Update: It was jaw-dropping injustice to watch King County Judge Lori K. Smith help Prosecutor Jason Simmons search for words to help move the lynching along. No wonder innocent individual’s lives were destroyed.
No proof on dates.
No expert witness on physical characteristics of the accused.
Not one-single-factual, evidential piece of testimony was presented in King County Courts of Washington State by Lisa Johnson and the Team of Prosecutor Mark Larson with Judge Lori K. Smith.
Again, zero evidence.
What King Prosecutors did do, with great zeal, was block, undermine and destroy any investigation into the facts of the hate crimes.
This explains why Prosecutor Jason Simmons, with Judge Lori K. Smith asked potential juries who believed in evidence to leave the jury pool.
Trials without evidence!
Garbage In – Garbage Out
Hatred in – Guilty Out
Changing Lies – Verdict That Is A Lie
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil;
nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice.
“We heard – pause, choke, – plenty of testimony.”
– King County Judge Lori K. Smith –
- That’s correct, “testimony” like deep southern Mississippi old-time court testimony that assumed Negros were a degraded group.
- That’s correct, “testimony” that twisted, lied about goodness but perverted everyday activities, even eye contact because certain groups are assumed, like deep south lynchings guilty.
- That’s correct, “testimony” that inflamed the emotions to shut down logical reasoning so that King County Prosecutors could win a guilty against Christianity Washington State despises.
- That’s correct, “testimony” that Prosecutor Mark Larson filled the court day after day so that there would simply be no time for a defense. Thus all the meaningless objections.
- That’s correct, “testimony” that allowed Judge Lori K. Smith to block the defense from confronting the lies.
For Judge Lori K. Smith, Prosecutor Mark Larson team: Prosecutor Rich Anderson, Prosecutor Jason Simmons, Prosecutor Lisa Johnson and jury it was all “so what” to evidence and just hang-um. A little sub-note the jury didn’t even get Malcolm Fraser’s self-righteousness correct, for he is self-righteousness but not in the style the defined. It is the style that further proves the crime could not have happened. But, alas, this would involve thinking and reasoning. So on with “so what”.
Evidence – There Was None
Evidence, there was none, however, there is overwhelming evidence of a hate crime that King County, State of Washington not only refuses to examine, but buried.
At the conclusion of the instituted hate crime by King County Washington Judge Lori K. Smith had to take a pause, choking on her words, and then continue. What is normally stated is, “We have heard plenty of evidence and testimony….blah, blah and blah.” But, when confronted to form legal words Judge Lori K. Smith had to choke on the word “evidence” because there wasn’t one single piece of evidence presented by Prosecutor Mark Larson and Team.
To be sure there were unrelenting, meaningless words call jumbled up into testimony. That is because it was a legal-lynching orchestrated by King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg on behalf of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall and Athena Dean Holtz.
Hell’s bells, if the State of the Washington is going to advertise they will support accusations that fit their agenda, taking one liberal side of issue, one gender, one church, one destruction of the family, one race and one sexual orientation the liars are going to line up.
If King County Prosecutors, for the State of Washington are going to say “So what” to the mounting hatred that was being organized against conservative values that have bullied out the court and society those who hate such groups would be fools to pass up the chance to use the State to hang the innocent.
State of Washington : Zero
State of Washington, Dan Satterberg’s special Team, (Prosecutor Mark Larson team: Prosecutor Rich Anderson, Prosecutor Jason Simmons, Prosecutor Lisa Johnson) produced zero evidence, zero, as in not 1, expert witness, got every factual assertion wrong and criminally protected a hate crime, creating evidence for an accusation which has zero pieces of evidence.
Indeed, the False Accuser got every factual statement wrong. Date – wrong. Physical characteristics – wrong. Logic of events – wrong. Even the accused personality – wrong.
All that happened was the False Accusers, and those who know that the State of Washington runs with lies, just stated, “It’s all lies.” of the defense and that was it. From then on the Team, like Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall turned the recorder on and off, deleting evidence, ignoring facts while the prosecutors corrupted the foundations of law. Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials or Stalin’s purge trials of those he opposed?
Judge Lori-Kay Smith
Malcolm Fraser was not found guilty of a crime, he was found guilty because Prosecutor Dan Satterberg used a hate crime to get a jury of 12 to hate a church. As everyone well now understands if you are not gay enough you are vilified and that is exactly what Athena Dean Holtz marketed to King County Prosecutors.
