Kathy R.'s 1998 False Accusation
(JOSEPH 2.0 in Washington)
(JOSEPH 2.0 in Washington)
BRIEFING
State's 2007 witness K.R.'s 05/19/1998 false accusation (a retaliation) against me is quite same as the Joseph's story in the book GENESIS. According to the Bible, Joseph was put in charge of everything in his boss Potiphar's house. During this time, Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph, when he refused, she accused him of making unwanted sexual advances, and Potiphare had Joseph thrown into prison. (GENESIS 39:7-20.) That's why someone called my 1998 suffering, which came from K.R.'s retaliation, as "Joseph 2.0 in Washington".
K.R.'s retaliation against me was happened a-month-later, after her sexual advances (a French kiss) over me was being refused on 04/12/1998. On 04/13/1998, I sent her a certified mail to tell the reason why I canceled her 04/16/1998 and her husband's 04/17/1998 appointment because of K.R.'s 04/12/1998 improper sexual desire over me. Five weeks later after receiving my 04/13/1998 letter, K.R. filed her complaint to the DOH (Department of Health) which the DOH recwived on 05/26/1998.
In order to corroborate her allegation against me , in 1998, K.R. loaned $10,000 to her friend B.C.'s daughter-in-law C.B. Then on 07/01/1998, both B.C. and C.B. submitted the same kind of complaints against me to the DOH. (Note: B.C. was my patient in 1992-1994 who never complained about me before 1998. In 1997, she referred K.R. to see me. In 1993, B.C. referred her daughter-in-law B.C. to see me for treatments. They never complained about me before 1998.)
K.R.'s retaliation against me was happened a-month-later, after her sexual advances (a French kiss) over me was being refused on 04/12/1998. On 04/13/1998, I sent her a certified mail to tell the reason why I canceled her 04/16/1998 and her husband's 04/17/1998 appointment because of K.R.'s 04/12/1998 improper sexual desire over me. Five weeks later after receiving my 04/13/1998 letter, K.R. filed her complaint to the DOH (Department of Health) which the DOH recwived on 05/26/1998.
In order to corroborate her allegation against me , in 1998, K.R. loaned $10,000 to her friend B.C.'s daughter-in-law C.B. Then on 07/01/1998, both B.C. and C.B. submitted the same kind of complaints against me to the DOH. (Note: B.C. was my patient in 1992-1994 who never complained about me before 1998. In 1997, she referred K.R. to see me. In 1993, B.C. referred her daughter-in-law B.C. to see me for treatments. They never complained about me before 1998.)
On 07/02/2002, Victoria Forester Courtland (aka: "V.C.", Victoria Forester Courtland, Forester Courtland), the author of "The Visible Woman", a fiction talking about a woman being sexually touched by a man, showed her interesting in my 11/13/2001 victory over K.R.'s 1998 false allegation.
In December of 2004, Victoria Courtland paid me $48x3 to purchase the contact information of Kathy R., B.C. and C.B. Afterwards, she met these three of women. (She declared in the 2007 public Court: "I met previous victims to come forward again." ). Then on 06/05/2006 Victoria made a false report against me to the Seattle Police.
K.R. and her's friends B.C. and C.B had been listed in the 2007 listing of State's witnesses. But B.C. and C.B. had been impeached by the Prosecutor in the 2007 Court.
On 09/09/2008, Appellate attorney L. Nussbaum wrote me about her fact findings: "You are an innocent man wrongfully caught up in the craziness and deceipt of these two women ..." (see below). Kathy R. is one of 'these two women'.
In December of 2004, Victoria Courtland paid me $48x3 to purchase the contact information of Kathy R., B.C. and C.B. Afterwards, she met these three of women. (She declared in the 2007 public Court: "I met previous victims to come forward again." ). Then on 06/05/2006 Victoria made a false report against me to the Seattle Police.
K.R. and her's friends B.C. and C.B had been listed in the 2007 listing of State's witnesses. But B.C. and C.B. had been impeached by the Prosecutor in the 2007 Court.
On 09/09/2008, Appellate attorney L. Nussbaum wrote me about her fact findings: "You are an innocent man wrongfully caught up in the craziness and deceipt of these two women ..." (see below). Kathy R. is one of 'these two women'.
