News Follow-Up: Satterberg’s Sins of Omission
posted by on September 28 at 13:25 PM
A lot of people who are in the know about the inside workings of the King County Prosecutor’s office, but are demanding anonymity, are contacting me about an article I wrote in this week’s news section.
The article was about the fact that the KC Prosecutor’s office, under Norm Maleng and his then-chief of staff Dan Satterberg (who’s now running as the Republican candidate for the job), did not use its unique subpoena authority to shake loose sealed personnel files from the Seattle Archdiocese and seek criminal charges against accused pedophile priests.
Given that the Church was agreeing to millions of dollars in settlements after civil cases were filed by 153 people about 49 priests, there definitely seemed to be cause.
One attorney, Timothy Kosnoff, who won some of those settlements and is quoted at length in my article, saw the horror stories in the files (obtained through civil discovery) and urged the KC Prosecutor’s office to do what other district attorneys’ offices around the country were doing and subpoena the files.
The office chose not to. Adding insult to injury: Satterberg simultaneously sat on a special Archdiocese panel helping the Church with its child abuse reporting protocol. Kosnoff sees a major conflict of interest in this setup: A public law enforcement official helping a potential lawbreaker (that his office could conceivably have to prosecute later on). Kosnoff likened the setup to a shady company having an IRS attorney help them file their taxes.
As for the reaction I’m getting from people familiar with how the prosecutor’s office works, the most stunning e-mail I got explained that the KC Prosecutor’s office had a “Special Operations” team as part of its Fraud Division. This unit of deputy prosecuting attorneys worked with informants and snitches and police agency investigators to crack tough cases, including sexual abuse cases. This unit was headed by Pat Sainsbury. The division was dissolved shortly after Satterburg took over as prosecutor this year.
The Special Operations team and the Fraud Division had a tool, which they used regularly in complex and hard-to-get-at investigations, called the Inquiry Judge system. It worked like this: The court issued subpoenas for documents or to compel sworn testimony from witnesses. And contrary to what Satterberg said in my article (that he needed evidence to go after files), the prosecutors don’t need probable cause, as they would when asking for a search warrant. The inquiry judge reviews a written request submitted by the prosecutors and then says yea or nay, and also reviews what is returned to the court under the subpoena to make sure it’s germane and not just a fishing expedition. Those providing the documents or testimony are protected from disclosing to anyone that they have done so; all of this happens in a closed court.
In short, the KC Prosecutor’s office was well equipped to get files from the Church.
Says someone who as part of an investigation that used the the Inquiry Judge system:
“Dan Satterberg’s explanation for not looking into allegations of serial sexual abuse … especially knowing that the Archdiocese paid up, are just a little absurd. There may be reasons not to look into it, but let’s be honest. As a public servant he had the means and the power to get to at least basic info to show either they did or didn’t know—i.e. they were part of a conspiracy or more likely had failed to report abuse. It is his job to do this. Sure he has a lot of discretion. He should exercise it or have a credible reason why he didn’t.”
Sweet!
Glad something is happening!
How naive you are Josh Feit. You need to see the big picture. If every pedophile catholic priest in Seattle was prosecuted and sent to buttslam heaven, who would run the Parishes? Then how would the ailing Pride of Rome compete with the upstart protestant super churches run by the likes of respectable people like Ted Haggard. Satterburg sees this, and has done his part for the glory of the lord and the Republican party. I wish the church would just embrace reality and make a Patron-Saint-of-Buttslamming-pubolecent-boys-under-a-gaudy-cross-of-Christ. God bless ya.
Uh...dude. Fraud got moved back into the Criminal Division because they were all about a hundred years old and dug in like rotten razor clams. If you talked to anyone who used to be over there and got canned, of course they'll have it in for Norm and Dan (and Kathy Von Olst and Mark Larson too). Sainsbury and the rest of those guys didn't go quietly...
the article as I read it paints satterburg to be a scumfuck enabler of child rape.
on the other hand, i'm sure these kinds of swept-under-the-rug situations occur all the time in a prosecutor's office. seen in this light, the article reads as mere election-year axe-grinding by satterburg's former colleagues.
so which description is more accurate? well, since satterburg is a republican, i feel pretty comfortable going with scumfuck childrape enabler.
Your news piece was a bit unfocused and confusing - and relied, unfortunately, on one attorney's dated complaints. You needed more info and better fact checking because it came across are mere campaign smear. The story so far: Satterberg decided not to spend perhaps millions prosecuting dead and defrocked priests, instead working with the archdiocese to help it set policy. I don't necessarily agree that he took the high road, but your story, factually and analytically, falls way short of showing whether or not that was the right decision.
Josh, beware what those who refuse to talk on the record say about this: Axes a plenty to grind here. The Fraud Unit did not have the best reputation for hard work and results. Lots of folks will talk off the record about them too.
@6,
Neither my post nor my story is focused on the Fraud Unit. Just the tool—the Inquiry Judge System—that was at their disposal.
The issue is whether he used what was at his disposal to make the decision - right? An whether the appearance of fairness and impartiality was victi to his poor judgment when he worked with the Arch'd knowing that a request for investigation had ben communicated to his office. And I thought lawyers were always focused onthe issue????!!!!
- Wow, with this kind of slamming of colleagues it is probably Time for a change of leadership.
As someone with some understanding of both the KCPAO & the Fraud Division, I would just point out that it's generally the policy of the KCPAO to only open files on cases referred to them by an investigative agency (KC Sheriff's Office, Seattle PD, etc.). It would be news to me if the KCPAO opens its own investigations. So while the Fraud division (nearly 100% liberals who wouldn't be the first to line up to back Satterberg) had investigative techniques used to assist police agencies with their investigations, it would have been a break from policy for those tools to be used in the manner suggested by Kosnoff.
If he's mad at somebody, he should be mad at whatever police agency he couldn't convince to open a file on these cases. But if none of the cases were within the statute of limitations or if they lacked credible evidence with which to open an investigation, then it wouldn't be a surprise for the police to decline to expend their resources on an investigation.
I'm not sure I understand the allegation. Norm Maleng (not a Catholic, and highly regarded for his ethics) and Dan Satterberg (also not Catholic, also respected for his ethical standards) had some agenda that they used to justify allowing child abusers to go unpunished? This is about as serious an allegation as one can make about a public official, and it hardly seems like the whole picture has been illuminated by Josh's article.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).