Prosecutor Jason Simmons started with she screamed at the top of her lungs night after night, then continued formulating the lies so that in closing before a jury it was she “wanted” to scream. No wonder Athena Dean Holtz, Detective Grant McCall and Jessica Gambill could celebrate the success of their hate crime.
False Accuser could not be brought in for a 30 minute questioning…
On and on, formulating lies while the judge gave unlawfully all the power to the false accuser she could (Judge Lori K. Smith). Prosecutor Mark Larson, & Team, understood clearly that with Judge Lori K. Smith they could do anything they wanted.
To the point of fact that Prosecutor Mark Seaver would write in a legal brief that the False Accuser could not be brought in for a 30 minute questioning for the defense to question because no adult could be found to bring her to the meeting.
That Prosecutor David Seaver could dare write such in a legal brief is extremely telling about the corruption downtown and Lori-Kay Smith as a judge.
Mr. Seaver let the appeals court know in his legal brief that Mr. Fraser wanted to call into question the court…
Just Ask Judge Susan Graighead
As fellow Judge Susan Craighead stated, she and Judge Lori-Kay Smith know who to kiss-up to – Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. (See s.j.a) As Judge Susan Craighead put it, your constitutional rights are of no concern because if you loose, your just “disgruntled.” Here, read it for yourself and note that Berns, Elezabeth, Robinson, Palmer, Smith Lori-Kay, Kuffel, Thomas, Eldred, David, Sherfey, Paul have not denounced, refuted or rejected Judge Susan Craghead’s contempt for the constitution.
From: Craighead, Susan
To: Berns, Elizabeth; Robinson, Palmer; Smith, Lori-Kay
Cc: Kuffel, Thomas; Eldred, David; Sherfey, Paul
Subject: FW: Service Haggerty v. KCSC Judges
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:09:09 PM
…If you have not been sued before as a judge, let me just explain that the PAO [Prosecuting Attorney Office] represents us and generally the process is not particularly painful as most lawsuits by disgruntled litigants or public-records requesters get resolved by a motion to dismiss.
Unethical Prosecutors like Mark Seaver knew Judge Lori K. Smith would let them get by with such “legal” nonsense and that is why Mr. Seaver let the appeals court know in his legal brief that Mr. Fraser wanted to call into question the court system. There was no way the Washington State court of appeals was going to let that happen – and they didn’t.
A man goes to prison for life and Judge Lori K. Smith’s rulings are of zero concern to Prosecutor Dan Satterberg and Team. Indeed, the Court of Appeals does not even remotely consider the right of the accused to face the accuser. According to the Court of Appeals better a man be placed in prison for life than Dan Satterberg and Judge Lori K. Smith have their actions be called into question.
Little more could be expected when from the start the judge for the bail bond hearing didn’t even question why Satterberg was manipulating the courts to deny Malcolm Fraser a hearing. You read that correctly – there was because of Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s Office no bail bond hearing with Malcolm Fraser and his attorney present. So lock step are these judges that corruption is not even a fitting definition. Once again, better a person go to prison for life than the Prosecutors Office actions be called into question.
Prosecutors knew she was in their pocket from day one! At best Judge Lori K. Smith was a non-issue to the Prosecution, a joke, and the worse, what is on record she protected in the most bias of fashion Satterberg’s Office.
From Prosecutors dressed in tenni-shoes, (Prosecutor Rich Anderson in Judge Lori K. Smith’s Court) to unsigned paperwork the most egregious of statements and actions were let loose in Judge Lori K. Smith’s courtroom if it was the Prosecution. But when the defense stapled, by accident a page of wrong paperwork that was not allowed to be corrected by the Judge. No wonder Prosecutor Jason Simmons played the race card and stated that a doctor had never examined a penis in his whole medical career.
So full of hatred was the jury they spent less than one hour doing anything but agreeing to the word guilty not even reviewing the evidence. Judge Lori K. Smith had made it clear by her actions that evidence was, as the Prosecution told the jury, a “so what” matter.
Many times judges and prosecutors will let loose a set of words that speak of justice, fairness and letting a person accused go free if there is but the smallest of reasonable doubt – but like wolves in sheeps clothing their actions send the real message.
Thus the definition for reasonable doubt sent by Judge Lori K. Smith enlarged the hate crime the Prosecutor’s Office was manipulating against a Christian church. Had a mere 10% of the evidence been glanced at the trail of Malcolm Fraser could not have taken place. Above all King County Prosecutors had to stop an investigation and pevert facts of truth. Judge Lori K. Smith being a prosecutor judge did her thing.
