Convicted UM Pastor To Be Sentenced In Case Involving Homosexual Intrigue, Arson, And Assault - Returns To Pulpit
|The Honorable Patricia Aitken
Superior Court Judge
King County Superior Court
Kent Regional Justice Center
401-4th Avenue North
Kent, WA 98032-4429
RE: State of Washington v. Daniel K. Sailer
Dear Judge Aitken:
I married Linda Kallis, Dan Sailer's ex-wife, in June 1993. Our home was the primary residence of my stepsons, Dan Sailer's sons, until two years ago, when, by mutual agreement, their primary residence shifted to their father's home in the parsonage at Haller Lake United Methodist Church. During that time, I performed all the fatherly duties: doctors' appointments, dentists, orthodontists, soccer practices, basketball, etc, etc.
I first became aware of the duplicitous nature of Dan Sailer when I saw him leave his two sons, then ages 8 and 10, unattended (for his knowledge) for more than 5 1/2 hours in one of Seattle's few but worst snowstorms. He agreed to pick them up at 7:00 a.m., as required by the parenting plan, but he did not pick them up until after 12:30 p.m. He did not call, nor did he apologize or explain his tardiness. I then realized that Dan cares only for himself, and even his sons were merely props to bolster his facade.
Since Linda and I married Dan has harassed us unremittingly. I've literally lost track of the number of times he has lied under oath or submitted false statements under penalty of perjury in both child support cases and other civil cases. But what were we to do? To take any legal action would have been enormously expensive, and we are people of very modest means. In addition, Linda abhorred any such action for fear of it's effect on her sons.
On December 26, 1996 I first met Kevin Mooney. There had been another major snowstorm Christmas afternoon and night. My father-in-law, Rev. Eric Kallis, and I were shoveling snow when we were approached by a man who did not identify himself but wanted me to allow my stepsons to go with him. He claimed Dan Sailer was sitting in the car at the end of the block and had sent him to fetch the boys for their Christmas residential time with Dan. I refused to send the boys with him. He left, and then Dan Sailer came to get the boys. There is more to this event, but the important thing is the date and that Dan and Kevin were together.
When the boys returned from Christmas with their father we asked who it was who had tried to get them. They said it was Kevin Mooney, their dad's new "friend." They said Dan and Kevin had been together for 3 to 6 months. They seemed to know a lot about Kevin.
On October 8, 1997 Linda and I attended curriculum night at Lynnwood High School. Dan and Kevin were there together, and at the last session of the night I heard Dan Sailer introduce Kevin Mooney as Kevin Sailer. We asked the boys about this and were told Dan and Kevin had held a ceremony in the parsonage in about June 1997, exchanging vows and rings, and Kevin had legally changed his name to Sailer.
Responding to Linda's concerns regarding what kind of person her sons were going to be spending so much time with, I investigated further. I learned that Kevin's stated reason for changing his name, under penalty of perjury, was: so that his last name would be the same as his grandfather's last name was before his grandfather was adopted. I also learned he was charged with assault in a Federal Way case.
Linda wanted me to investigate further. I then learned that Kevin had been acquitted of assault, and that Dan Sailer had been a witness. I obtained the tapes of the trial.
I had already experienced Dan Sailer committing perjury in civil and child support actions, but I was stunned to hear his testimony in the criminal trial of Kevin Mooney for the assault against Katie Frazier. As you know, the trial was in March 1997. For him to testify, under oath, that he did not know Kevin Mooney, and had never met Kevin Mooney, when I knew they were both at my home, together, on December 26, 1996, was astounding.
I contacted Katie Frazier. She stood by her story as told in her testimony at the trial.
I contacted the Federal Way authorities. The investigating officer on this case, Myron Kline, is now the public information officer for the Federal Way Police Department, which prevented him from investigating this case. Instead, he introduced me to Detective Mark Hartfield. I first met with Detective Hartfield at the same time I first met Katie and Ken Frazier.
Dan Sailer wants the world to believe this is a smear campaign cooked up by me and Katie Frazier. The fact is, I could never have dreamed up such a scenario. While it is true I don't like Dan Sailer (nor does he like me), and it is also true that much of the evidence for this case was found as a result of my involvement, every piece of evidence has been carefully investigated by the police and prosecutors.
