Whitney Struse is a criminal, guilty of violating 8 U.S.C. 1001, when she told the FBI that I punched her in the face. I am innocent if that accusation. I did slap her in the face and shove her into a wall, but that does not amount to "slapped across the face, punched in the face and shoved so hard into the wall the wall was caved in and dented" as she claimed. Her statement was proven false in the surveillance tape where it was obvious that there was only one blow to the face and two blows would not have been possible. I thought about punching her in the face, but chose not to because she is a woman (if she were a man I would have punched him), so I slapped her for blackmailing me. Specifically, threatening to send me back to prison if I did not sign a contract in order to use the computers at the Northwest Regional Re-Entry Center. That contract would have left me with just one hour a day to look for a job on predefined sites for which there were only two, Criagslist and SimplyHired.
She cried to the court that she was just doing her job, using the "superior orders" defense like other in history, and like them she embodies the banality of evil. The idea that one can wash themselves of any wrongdoing just because they were following orders and that the orders being carried out had been normalized by their society. In her case she had violated my right to use a computer, a right later confirmed by the court. Thereby legitimizing the assault as the act of a citizen responding to an overbearing government employee by exercising the right promised to him by the founding fathers of this country in the Declaration of Independence. That right can be found in the second paragraph "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," in this case the destructive form of government (Whitney Struse) abolished itself when she quit her job as NWRRC Social Services Coordinator. It cannot be said that forms of government do not extend to those that act on its behalf whether those people are British soldiers in 1776 or Whitney Struse in 2014.
She then sued NWRRC for failing to protect her and claimed to have suffered PTSD before receiving a $25,000 settlement. It seemed like hush money and I can't help but wonder if someone else in her shoes could have gotten more. I say this because I was told a summary of content that was in documents from the case that I was not allowed to see due to a protective order from the judge. I was told that her personnel files described a history of conflicts with co-workers, a failed drug or alcohol test, and that she had a reputation in the legal community as a "basket case."
I was able to obtain one document covered by the protective order, but I do not recall how it was acquired. A copy of that document is being uploaded with this complaint. It is the Victim Impact Statement that Ms. Struse, despite having a masters degree, wrote like a junior high dropout, and exposed herself as a basket case that had no business working in corrections to begin with. For starters the statement starts as a message for "the honorable judge of the court" with statements for the judge, but then ends by speaking to me directly with statements like "I would like to ask you how your life is going? You have spent time in prison for your previous crime and have faced intense scrutiny because of your choices. Now you will serve additional time in prison because of continued poor choices. ls this the life you set out to have? Why not use your intellect for something positive versus being destructive and evil?" When looking at the document it obviously is not formatted like the work of a college graduate. I call her writing style the "damsel in distress" style. It is typically used by women to convey a feeling of emotional distress to men in the hopes that they will see that they are upset and want to help them even if the substance of their statements are poor. I used to see this a lot in my line of work (ex: "I have no right to make you remove that posting, but look how mad I am"). Finally, statements like "I know inmates are not my friends" demonstrate her poor attitude towards those she supervised. Read the document for more examples of how her majesty looked down on her subjects.
It turns out the residents were better off without her. I returned to a hero's welcome in jail and every place I went I met at least one other person that she had screwed over. They were all glad to hear that someone had finally done what they always want to do and it felt great. Some former residents in fact started coming up to me and telling me that they or their friends once spotted her at her place at around 170th ave and Baseline in Beaverton. That is consistent with public records research which lists her address in 2014 as being on 173rd street, so that is another reason why it was good for her to quit.
In the video below is the testimony of someone using the "superior orders" defense in a manner strikingly similar to how Whiney used it against me. His name was Wilhelm Keitel, and if you click on the cc icon after the video starts you can read the translation of his testimony. The part I find most relevant to this subject was as follows "It is tragic to realize that the best I had to give as a soldier, obedience and loyalty, was exploited for purposes that could not be realized at the time, and that I did not see that there is a limit set even for a soldier's performance of his duties." But unlike Kietel, Whitney has yet to publicly denounce her activities or those of her former employers.