T I M E L I N E
11/29/1997, K.R. (aka: Ms. Kathryn R., Mrs. Kathy P.) was referred by Bonnie C. to see me for an injury. Bonnie C. ("B.C.") who was K.R.'s business partner and best friend. (B.C. had been my patient from 1992 to 1995. Before referral K.R. to see me, B.C. also referred her daughter T., friend M. and daughter-in-law Cheryl B. to see me (in 1994) for their muscle injuries, but they had no complaint against me.)
03/02/1998, K.R. "paid extra $12 voluntary" for Charlie Cheng's treatment.
04/10/1998, K.R. referred her husband Tom (now "Ex.") to see me for a muscle problem, After the treatment, Tom paid $48, and booked next appointment for 4/17/1998.
04/12/1998 （Easter Sunday) ，5:00-6:00 p.m. K.R. saw me for her new injury. After the treatment, she paid for the treatment (see Fig. 80 below);
03/02/1998, K.R. "paid extra $12 voluntary" for Charlie Cheng's treatment.
04/10/1998, K.R. referred her husband Tom (now "Ex.") to see me for a muscle problem, After the treatment, Tom paid $48, and booked next appointment for 4/17/1998.
04/12/1998 （Easter Sunday) ，5:00-6:00 p.m. K.R. saw me for her new injury. After the treatment, she paid for the treatment (see Fig. 80 below);
Then K.R. (Ms. Kathy P.) scheduled next appointment for 04/16/1998. See court-approved 06/04/2007 transcript (below).
As she left my office (before 6:00 p.m.), she gave me "a strong hug and improper kiss." (This fact had been documented in my certified letter to K.R. (also called "Mrs. Kahy P." in 1998) dated 4/13/1998, see below). Her 'French kiss' made me very uncomfortable, I pushed her away.
I left voice message to cancel her next appointment on 04/16/1998 and her husband's appointment on 04/17/1998.
(see below ).
I left voice message to cancel her next appointment on 04/16/1998 and her husband's appointment on 04/17/1998.
(see below ).
04/13/1998, In the morning, I sent K.R. a certified mail, in which there are a $20 check for her referral of her husband to see me on 04/10/1998 - that's my policy. I always give a $20 discount to the person who referred others - and a letter which officially informed K.R. the reason I would cancel her 04/16/1998 appointment and her husband's 04/17/1998 appointment because I had been sexually harassed by her on 04/12/1998 (see above). My letter to K.R. was sent via USPS certified mail (No. P 383 184 199) no return receipt required.
That evening, I received K.R.'s husband's call saying that he was told by her wife K.R. that I kept her wife in my office 3 1/2 hours the night before and touched her improperly. I told him that's a lie because I had another appointment with Mr. Taouyuan Wang at 6:00 p.m. I invited him and his wife K.R. to come over my clinic on 04/16/1998 to have a three-person meeting where I can show my evidence to prove K.R. lied.
NOTE: At the 2007 trial, K.R. and her husband all agreed that during the period of 1997-1998, they had marital problem: K.R. didn't like her husband. (see trial Judge's opinion on 05/31/2006, infra).
04/14/1998, K.R. received my 4/13/1998 certified mail opposing her sex desire on me happened on 4/12/1998, in which I explained why I canceled her 4/16/1998 and her husband's 4/17/1998 appointment. His husband called me asking why? I asked him and her wife come to my office on 4/16/1998. I mailed the copy of my 4/13/1998 letter to K.R. with return receipt request. (When I mailed the original certified letter on 4/13/1998, I did not ask for a return receipt.)
04/16/1998, K.R.'s husband (now "Ex-husband") received my second certified mail and signed the USPS Return Receipt.
(see her husband's signature above, the Fig. 35 on page 43 of my book, "FORGIVENESS: An Innocent Prisoner's Witness" (2015).
04/16/1998, I invited K.R. and her husband to my office where I asked K.R. to tell her husband in front of me what happened in my office after her 4/12/1998 treatment.
K.R. did not say anything, then left (her husband still stay with me). See the interview transcript, infra.
(see her husband's signature above, the Fig. 35 on page 43 of my book, "FORGIVENESS: An Innocent Prisoner's Witness" (2015).