All through history sexual charges are always used in frame ups and that is why Prosecutor Mark Larson’s Team always spoke of the False Accuser as being able to be put on a good show. And show she did with the main juror saying she talked like a 10 year old on the stand.
If the crowd by nature were a thing of honest and truth God would have not declared such directions in Exodus 23:2. Every jury, everywhere must fight the urge to not follow the crowd if they expect to be correct.
Prosecutors know that on a basic level juries will always get it wrong – it is human nature and takes very real resolve to examine evidence. Indeed, it takes honest courage to sit in judgment upon laws, prosecutors and the system to arrive at a just conclusion. Once it was clear the jury took less than an hour to formalize the word guilty following the crowd was all that had been accomplished. No wonder in closing Prosecutor Simmons kept telling the jury what they should not consider in terms of the “law.”
One unfair advantage prosecutors have when using lies is they can just dump them on the floor knowing an emotional jury will pick out the usable bits and pieces. What Prosecutor Jason Simmons did over a 20 day trial was wear down the jury with a dump of suspicious statements. Anyone reading the transcript will notice up front that Simmons actually never finishes an accusation until closing – in religious circles we know this as bitter roots. For non-religious folks it is known as a lynch-mob.
Remember, we live in a time when Prosecutors have no qualms about attacking Christians churches even to the point of subpoenaing sermons. For those who need affirmation of the obvious Satterberg of King County Washington already have a reputation among lawyers that they are anti-Christian. It will not be long before the crowd demands that all sermons be registered with the State, which will make the Enumclaw Police and especially Detective Grant McCall tickled pink.
Agreed, it is a very dangerous game these Prosecutors are playing – for if anything befalls someone they have set up through legal magic then the blood of innocents is on their hands. With no tricks of the legal trade being able to wash away such guilt, (Matthew 27:24).
Gay, Muslim, Seattle Police Officer
The laziest thing to do is just throw out questions, doubts and slanders and stand back. I will not mention at this time who this most resembles in the Bible.
Aside, for the moment, that what the jury was told had nothing do with facts because King County Prosecutors consider evidence a hinderance to shaping emotional lies to stir a jury – had Prosecutor Jason Simmons, for example accused a Muslim, gay Seattle police officer and brought in those opposed to Muslims, or individuals who dislike the Seattle Police, or attempted to vilify the gay culture we call can guess who would have been lynched.
As this was a religious hate crime King County Prosecutor Satterberg knew that it is an easy thing to get a jury to hate Christians so facts were completely irrelevant to his office.
The jury responded that they convicted Malcolm Fraser because the woman talked like a 10 year old when she told the story. So irrational had Prosecutor Rich Anderson inflamed the jury that they “just figured” everyone on the defense was lying and the false accuser talked like a “ten year old.”
Garbage in, garbage out all because Judges refuse to uphold the law in the name of legalities. It is called twisting the law.
For anyone looking at the court transcript it is impossible, literally impossible for the crime to have taken place. The reason the lies are so large and without any logic is because Prosecutor Satterberg’s Office relied on the emotion of hatred against churches and the charges to move the jury into lynch-mob territory – the polar opposite of law.
Fact is, Prosecutor David Seavers sites news reports slithering in other adjectives of negative allegations that had nothing to do with the charges – get it? In order to get a jury blinded to reasonable doubt the Prosecutors Office has to dazzle them with emotions.
Detective Grant McCall and Prosecutor Rich Anderson had already delayed, stalled and put road-blocks at every turn to allow Athena Dean Hotlz * hate crimes to gain traction and keep moving forward.
Finally on the first day of the trial, after having blocked an investigation into the hate crime, Prosecutor Jason Simmons said they would not be calling Athena Dean to the stand – need I say more. Don’t like someone, find out if Satterberg will go along with your hate crime.
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg Picking Through The Trash
The jury got it wrong (Wa. vs Malcolm Fraser) because the story-line was made up as time progressed. The team* made the various lies moving targets that changed minute by minute. What Malcolm Fraser was convicted of bears no resemblance to the starting point lies. The jury got it wrong because King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg Office lied, repeatedly to a jury of twelve. Athena Dean Holtz had spent months before the arrest stirring up hatred and thus you now understand why Detective Grant McCall refused to investigate and Prosecutor Rich Anderson protected such a frame-up.