For example, I was the one who learned of the habit Kevin Sailer has of suing and then settling for monetary damages. This led to his sworn deposition in an insurance case that he and Dan Sailer first met in an internet homosexual chat room in August 1996 (before the December assault on Katie Frazier), and became lovers, with him moving into the parsonage at Sunrise United Methodist Church. It was this deposition which also revealed that Dan Sailer paid his lover out of church funds to do work which Kevin not only did not do (this being at the same time for which he was claiming to have been injured from an accident), but which Dan Sailer knew he did not do, but paid him anyway.
I know this entire case more intimately than even the prosecutors. I have lived with it every day for over two years. I have suffered vicious attacks from Dan Sailer for my part in this case as he has tried to intimidate everyone with knowledge of it, smear me and my wife, and ruin our relationship with my wife's sons. I know the evidence is solid and convincing.
That is why I was stunned to learn of the proposed plea bargain arrangement, allowing Dan Sailer to plead guilty to False Swearing. This is a travesty of justice. It's like assaulting Katie Frazier all over again. I know the prosecutors and police think this is a nothing case, especially compared to murder, rape, etc. But what good will it do to concentrate on those cases, spending time and money to bring them to trial, if the defendants feel they can commit perjury, or get others to do so for them, and just walk away free? After all, they never prosecute perjury, and if they do, they'll bargain it down to nothing.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to know everything about the law. I don't know if what I'm asking is within your power. But if it is in any way, this is what I ask the court, in the interest of justice:
First, I ask the Court to set aside the plea bargain arrangement on the False Swearing charge and compel a trial, or a plea, on the original charge of Perjury In The First Degree. The plea bargain arrangement for False Swearing not only is not in the best interests of justice, it may not pass scrutiny as to it's legal basis, supported, as it is, only by the submissions of the defendant's attorney. The Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Allow Plea To Amended Information recognizes the serious question as to whether the prosecution may accept a plea to a lesser "time-barred charge even if the defendant waives the statute of limitations defense." In this case the statute of limitations expired over one full year ago, making False Swearing non-chargeable.
The only reason given for allowing Sailer to plead to this lesser, time-barred, charge is "Sailer acknowledges that the State's amendment (and his plea to the amended charge) would be in his best interests"... and because "Sailer also wishes to obtain the very favorable sentencing recommendation..." which "would not be possible if Sailer were to be convicted of a felony offense." (emphasis added)
The Court is told it should allow this plea bargain because: "This case has already exacted an extraordinary toll on defendant Sailer, both personally and professionally. Sailer maintains that the proposed plea arrangement will be in his interests, and will help to avoid an unnecessary public spectacle."(emphasis added)
All Dan Sailer has ever had in mind is his interests. Is the court also to make it's decisions based on his interests? Did Sailer ever consider the interests of Katie Frazier when he conspired with Kevin Mooney, his lover, (now Kevin Sailer) to commit perjury, depriving Katie of justice in the trial of Mooney for assaulting her? Did he consider the interest society has in a fair trial and the integrity of the oath to tell the truth? Did he even consider the interests of his church and the effect on them of his using the position with which they had entrusted him to deceive the jurors in that trial? Never. Dan Sailer only thought then, as now, of his own interests.
What toll has this case exacted on Sailer? Dan Sailer was suspended with full pay and benefits, which include free rent on the parsonage in which he and Kevin Sailer now reside--essentially a two month or more paid vacation, which does not even count against his accrued vacation time. The congregation has contributed to his legal defense costs. And he has already been reinstated to the same position. Contrast this to the toll on Katie Frazier, and society.
Katie Frazier was denied some of an American citizen's most basic rights, equal protection under the law, due process, and a fair trial. Her home has now been firebombed and totally destroyed, possibly because of this case. She has been slandered repeatedly by Dan Sailer and his defenders, including church officials who continue to stand by him in direct contradiction to the claims made in the Memorandum. And if this plea is allowed to stand, she will have been denied justice again.