04/16/1998, I invited K.R. and her husband to my office where I asked K.R. to tell her husband in front of me what happened in my office after her 4/12/1998 treatment.
K.R. did not say anything, then left (her husband still stay with me). See the interview transcript, infra.
On 5/26/1998, a month later after receiving of my 4/13/1998 opposing mail against K.R.'s improper sex behavior over me, the DOH (Department of Health) received K.R.'s retaliation letter dated 5/19/1998 (see below KR-3).
NOTE: According to K.R.'s 6/29/1998 Affidavit, after the meeting she called her friend Bonnie C. Then Bonnie asked K.R. to call her daughter-in-law C.B. (C.N.)
06/29/1998, K.R. submitted her sworn Affidavit to the DOH, in which she wrote: "Afterwards (the 4/16/1998 meeting with me on, see supra), I spoke with a friend, Bonnie C. who originally reffered me to Dr. Cheng. She asked me to call her daughter-in-law, C.B." See evidence K.R. gave her friend B.C.'s and C.B.'s names to the DOH.
07/01/1998, 10:00 a.m., B.C. gave the DOH Investigator J. her sworn Affidavit to support K.R.'s claim in which B.C. lied that she was being sexually touched by me in 1995. (B.C. was the State's witness for the 2007 trial, but she failed to show up.) See evidence
07/01/1998, 2:00 p.m. Cheryl B. ("C.B.", B.C.'s daughter-in-law) gave the DOH's investigator J. sworn Affidavit to support K.R.'s claim. C.B. lied that she was being sexually touched by me in her initial visit, then she never came back. (C.B. was the State's witness for the 2007 trial, but she failed to show up.) NOTE: At the 2007 trial, Defense Attorney Scott Engelhard informed the trial court that he discovered that State's witness C.B. received a $10,000 from K.R. in 1998. See evidence
10/08/1998, Seattle Police Department ("SPD") Detective Vinette Tichi, Prosecutor Nelson Lee and Crime Survivor Advocatte Ann Brum had a join-interview of K.R. (At the 6/4/2006 trial, K.R. declared at the open court that she did NOT know how her case went to the SPD. See KR-4 below.)
11/20/1998, Detective V. Tichi closed K.R.'s case. She wrote: "Cleared Exceptional. The victim does not want continue with investigation or prosecute."
NOTE: In 1998, Det. Vinette Tichi did NOT interview me over K.R.'s 1998 allegation against me.
07/20/2000, K.R. was interviewed by Marc Defryn, Assistant Attorney Generral to the State of Washing, and my lawyer William K. McInnerney regarding K.R.'s and her friends B.C.'s and C.B.'s 1998 allegations. K.R. was represented by attorney Joseph J. McGoran (K.R.'s step-father). See evidence
11/13/2001, The DOH (Department of Health) finished its 3-year-length investigation, and issued "STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND AGREED ORDER" (below) . I was found NO professional misconduct by the Government. The alleged fact being documented as: "Patient A (K.R.) made a false complaint against Respondent (me) in retaliation for his refuse to continue treating her." (See below KR-5)
4 years later, in 2006, Detective
Donna Strangeland re-opened
K.R.'s 1998 case after I opposed
her prejudice on 06/09/2006
06/09/2006, Seattle Police Detective Donna Stangeland, who was assigned to investigate Victoria Courtland's 6/5/2006 claims, called my office regarding Victoria Courtland's 2004 visit. I told the Detective that V.C. was interested in my victory over Kathy's and her two witnesses' 1998 false claim, and I didn't give V.C. a treatment in 2004. The Detective said that "I know that you touched her." "Victoria would be very happy to know if you're sorry." "Victoria has no reason to lie. ... You do have reason to lie. ... all you can do ... say you're sorry." I confronted the Detective, "I don't understand why you force -- you keep force me to admit this thing I never done. ... It never happened. I don't know why you're trying everything that you can, trying to make me admit that there' something I didn't？ ... Well, the truth is, I never touched her in the way that you describe." The Detective: "I'm going to find several women that are going to tell me that you massaged hem in their breast, and possibly down in their
genital area. Okay? And then that's going to make you look like you're lying."
