I am going to demonstrate what happens when a municipality, & a government rules, unchecked. Everyone seen my last letter as well as my Final Motion For Dismissal. Well this is the letter I sent to most of the same people on August 15th. It just goes to show you what level of ineptitude there is in Govt & in Media, if you didn’t write or it or see it live for yourself don’t believe it, the people you THINK are supposed to help you are impotent & lazy. Agencies set up to protect our civil rights are basically a bunch of lazy shits who will do the least amount of work that they can conceive, the people who “champion” the little guy only do so for the easy crap. Basically this is the same letter that I sent out before, & I actually forgot that I sent it, but as you can see, the Mayor of the Piece of Shit City of Everett is still condoning this behavior, the wasting over well over 100,000.00 dollars, he will be up for reelection soon & I will find anyone who opposes him to give them this story, my mission this week is to find everyone running against any of these idiots & gie them this information, as well as other information that I haven’t made public. If you ave a utility bill you want resolved, call Jesse or the problem solvers but if you have a real problem forget about them, if you think the people that you have placed in Govt give a shit about you or your future please wake up & smell the coffee. There are several positions up for reelection this year… I missed the deadline to run for any capacity in office for this year, but have someone working on this for me for later. The funniest thing about this is that their city attorney is telling them to ignore me, & maybe I will go just go away, but the thing is I won’t, I never will. I will continue to write, email & campaign against all of them until I get justice. I think it is time to ask for a change of venue & to file my lawsuit in another county. I’ve been your “BITCH” for 9 months & I am done playing your games. Now it’s time to play it my way. Got it? Get it? Good? Since I have to spend the rest of my life thinking about what you did to my animals you will spend the rest of your life thinking about me.
Pending case of Malicious Prosecution-Someone needs to do something now.
FROM: Life Matters TO: James Iles Debra Smith email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Penny email@example.com Tessa Hyatt Dean Ayres Mike Benson firstname.lastname@example.org CC: EVERETTPA Douglas F. Ricks AskDOJ@usdoj.gov email@example.com CodeRev.WA@leg.wa.gov Commissioners@hum.wa.gov firstname.lastname@example.org Message flagged Monday, August 15, 2011 3:42 AM Message body
To whom it may concern: I am writing in regards to a criminal matter I am involved with concerning Everett Animal Control where new information has come to light. I filed a Tort Claim, & a few days afterwards I was offered a plea deal. Interestingly enough the plea deal included the stipulation that I drop my Tort Claim; it was the only thing in bold letters. It is also interesting to me that I was offered the return of my animals without monitoring in exchange for dropping the suit, which makes me wonder why if the city really believed I was guilty why would they return animals to a supposed abuser in exchange for money. Obviously it is because I am not guilty. You know it but you have painted yourself into a corner & now feel as if you must proceed if for no more than vengeance because I dared “challenge” you & your Municipality. I honestly don’t know if my animals are dead or alive so at this point I have nothing to lose by going to the media so they can see how you operate your city & spend your taxpayers hard earned money. I have not seen my animals in 221 days, & God only knows what you have done to them. I seen what you all did in the Meade case Lets start with our “History”: In 2002: I moved into the City of Everett with a pit bull terrier & an AC agent harassed us mercilessly, so much so that I gave my dogs away because I feared for their lives, because this woman had actually WALKED INTO OUR HOUSE on several occasions. I think we can ascertain who the Officer in question was. In 2009: I was rescuing terriers from the Everett Shelter that were ALL coming out injured or maced, I complained & surprise they stopped me from pulling them, a complete listing of them with the paperwork is on this link http://corruptioninthecityofeverett.yolasite.com/exhibits-a-thru-d.php A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues). Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law. On 1/4/2011 Ms Trask came to a residence where I was temporarily residing part time & we had a confrontation once again, A) On 1/6/2011 she showed up with a warrant & took all of my animals without giving me a citation or giving me a chance to rectify any situation she saw unfit. B) She did not leave the warrant or a list of my legal options as required by law, because evidently you dont have any such forms. RCW 16.52.085. Notice requirements after removal of personal property by authorities is provided in paragraph (3). After removal of animals, notice must be provided by posting, personal service or certified mail and the owner must be provided written notice of the reasons for removal in this notice and legal remedies available to the owner. C) At which point they disallowed me from coming into see my animals or letting my vet come & check them out further destroying any defense I had as to their health. D) On 1/11/2011 in violation of my cultural & religious beliefs your city vet disemboweled my terminally ill dog after killing him they cut out all of his internal organs & put sticky notes all over them. Then managed to “lose” his body. E) In every single statement that Officer Trask made she HAD to describe me as a thin Native American woman. No one else felt the need to use these identifiers but her. So did I lose my animals because I am a skinny Native? Is that how the City conducts itself? Is this acceptable RCW 9.91.010 Denial of civil rights — Terms defined. Terms used in this section shall have the following definitions: (1)(a) “Every person” shall be construed to include any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, agent or employee whether one or more natural persons, partnerships, associations, organizations, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees, receivers, of this state and its political subdivisions, boards and commissions, engaged