Wait – wait – I really want to sign it.

Once again I am glad to be assured that the DOC no longer has to comply with the CR (court rules) when being delivered legal documents via email as per CR 5 (b) (7) Service by other means: [ELECTRONIC MAIL]. I guess I didn't get that memo (email):

“(7) Service by Other Means. Service under this rule may be made by delivering a copy by any other means, including facsimile or electronic means, consented to in writing by the person served. Service by facsimile or electronic means is complete on transmission when made prior to 5:00 p.m. on a judicial day. Service made on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or after 5:00 p.m. on any other day shall be deemed complete at 9:00 a.m. On the first judicial day thereafter; Service by other consented means is complete when the person making service delivers the copy to the agency designated to make delivery. Service under this subsection is not effective if the party making service learns that the attempted service did not reach the person to be served.”

And the part that I can use the grievance program. Yep guess what – you can not use the grievance program to grieve conditions set by you CCO.

So the real issue here is not that I have grieved them, or have complained too much, the real problem is that I have been elevating issues, that no one wants to address. "So your a quasi-whistle blower type?, a preacher type told me last night at my new UGM home. Yeah, it sounds like they are punishing you."

"Everyone agrees SO are maggots, right? And isn't it confirmed that what whatever we do to the most despised, has no moral, or ethical value? Society is on our side - who cares about these scum."

"Besides, isn't it just a matter of time that that Island will be built and we can forget they exist!"

"So shut this SO up ... now!"

But, you know I respect the fact I have conditions to follow - but "Helllooooo" (in Jerry Lewis fashion) ... [ a childhood hero ].

I also got a brand new DOC certified Homeless Offender Verification Form, I particularly like the stuff that says:

"A condition of this individuals judgment and sentence is that he reside at a DOC approved place of residence. Since this individual lacks financial or community resources he/she has been required to reside at a shelter or place of residence supplied on a per night basis; this requirement has been imposed for community safety reasons. Please, provide contact information for safety verification,..”

But wait .. if you never verify an address, of the many I have submitted, if I have money, if I have community resources but you will not allow me go there, even temporarily so I wont be homeless ... wait isn't this what this BLOG is about anyways .. why repeat myself?

STAR CHAMBER anyone? Or should I just accept I am frustrated that this kind of stuff goes undetected so widely.

Peace.