06/30/2006, After the unhappy 06/09/2006 telephonic interview of me, Detective Donna Stangeland re-opened Kathy's 1998 allegations which had been closed by Detective V. Tichi on 11/20/1998 (7 years ago). Then she added this 7-year-old dead case onto her 06/30/2006 Probable Cause as "Count One" charge against me. (Note: Detective Donna Stangeland never called me to verify K.R.'s, and her friends B.C.'s and C.B.'s 1998 claims.)
05/29/2007, At the pretrial hearing (open to the public), Defense Attorney Scott Engelharrd advised the trial judge that the Statute of Limitation to prosecute K.R's 1998 case had been over.
05/31/2007, At the hearing (open to the public), Defense Attorney informing the trial court, K.R.'s "motivations to ...hurt him (K.R.'s husband) by making these false allegation against Mr. Cheng." Then, the trial Judge said publicly, "I agree marital problems, her being unhappy with her husband, the marriage falling apart. That certainly would have contributed to her emotional state at the time. And, you know, perhaps then involve how she was relating to Mr. Cheng." (citing pages 22-23 of Washington State Superior Court's 5/31/2007 official transcript.)
genital area. Okay? And then that's going to make you look like you're lying."
06/30/2006, After the unhappy 06/09/2006 telephonic interview of me, Detective Donna Stangeland re-opened Kathy's 1998 allegations which had been closed by Detective V. Tichi on 11/20/1998 (7 years ago). Then she added this 7-year-old dead case onto her 06/30/2006 Probable Cause as "Count One" charge against me. (Note: Detective Donna Stangeland never called me to verify K.R.'s, and her friends B.C.'s and C.B.'s 1998 claims.)
05/29/2007, At the pretrial hearing (open to the public), Defense Attorney Scott Engelharrd advised the trial judge that the Statute of Limitation to prosecute K.R's 1998 case had been over.
05/31/2007, At the hearing (open to the public), Defense Attorney informing the trial court, K.R.'s "motivations to ...hurt him (K.R.'s husband) by making these false allegation against Mr. Cheng." Then, the trial Judge said publicly, "I agree marital problems, her being unhappy with her husband, the marriage falling apart. That certainly would have contributed to her emotional state at the time. And, you know, perhaps then involve how she was relating to Mr. Cheng." (citing pages 22-23 of Washington State Superior Court's 5/31/2007 official transcript.)
06/04/2007, At the open trial, K.R. admitted that she was "disappointed", "unhappy" with her husband's "behaviors and actions" ( (citing page 17 of Washington State Superior Court's 06/04/2007 official transcript); At the 06/04/2007 open Court, K.R. also declared that she didn't know how her 1998 allegation went to the Police because she didn't report to the law enforcement.
06/04/2007, At the open trial, K.R.'s husband (now "EX") disclosed that "during the 1997-1998 time frame", he and K.R. had marriage problem which was on his side. (citing pages 107 of Washington State Superior Court's 6/4/2007 official transcript below.)
06/04/2007, At the open trial, K.R.'s husband (now "EX") disclosed that "during the 1997-1998 time frame", he and K.R. had marriage problem which was on his side. (citing pages 107 of Washington State Superior Court's 6/4/2007 official transcript below.)
NOTE: Regarding above DOH's 11/13/2001 AGREED ORDER, Defense attorney Scott J. Engelhard told the trial judge at the pretrial hearing on 05/29/2007, "The Department of Health resolved this matter with no sanctions imposed upon Mr. Cheng ... it speaks volumes about their view on the credibility of these allegations ... ". (See KR-6 below.)
On 2/27/2007, Defense attorney Mr. Engelhard and Prosecutor Ms. Jenssen had a join-interview with K.R.'s friend Cheryl N. (AKA: C.B., Cheryl N.). At the interview, C.B. carelessly disclosed a secret that “Kathy and her husband actually loaned $10,000 to help them ... around 1998.” (See KR-12 below).
On 4/6/2007, before K.R.'s two friends/witnesses B.C. and C.B. were impeached by the trial Court (see KR-11 infra) , Bonnie (B.C.) and Cheryl N. (C.N. or C.B.) were subpoenaed by the Government be the government's and K.R.'s witnesses (see KR-10 below).
But, K.R.'s friends B.C. and C.B. did not show up at the 2007 trial to back up K.R.'s claims against me.