in or exercising control over the operation of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement. (b) “Deny” is hereby defined to include any act which directly or indirectly, or by subterfuge, by a person or his agent or employee, results or is intended or calculated to result in whole or in part in any discrimination, distinction, restriction, or unequal treatment, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons, regardless of race, creed or color. (c) “Full enjoyment of” shall be construed to include the right to purchase any service, commodity or article of personal property offered or sold on, or by, any establishment to the public, and the admission of any person to accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement, without acts directly or indirectly causing persons of any particular race, creed or color, to be treated as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited. (d) “Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement” is hereby defined to include, but not to be limited to, any public place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or for the sale of goods and merchandise, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public conveyance or transportation on land, water or in the air, including the stations and terminals thereof and the garaging of vehicles, or where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, or where public amusement, entertainment, sports or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation or public purposes, or public halls, public elevators and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or any public library or any educational institution wholly or partially supported by public funds, or schools of special instruction, or nursery schools, or day care centers or children’s camps; nothing herein contained shall be construed to include, or apply to, any institute, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is by its nature distinctly private provided that where public use is permitted that use shall be covered by this section; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution; and the right of a natural parent in loco parentis to direct the education and upbringing of a child under his control is hereby affirmed. (2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[1953 c 87 § 1; 1909 c 2
49 § 434; RRS § 2686.] RCW 49.74.005 Legislative findings — Purpose. Discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap is contrary to the findings of the legislature and public policy. The legislature finds and declares that racial minorities, women, persons in protected age groups, persons with disabilities, Vietnam-era veterans, and disabled veterans are underrepresented in Washington state government employment. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for enforcement measures for affirmative action within Washington state government employment and institutions of higher education in order to eliminate such underrepresentation.[1985 c 365 § 7.] RCW 49.60.030 Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights. (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to: (b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement; (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and (2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.). I am very sure the tax paying citizens of Everett would be very interested to know that we have been to court with no resolve to this issue, 29 times, & I’m also sure they would love to know how much you have spent in trying to prosecute me for a misdemeanor. Since the city is not disclosing information & discovery in a timely manner some new information has come to light. Giving us the medical records 2 days before court is not timely, & what has become of the additional discovery that we requested? Need I remind you of Rule 3.8 Special rules of a prosecutor (listed below in case you needed a refresher) I have an affirmative defense, & you know this case should’ve never went this far, it was just an opportunity to take revenge on me. RCW 16.52.207 (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. THIS IS REALLY TRULY THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, YOU TOOK MY BABIES FROM ME & HARMED THEM & SINCE YOU WON’T GIVE ME ANY VERIFICATION THAT ANY OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE I DON’T KNOW IF I AM FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES OR FOR THEIR MEMORIES. THIS IS THE CRUELEST MOST SADISTIC THING I HAVE EVER HEARD OF IN MY LIFE. HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO HELPLESS ANIMALS? THEY CAN NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES, THEY WERE ALL RESCUES FROM ABUSE & YOU HAVE ABUSED THEM FURTHER. YOUR ASSISTANT SHELTER MANAGER ACTUALLY LAUGHED AT ME WHEN I WAS CRYING FOR MY BOY AFTER I FOUND OUT HE WAS DEAD. I JUST HOPE SHE HASN’T HAD ANYMORE GOOD LAUGHS AT THEIR EXPENSE My animals were taken at approximately 10 a.m. they did not arrive at the Everett Shelter until 4:45. My animals were warm & dry when they were taken some I even carried to the AC truck so their feet wouldn’t have been wet. So for 7 hours my animals were unaccounted for, when they arrived my 12 yr old schnauzer was bloody, hypothermic & missing teeth, my Kelpie was having grand mal seizures, & my Eskimo was bleeding from his rectum & couldn’t walk. What did those sick freaks do to my dogs??? Someone is going to answer for this & to this. The city is still withholding evidence, they took pictures of my warm dry, non-bloody dogs before they left, but those pictures have “disappeared, they have also lost the pictures of the right rear side of my car containing the cases of wet food & bags of dry food, they also only gave us black & white photos so we couldn’t see the blood all over my schnauzer’s mouth. There was no date or time stamp on any of the pictures & they still not produced the various emails, & phone messages between Rose Adams & the Officials at EAS. I have also discovered that the City dropped 3 gross misdemeanors charges for a dangerous dog running at large pending against Ms Adams in exchange for her testimony against me for a single misdemeanor. Please explain to me how you would convince a jury that doesn’t smack of Malicious Prosecution. ROSE ADAMS RECORDS: SNOHOMISH Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div 165176 02-16-1993 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Snohomish Superior 93-2-04928-3 08-31-1993 Adams, Rose M Respondent Snohomish Superior 95-2-05009-1 07-05-1995 Adams, Rose M. Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A95-00268 09-28-1995 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00260 10-16-1996 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00258 10-16-1996 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00261 10-16-1996 Adams, Rose Respondent Sno Co-everett Div 97-311AH 08-26-1997 Adams, Rose Respondent Sno Co-everett Div 97-171AH 05-22-1997 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-everett Div 97-207AH 06-16-1997 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 98-2-09032-2 12-02-1998 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A99-00063 03-31-1999 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00036999 12-29-1999 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 00-2-09388-6 12-06-2000 Adams, Rose M Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 00-9-03737-0 06-15-2000 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00039284 11-07-2000 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Snohomish Superior 01-2-00338-9 03-12-2001 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 01-2-01649-9 01-08-2001 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 01-9-01682-6 03-14-2001 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Snohomish Superior 01-2-00337-1 03-12-2001 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Snohomish Superior 01-2-00339-7 03-12-2001 Adams, Rose T H/w Defendant Snohomish Superior 02-2-08098-5 07-12-2002 Adams, Rose T H/w Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 02-9-05607-9 07-15-2002 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div D03-00170 10-24-2003 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-everett Div PC04-2218 08-25-2004 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00011544 09-27-2004 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00011543 09-27-2004 Adams, Rose Marie Respondent Sno Co-everett Div U04-00671 04-22-2004 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Snohomish
Superior 04-2-00445-2 04-20-2004 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 05-2-10520-6 08-02-2005 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 05-9-09830-2 08-02-2005 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Snohomish Superior 05-1-01959-4 07-29-2005 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00087109 07-25-2005 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00087110 07-25-2005 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 07-9-08916-4 09-07-2007 Adams, Rose H/w Defendant Snohomish Superior 07-2-07272-0 09-04-2007 Adams, Rose H/w Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 07-9-08913-0 09-07-2007 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 07-2-07370-0 09-07-2007 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Sno Co-south Div C07-00782 03-09-2007 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div I05420944 12-13-2007 Adams, Rose T And John Doe Defendant Sno Co-south Div C08-01858 06-27-2008 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 09-2-11839-4 12-18-2009 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U09-00053 03-18-2009 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U09-00054 03-19-2009 Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 10-2-02911-5 02-24-2010 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Snohomish Superior 10-9-08050-7 04-14-2010 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-evergreen Div XY0026677 02-01-2010 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Snohomish Superior 10-2-00835-5 06-07-2010 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-everett Div 1095A10FE 05-07-2010 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U10-00012 01-19-2010 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U10-00011 01-19-2010 EVERETT Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Everett Municipal CR0081455 /04-02-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Everett Municipal IN0128726 /12-01-2010 THURSTON Adams, Rose Marie Respondent Thurston Superior 07-2-30559-6 08-09-2007 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Thurston Superior 08-2-30308-7 05-09-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Thurston Superior 08-2-30307-9 05-09-2008 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Thurston Superior 08-9-00725-4 06-03-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Respondent Thurston Superior 08-2-30502-1 07-29-2008 Adams, Rose Plaintiff Thurston County Dist 27974 07-29-2008 Adams, Rose Defendant Thurston Superior 08-2-01621-5 07-08-2008 Adams, Rose Judgment Creditor Thurston Superior 08-9-01041-7 08-01-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Thurston Superior 08-2-30590-0 08-29-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Thurston Superior 08-2-30627-2 09-12-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Thurston Superior 08-2-30628-1 09-12-2008 Adams, Rose Marie Judgment Debtor Thurston Superior 08-9-01282-7 10-01-2008 Adams, Rose Judgment Debtor Thurston Superior 08-9-01567-2 12-05-2008 KING COUNTY Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00046326 12-12-1989 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00041398 12-12-1989 Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 89-2-13774-7 07-17-1989 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00009876 02-16-1990 Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 90-2-02137-8 01-29-1990 Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 90-2-13305-2 07-03-1990 Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 91-2-19788-1 09-10-1991 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 91-009057 09-06-1991 Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000843 07-05-1995 Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 95-2-18323-9 07-26-1995 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000749 06-12-1995 Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-001200 09-13-1995 Adams, Rose Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 95-2-17127-3 07-07-1995 Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000841 07-05-1995 Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000842 07-05-1995 Adams, Rose M Plaintiff King Co Superior Ct 97-2-16445-1 06-30-1997 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant King County District IT0038177 