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg and Prosecutors Simmons and Anderson took a dump-yard of hate crime lines, picked through the trash before, during and after the trial.
In short, the jury got it wrong because the lies were changed as needed. Athena Dean had laid the ground-work of hatred and Prosecutors picked through the trash for what they could feed a jury. Garbage in – garbage out. It is that simple.
What Malcolm Fraser was convicted of bears no resemblance to the starting point lies. The jury got it wrong because King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg Office lied, repeatedly to a jury of twelve.
Do you believe there must be evidence to find someone guilty, beyond a mere accusation? If so, Prosecutors down at Dan Satterberg’s office will kick you out of the courthouse. That is one reason why the jury got it wrong. That is literally what Prosecutors Jason Simmons and Rich Anderson did.
Bottom Line: The jury got it wrong because it should never have gone to trial. Prosecutors had a “So what!” position to evidence, thus, they made up fictional charges. And who after all can defend themselves against made up accusations. One cannot prove innocence on a negative accusation. Example: Prove you did not beat your wife last night? All evidence pointed to a hate crime and Malcolm Fraser’s innocence so the Prosecutor’s office made up a fabricated case.
Prosecutors Mark Larson, Lisa Johnson, Rich Anderson, Jason Simmons fabricated a story-line and inflamed hatred to win the trial of Malcolm Fraser vs. Wa for their boss King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. Each knowingly protected, and enhanced an ongoing hate crime – turning a blind eye to the crimes of Athena Dean and Detective Grant McCall of the Enumclaw Police.
Just as prosecutors around the country abuse power and have contempt for the truth is self-evident.
In fact, Prosecutor Jason Simmons asked potential jurors if they believed there must be evidence to convict, beyond a mere accusation. Those who said “yes” were kicked off the jury – thus illustrating the illegalities of the frame up.
After the conviction of Enumclaw Pastor, Malcolm Fraser, some in the City of Enumclaw are chanting continually “guilty, guilty, guilty!” without any mention of facts surrounding the case.
In the minority are individuals such as myself who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mr. Fraser is innocent.
With such a firm belief, many have accused myself and others of “mindlessly protecting” the pastor, or “simply not accepting the truth.” In reality, the opposite is the case. No matter how many State Representatives “applaud” the guilty verdict, or attack the Christian beliefs of a church, the truth and facts remain the same.
As a reporter for Enumclaw.com, I sat through almost the entire State v. Malcolm Fraser trial. I witnessed nearly all the testimony, including that of the accuser. What the local newspaper and the jury failed to mention was how incredibly fantastical, and outright insane the accuser’s testimony was.
Consider these facts:
- The house in which the abuse allegedly occurred was old, creaky, and sound traveled well throughout. As many testified, one could hear a raised voice upstairs from downstairs let alone a scream.
- It was next to impossible to walk up the stairs without making a tremendous amount of noise. Two or three steps would awake a light sleeper, a few more and the others would hear.
- Two of the accuser’s sisters slept in the open 20 feet outside the accuser’s door.
Consider then, what the accuser testified on the stand:
- She screamed as loud as she could during every alleged act.
- She stayed awake at night, casually “reading a book,” waiting for Fraser to come up the stairs.
- This happened 2-3 times a week for six months, which equals an approximate 60 to 90 individual acts of abuse.
Lastly, consider what others testified on the stand:
- The accuser never showed any apprehension or fear of Fraser.
- Mr. Fraser was the Church photographer, and the accuser never showed the slightest unwillingness to have herself, or her family photographed.
- The accuser was quiet and reserved around her mother, but around others (including Fraser) she was a bright, smiling child.
At this point, this testimony sounds more fishy than a sushi buffet, but there’s more.
In order for Fraser to commit the crimes, we would have to believe that after 60 to 90 individual acts of abuse with the accuser screaming as loud as she could, her parents downstairs never heard a thing. All the while, the accuser’s sisters slept soundly only 20 feet away without the slightest clue their sister was being violently abused. Again, screaming, 60 to 90 times, 20 feet away, never heard nor suspected a thing. Try doing that twice in your house.
Let’s say Fraser only committed the act once (to which no one testified). He would have to float above the loud, creaky stairs (which on their own could wake someone up), sneak by two sleeping children, and then enter a room in which a child was “waiting for him” casually and calmly “reading a book.”