On 5/29/2007, the trial judge declared at her open Court, "I agree (accuser K.R.'s) marital problems, her being unhappy with her husband, the marriage falling apart. That certainly could have contributed to her emotional state at the time (1998) ... involve how she was relating to Mr. Cheng." (see infra KR-9)
On May 29, 2007, at the open Court, K.R.'s friends/witnesses B.C. (Bonnie C.) and C.B. ( Cheryl B., Cheryl N.）were impeached by Prosecutor Jessen (see below）。
Unfinished ... More coming soon!
01
WHO IS "K.R."?
WHO IS "K.R."?
K.R. (aka: "Mrs. K.P." in 1998) is the so-called "victim" who had been listed in Seattle Police detective Ms. D. S.'s 06/30/2006 Probable Cause against Charlie Cheng.
During the 02/27/2007 join-interview of Cheryl B. (K.R.'s witness), disclosed the secret to Prosecutor Heath J. and Defense attorney Scott Engelhard that in 1998 she and her husband got a "$10,000 loan" from K.R. (see defense attorney Scott Engelhard's 02/28/2007 email to Charlie Cheng, supra "KR-12").
During the 02/27/2007 join-interview of Cheryl B. (K.R.'s witness), disclosed the secret to Prosecutor Heath J. and Defense attorney Scott Engelhard that in 1998 she and her husband got a "$10,000 loan" from K.R. (see defense attorney Scott Engelhard's 02/28/2007 email to Charlie Cheng, supra "KR-12").
02
HAD THE SEATTLE POLICE DETECTIVES
EVER INTERVIEWED CHARLIE CHENG
OVER K.R.'S 1998 COMPLAINT?
HAD THE SEATTLE POLICE DETECTIVES
EVER INTERVIEWED CHARLIE CHENG
OVER K.R.'S 1998 COMPLAINT?
Not all!
Neither the 1998 Detective (Ms. V.T. ) nor the 2006 Detective (Ms. D.S.) had interviewed Charlie Cheng to verify K.R.'s 1998 claims against Charlie Cheng.
According to K.R.'s public statement dated 05/31/2007 (see supra "KR-4") , she didn't know how her 1998 complaint went to the Seattle Police because she did not call the Police.
Neither the 1998 Detective (Ms. V.T. ) nor the 2006 Detective (Ms. D.S.) had interviewed Charlie Cheng to verify K.R.'s 1998 claims against Charlie Cheng.
According to K.R.'s public statement dated 05/31/2007 (see supra "KR-4") , she didn't know how her 1998 complaint went to the Seattle Police because she did not call the Police.
03
WHY DID 'K.R.' MAKE THE FALSE CLAIM
AGAINST CHARLIE CHENG ON 05/19/1998?
WHY DID 'K.R.' MAKE THE FALSE CLAIM
AGAINST CHARLIE CHENG ON 05/19/1998?
In the 6-page Department of Health's 11/13/2001 AGREED ORDER (see supra "KR-5"), it documented the nature of K.R.'s allegation against Charlie Cheng as: "retaliation" because Mr. Cheng "refused continue treating her."
04
WHY DID CHARLIE CHENG OPPOSE K.R.‘s
SEX HARASSMENT HAPPENED ON APRIL
4TH, 1998? AND, WHAT DID K.R. DO?
WHY DID CHARLIE CHENG OPPOSE K.R.‘s
SEX HARASSMENT HAPPENED ON APRIL
4TH, 1998? AND, WHAT DID K.R. DO?
On 04/13/1998, Charlie Cheng sent K.R. (aka: "Mrs. K.P." in 1998) a certified mail to cancel K.R.'s 04/16/1998 treatment and K..R.'s husband's 04/17/1998 treatment because he had been sexually harassed by K.R. on 04/12/1998 (see supra KR-1, Cheng's 04/13/1998 email and K.R.'s receipt signed by her husband).
On 05/26/1998, about 6 weeks after receiving of Mr. Cheng's 04/13/1998 confrontation letter, the Department of Health (DOH） received K.R.'s complain against Mr. Cheng.
On 05/26/1998, about 6 weeks after receiving of Mr. Cheng's 04/13/1998 confrontation letter, the Department of Health (DOH） received K.R.'s complain against Mr. Cheng.