What "unnecessary public spectacle?" It has always been my understanding that trials are run under very specific rules, including rules on the admissibility of evidence, opportunities for the defense to argue against the introduction of improper evidence, and above all they are under the control of the presiding judge, who is able to prevent any "unnecessary public spectacle." Clearly, Sailer's contempt for the legal system includes, in addition to disdain for truth, a total lack of respect for judges.
Obviously, Sailer wishes to avoid having the evidence of his crime made public in a courtroom. But, the presentation of evidence does not constitute an "unnecessary public spectacle." Indeed, it is a necessary thing for the good of justice and to retain the public's trust in their legal system. If they do not see the evidence and see perjurers punished, why should anyone continue to tell the truth in court proceedings, and why should anyone have any faith in the legal system? That is the heart of this matter.
The Memorandum also mentions "No matter how much time passed before the State filed these proceedings...." Dan Sailer alone is the cause of the delay in the filing of these proceedings. He has attempted to obstruct the investigation at every turn. He lied to Detective Hartfield when he was first contacted over two years ago. He has filed sworn statements full of lies regarding this case. He has attempted to intimidate and influence witnesses to change their sworn statements. He has refused to answer questions for the police, or to even meet with them. Did he or Kevin firebomb Katie Frazier's home, or cause it to be done? It's possible, no one knows. (They have both refused to answer any questions for the police, and the lie detector test he claims to have passed was not a police test, but one set up and run by his own attorney.) His argument is like the little boy who murdered both of his parents, and then asked for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.
After over two years of delays, obstruction, and lies, by Dan Sailer alone, why should the court now allow him to roll the clock back to allow this plea bargain arrangement just because it is in his interests?
Additionally, there is the fact that this plea bargain is made in bad faith by Dan Sailer. At the same time he was negotiating and concluding this agreement to plead guilty he released an open letter to the congregation of his church proclaiming his innocence. He claimed this case was only a smear campaign against him by Katie Frazier and his ex-wife's new family calculated to gain an advantage over him in a child custody dispute. He solicited contributions to his legal defense fund, claiming he would use the money to prove his innocence in court. He committed fraud upon those members. He had no intention of going to court. There is also no child custody case--the "children" are 17 and 19 years old and have lived with him for over two years, and their mother has no intent of changing this arrangement. He continues to maintain to reporters that "there are two sides to this story," implying that his guilty plea proves him innocent. He implies that the evidence is false. And by avoiding it's airing in open court he hopes to continue to mislead his congregation and milk them for even more contributions and support.
Finally, this was a crime far more serious than "False Swearing." It was a coldly calculated, brazenly executed plan to lie under oath--to commit perjury--to win acquittal for his lover, Kevin Mooney, in Mooney's trial for assaulting Katie Frazier. It involved a false 911 call, false statements to police officers investigating a crime, collusion with Kevin Mooney and his attorney, and other lies and obstructions after the fact. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive (and in the perpetrators' own words and sworn statements). Such crimes of perjury may well be the ultimate threat to our legal system, especially given the rarity of prosecution for them. That is why this case is so important. It is an opportunity for the court to make it clear that lies under oath--PERJURY--will not be tolerated, nor bargained down to a slap on the wrist, but will be prosecuted fully and punished as harshly as the law possibly allows.
I ask the Court to reject this plea agreement and compel a trial or a plea on the original charge of Perjury In The First Degree.
If the Court is unwilling, or unable, to do this, I ask the Court to delay sentencing and order a hearing on the plea agreement, giving Katie Frazier and others interested in her behalf time to research and present to the court arguments in support of rejecting the plea agreement and reinstating the original charge.
At the very least, I ask the Court to reject the slap on the wrist recommended by the prosecutor and impose the harshest possible sentence, one befitting the crime of perjury (which we all know this was), even beyond the normal guidelines for either perjury or false swearing. Dan Sailer should at least be fined an amount equal to the actual costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case, especially since it was his actions alone which have dragged the case out for over two years. And he should spend some time in prison to show others that perjury does not pay off. Then, maybe, we can restore some of the integrity of the oath to tell the truth and protect our justice system.
[Click] button If you would like to add your to the UCM News
<Back to News