After Fraser miraculously dodges all the aforementioned “land mines,” his medical condition, Phimosis, would have to magically disappear in order to do what the accuser alleged. The next day, if we’re to believe the multiple testimonies given on the stand, the accuser was a bright, smiling little girl who had no apprehension or fear of Fraser.
“. . . every allegation that the accuser stated on the stand was invented, fabricated, made up, and totally created by Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall . . .”
Let’s add to the mix that Fraser passed a lie detector test which concluded that the “crimes never happened” with a 0.01% chance of deception. Or that every allegation that the accuser stated on the stand was invented, fabricated, made up, and totally created by Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall, during his interview. It doesn’t take a $450 an hour professional to figure out that something grossly wrong is happening at the Enumclaw Police Station.
Not to labor the point, but let’s explore the McCall interview. Dr. John C. Yuille, as previously mentioned, said that “every allegation” came from Detective McCall. That would mean “all” as in 100%.
Unless McCall (who, by the way, hates the defendant’s church) was either 1) in the room when these alleged events took place, or 2) able to guess the allegations correctly on nearly every question, his entire interview was fiction. In other words, the details the accuser repeated on the stand during the prosecutor’s questioning were inventions of Detective McCall. They were lies.
Before speaking with the Detective, the accuser had no details, only a general allegation of abuse taking place in the home as stated in a CPS report. According to the transcript, the accuser never took the opportunity to tell McCall “what happened.” Instead, the all-too-willing accuser let McCall tell her what happened with Fraser.
Let’s see if we can put this together. McCall sat alone in an Enumclaw Police station room with the young accuser, making up vile, disgusting, outright horrific details and asking the accuser to agree with him.
“If you want to give allegations to an interviewee, this is how you do it,” remarked Dr. Yuille when reading over the transcript of McCall’s interview while he testified on the Fraser trial.
What’s more? These are only the basics.
The question remains: if the storyline is so fantastical and completely unbelievable (for those who will, predictably, accuse me of lying, we have the audio recording of the whole testimony), why then did twelve jurors agree to find Fraser guilty? The answer is simple, and it’s the same reason Fraser was arrested with no investigation beforehand: Hatred.
“…the involvement of the frontal pole consider to be critical in predicting the action of others, arguably an important feature when confronted by a hated person . . . it is more likely that in the context of hate the hater may want to exercise judgment in calculating moves to harm, injure or otherwise extract revenge.”
Whether Christian or not, it’s easy to see that hatred has a powerful way of blinding individuals to even the most obvious facts and conclusions.
How does this apply to the conviction of Fraser? The prosecutor’s whole case was based upon getting the jury to hate Mr. Fraser and to even his surprise, it worked.
75% of the prosecutor’s witnesses spent nearly all their time expressing either:
- How much they hated Mr. Fraser’s church.
- How much they hated Mr. Fraser.
Unethical and unconstitutional prosecution? That’s putting it mildly.
The jury heard, for a week and a half straight, that Mr. Fraser was mean, rude, controlling, smug, nerdy, self-righteous, and the list continues. Add to this list the blatant lies and outright falsehoods stated about Sound Doctrine Church (who wasn’t on trial by the way) and jurors were drooling over the slightest reason to place Mr. Fraser behind bars.
Jason Simmons, the prosecuting attorney, could’ve said Mr. Fraser murdered Martin Luther King Jr. and the jury may have believed it.
This is why Mr. Simmons stating “believable testimony is proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is such an unethical, unprofessional, and outright lie. During a proper conviction, there’s always evidence. There’s always something that suggests the charges are accurate, not just a prosecutor stating “it simply must be true.”
Again, nothing, including the testimony of the accuser herself, gave any slight suggestion that the charges made any sense. What it does show, is that if a person sits on the stand and tells a well-rehearsed story, that person has the ability to send even the most innocent, to prison.
At this point, there are several people who should be in jail and Mr. Fraser isn’t one of them.
In the end, it’s not true for any juror, journalist, or State Rep. to say the accuser was “believable.” What such individuals actually mean is that they wanted to think she was believable.
The truth is simple. If you hate Mr. Fraser or his church, you will continue to work, just as the jury did, to discredit the facts and evidence to come to the conclusion you want: that Mr. Fraser is guilty as charged.
For those willing to push aside gossip and personal bitterness against a church, it doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce the crimes could never have happened. All that’s required is open eyes to see the absolute absurdity of the allegations. After all, Alan Northrop, Thomas Edward Kennedy, Damien Echols, and Brian Banks were all found “guilty” by a jury.