Please note: There is more info but this should get you started to be able to fill out your own. It should also be noted that when Mr Fisher thought I had incompetent Counsel he was rip roaring & ready to go to trial, now that I have a real attorney who kicks some butt… Well he now needs another 2 months to get ready for trial. Interesting, although I am not sure how it relates to my complaint somewhere it does & I’m going to find it.
MIKE FISHER EVERETT CITY PROSECUTOR:
WASHINGTON STATE EXECUTIVE ETHICS BOARD
ETHICS COMPLAINT FORM Case No. ___________________
(Assigned by Board)
1. Please name the person alleged to have violated one or more provisions of the state’s ethics law (Chapter 42.52 RCW), and provide the following information, if known. If you are alleging that more than one person may have violated the state’s ethics law, file a separate complaint form for each individual.
Name: Mike Fisher Work Phone: (425) 257-8700
Position or Title: Everett City Prosecutor
Employing Agency: City of Everett
Work Address: 3002 Wetmore Ave Everett Wa 98201
2. Explain why you believe that the individual name above may have violated the state’s ethics law. Be as specific as possible as to dates, times, places, and actions. Attach additional sheets of paper if the space provided below is not sufficient.
A) Mr Fisher is prosecuting a case that has an affirmative action & has tricked me into presenting my whole criminal case when I was filing a motion for the return of my dogs he & Commissioner Waggoner both let me present my entire case without notifying me that I had 5th Amendment rights to not incriminate myself. I went through the WHOLE case then Comm Waggoner said that she was going to deny my motion because I had not filed a Motion for Petition but I did, actually there was 3 or 4 of them I had to give a copy to Everett AC, the prosecutor & drop one in a box for the Commissioner in the Snohomish County Clerks office, trust me I remember it because there was an attorney there who asked me if I had done all of the above & I said no so he helped me to tell me where who & when they were supposed to go. Now I know why he was grinning ear to ear.
B) My Fisher is filing absolutely ridiculous Motions in Limine, saying on my blog I had 169 witnesses & was “bragging” about it but then he also attaches my actual witness list of the 23 people I had narrowed it down to, so… I am not a lawyer but the whole motion seemed frivolous in the fact that he already had my witness list unless somewhere in there I can sneak in 146 more somewhere somehow that I am not aware of.
C) He is not providing any where near all of the discovery that has been requested
D) he is making statements on his motions like “A cycnical person might have to wonder if defendant was keeping her dog alive to garner donations” (I had a terminally ill dog they took from me & killed) no where does he have proof, of any such thing but he put that on his answer to petition & after Commissioner Wagonner just looked at me like I was the scum of the earth
E) Mr Fisher is saying that I can not contact him directly but yet he responds to me in emails, which is what I used to send out most of my discovery, & other discovery they have asked for, but he won’t give me or my attorney the addtl. discovery. ( I am trying to represent myself pro se but the judge won’t let me but that is another complaint)
F) Mr Fisher knows this case has an affirmative defense, he did not file charges against me until 23 days after they took my animals, & once I proved to him his “star” witness was a fraud, a forger, & mentally unbalanced, & that it was ME not her who fed all the Snohomish County prosecutors all of the info to close down the Rene Roske puppy mill because I was also working on the Kennewick puppy mill at the time. He also knows that I used to rescue dogs from the Everett Shelter who were all coming out injured, yet he remarks on his motions “Defendant fancies herself some kind of a dog rescuer” evidently the Everett shelter did too for a while until I made a stink about the injuries on all of the dogs. I have to wonder why I have been to court over 15 times, the court case has not even commenced yet & again I have an affirmative defense, numerous professional & character witnesses, so how is that the City of Everett can afford to prosecute a woman for sleeping in her car with her dogs & cat temporarally, who is trying to hang on to the last few precious moments of life with her dog at any cost, who had medication, who was not suffering, I understand why I am taking this so personally but I am not sure why the prosecutor is as well. This is malicious prosecution at it’s core, I have butted heads with Everett AC for well over 9 years now, (Explanation included in the complaint against Officer Lorelie Trask) Please also note: I am not trying to be fresh by supplying rules you already know about I am trying to illustrate my reasoning for believing I have a reason to even file a complaint & which of those rules I believe were violated.
TABLE OF AUTHORITY
1) RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not
supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of
the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given
reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important
pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information
known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or
mitigates the offense and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the
defense and to the tribunal all mitigating information known to the
prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by
a protective order of the tribunal;
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by an applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an
ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the
nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law
enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a
substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and
exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement
personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the
prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that
the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
 A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not
simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific
obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and
that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how
far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate
and varies in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted the
ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function,
which in turn are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by
lawyers experienced in both criminal prosecution and defense. Applicable law
may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those
obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could
constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
 In some jurisdictions, a defendant may waive a preliminary hearing and
thereby lose a valuable opportunity to challenge probable cause.
Accordingly, prosecutors should not seek to obtain waivers of preliminary
hearings or other important pretrial rights from unrepresented accused
persons. Paragraph (c) does not apply, however, to an accused appearing pro
se with the approval of the tribunal. Nor does it forbid the lawful
questioning of an uncharged suspect who has knowingly waived the rights to
counsel and silence.
 Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial
statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory
proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor’s
extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing
public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an
indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the
accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no
legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of
increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is
intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply
with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).
 Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3,
which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work
for or are associated with the lawyer’s office. Paragraph (f) reminds the
prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the
unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In
addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to
prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making
improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the
direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care
standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions
to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.
[Amended effective September 1, 2006.]
2) 16.52.207 Animal cruelty in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal.
(4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree under subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant’s control.
3. Disclosure. Pursuant to RCW 42.17.310(1)(e), information revealing the identity of persons who file complaints with investigative agencies other than the public disclosure commission, may indicate a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure if the complainant believes that disclosure would endanger his or her life, physical safety or property. The desires of the complainant govern disclosure. Please indicate your desire for disclosure or nondisclosure by checking the appropriate box and initialing.
I indicate a desire for disclosure. Initials: B.T.
4. Attestation. I declare that the foregoing information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Your Printed Name: Brandia Taamu
Address: 16003 Hwy 99 Lynnwood Wa 98087
Daytime Phone: (425) 319-3298
Please return this completed form to:
Executive Ethics Board *
2425 Bristol Ct SW PO Box 40149 * Olympia, WA 98504-0149
If you have questions about this form, or would like to request the form in an alternate format for the visually impaired, contact the Executive Ethics Board at (360) 664-0871 or write us at the above address. We will take reasonable steps to accommodate your needs.
Attach or make reference to any documents or other evidence that may support your allegations. Also provide the names and addresses (if known) of any witnesses or persons who may have knowledge of facts that support your allegations.