Port Townsend Mayor David Faber has been vindicated on claims he violated city and state ethics rules, following a Nov. 4 ruling from Phil Olbrechts, the city’s ethics hearing officer.

“Judgement is rendered in favor of Mayor Faber,” Olbrechts wrote. “No violations of the City of Port Townsend ethics code are found as alleged in Reverend Cox’s July 15, 2024 ethics complaint as subsequently amended.”

Olbrechts’ ruling came after Cox and Faber, both filed motions for summary judgement. Faber’s motion was granted and Crystal Cox’s was denied. Olbrechts said he will provide a report to city council summarizing the proceedings.

“Crystal Cox's ethics complaint against me was without merit, either factually or legally, and that was borne out by the ethics hearing examiner's dismissal of Cox's complaint this last week,” Faber said. “This was always nothing more than a spurious attempt to attack my credibility by a person angry that I rose to the defense of a transgender teen in our community in 2022. I will continue fighting for the dignity of everyone in our community and won't be cowed by threats, lawsuits, or other forms of negative attention.”

“I am proud of the actions I, Universal Church of Light took to bring attention to these very important issues,” Cox wrote in an email to The Leader. “The ‘Healthier Together’ plan was changed, the golf course rezone/upzone and Faber’s business associates were exposed. City Council members and the city manager violate the city ethics code, every day. Whistleblowers have no voice. There is no way to hold any of them accountable. Phil Olbrechts does not have the power I believed he had. Even if Phil finds a council member 'guilty,' the decision to remove or punish would go to the other council members who are clearly co-conspirators. So as long as they stick together, they cannot be held accountable individually, it is what it is.”

Cox added that federal lawsuits are the only remedy.

Cox has filed multiple complaints in recent years against various local officials. Since January 2024, she has submitted at least 48 records requests with the City of Port Townsend. Nationally, Cox has filed lawsuits in district courts in Nevada, California, Arizona, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois and New York.

Patti B. Saris, a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts, described Cox’s May 30, 2013 filing as a “sweeping 201-page complaint” against individuals and entities located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, California, Switzerland, Wisconsin, New York, Oregon, Illinois, Arizona, Texas, Montana, and Maryland. In the same suit, Cox listed up to 500 unidentified John and Jane Does as defendants.

“The complaint is not entirely intelligible or organized,” Saris writes. “It is set forth in rambling narrative rather than in paragraph form, is repetitive, and contains bald allegations of defamation and conspiracy.” Saris dismissed the suit.

In a suit filed Feb. 26, 2013 in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, Cox sought hundreds of millions in damages from scores of defendants, among them – the New York Times and National Public Radio. The suit lists 19 claims, including, conspiracy, hate crimes, defamation, and harassment, among others.

In 2011, Cox was the defendant in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Oregon. In that action, Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin D. Padrick alleged that Cox defamed them, causing them to incur financial injury. Specifically, they claimed that in Cox's blog posts she stated that Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group had engaged in tax fraud, bribery, money laundering among other things. A jury trial was held before District Judge Marco Hernandez, and on Nov. 29, 2011, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. They awarded $1 million to Obsidian Finance Group and $1.5 million to Padrick. Hernandez denied Cox's motion for a new trial.

Cox’s most recent local complaint began in July, alleging that Faber had committed five ethics violations in regard to zoning, land use decisions and the Open Public Meetings Act. Cox amended her complaint by adding a sixth allegation in September, which was also related to zoning and land use issues.

Ultimately, and after several rounds of complaint amendments, Cox’s initial six allegations were reduced to one alleged ethics violation related to the Open Meetings Act. Cox alleged that Faber violated state law by using his elected position to help a pro-trans group pack council chambers for a 2022 Council meeting which addressed the incident of banning Julie Jaman from the city pool for life, following a confrontation with a transgender employee there. 

In her briefing summary, Cox submitted texts showing Faber’s opposition to anti-transgender viewpoints, including one informing a pro-transgender citizen that he was aware of a plan to pack the council chambers with pro-transgender individuals, thereby preventing meeting access to those with different views.

In his summary judgment motion, Faber attests, under oath, that he had not initiated any contact with any group about packing council chambers.

According to Olbrechts, the evidence presented for summary judgment shows no efforts by Faber to organize a shut-out of persons with anti-transgender viewpoints.

“Reverand Cox submitted no evidence that Mayor Faber at any point tried to organize pro-trans people to shut out those with opposing views or initiated any communications on such a plan,” Olbrechts wrote. “The evidence only shows that Mayor Faber was answering questions posited by a constituent. The quoted language was more information than necessary to respond to the question, but it falls short of evidencing an intent to encourage or facilitate the packing of the council chambers in potential violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. There was also no evidence presented to suggest that Mayor Faber had any inside any information from his position that he gave to pro-trans persons to assist in their efforts to ‘pack’ the Council chambers. Mayor Faber only identified the room posted capacity of council chambers, which was public knowledge. Mayor Faber did not try to grant pro-trans individuals any special privileges via packing Council Chambers. In the absence of proving that, Mayor Faber has not committed an ethics violation regardless of whether there may have been an Open Public Meetings Act violation involved.”

Cox had also claimed that Faber’s vote on a sidewalk improvement project in the Uptown neighborhood would benefit Faber-owned property in the area. Olbrechts threw out that complaint as well since the funding and the project benefited several more property owners and residents beyond Faber.

According to city documents, that project is slated to address accessibility issues, such as repaving and ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps on Tyler Street, repairing heaving sidewalk sections along Lawrence Street caused by tree roots, tree removal, general pedestrian improvements and parking.