09-06-2007 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kirkland Municipal XY0073502 01-19-2010 LYNNWOOD Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Lynnwood Municipal I00168820 01-08-2009 SEATTLE Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct 65919 06-06-1991 Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct 201656 06-22-1991 Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct 201656 06-22-1994 APPELANT Adams, Rose Appellant Coa, Division I 506374 06-19-2002 Adams, Rose Appellant Coa, Division I 506366 06-19-2002 PIERCE COUNTY Adams, Rose M Petitioner Pierce Co Superior 93-3-01866-4 04-19-1993 RCW 9.62.010 Malicious prosecution. Every person who shall, maliciously and without probable cause therefor, cause or attempt to cause another to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which he or she is innocent: (1) If such crime be a felony, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years; and (2) If such crime be a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty. (1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap: (b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or (2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact’s satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person’s perception of the victim’s or victims’ race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts: This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state’s ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection. (3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap. (4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness. (b) “Threat” means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to: (i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or (ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person. (7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony. (8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law. (9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington. Your Animal Control Agent Lori Trask is also doing exams on my dogs when they are in NO way qualified to do them, taking a horse rescue class from HSUS & a couple of paralegal courses at Edmonds Community College does NOT make you a Vet or Vet Tech Your vet is giving my Kelpie 4 times the dosage of his seizure meds, giving meds to my Pomeranian known to be dangerous to a dog with a mere skin condition, & giving Selemectin a dirivitive of Ivermectin to my Toy Aussie when it is common knowledge that Aussie’s have something called the MDR1 gene which makes Ivermectin deadly. My Kelpie managed to get tapeworms 5 months after he was impounded which means he had fleas, he is allergic to fleas. Upon arrival my dogs were not examined by a vet til the next day, but the tests done that day concluded none had Giardia, only 2 had non motile bacteria, but acco
rding to the vet’s records all of a sudden they all had it except for Misty. The city has still NOT produced the lab results proving this anyway, just the vets statement & the only lab work we got was blood panels. If anyone has a moment please do your research on Giardia, my dogs & cats can eat off of a fork & spoon, because I eat with them most times, there is no way possible on this earth that all of us didn’t have it, living in car together, I would’ve had it for sure & being as the animals all drank from the same bowl & ate from the same bowl they would’ve all had it. If my dogs were in such bad shape, enough for you to seize them an exam would’ve been done immediately by a vet, not a vet tech. The records are also all out of date, some of the dates are skewed so I am not sure how they copied & pasted it together so those are NOT the actual records, if they were they would’ve all been in order just the way they would come out if they were printed out, not doctored up first. Your agents are also sharing FALSE personal information about me, I have never even had a Golden Retriever, so if you claim no one told her this, is she still going to be your “star” lying witness, or are your agents going to say they told her these things leaving you open for even more of a lawsuit? Why would your agents call a witness, share info with her that was not true & then deny they said it? Why would she have said if she wasn’t told this, remember this is your star witness with 89 different records with the laws, including many crimes of dishonesty. This is also the woman who took all the credit for spoon feeding you all the information about the Rene Roske puppy mills & I sent you proof it was me who actually provided all the info. She is also Certified as mentally unstable & is on Social Security because of it. 42.23.070 Prohibited acts. (4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit. 42.52.050 Confidential information — Improperly concealed records. (1) No state officer or state employee may accept employment or engage in any business or professional activity that the officer or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her to make an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information acquired by the official or employee by reason of the official’s or employee’s official position. (2) No state officer or state employee may make a disclosure of confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s or employee’s official position or otherwise use the information for his or her personal gain or benefit or the gain or benefit of another(3) No state officer or state employee may disclose confidential information to any person not entitled or authorized to receive the information. These are the emails, just 2 of over 50 she sent out about me, not to mention well over 100 ads she placed about me on Craigslist! Does that sound like a sane credible person to you? After the last ad she placed about me I think that CL suspended her account. I’ve got this insane woman stalking me & you guys are helping her. How does that even sound right to anyone in your administration Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:13:13 -0800 From: email@example.com Subject: Brandia Ta’amu/Fake Pet Rescuer/Does Not Have A 501(c)3/Frauding & Scamming For Money & Donations/All Her Animals Were Removed, by Everett Animal Control This Month!!! Brandia Ta’amu came to stay at a friend’s home 32 days ago. She NEVER once let her animals out of her car the whole time she stayed there, even though she was asked over and over again to let the animals get out and exercise, and to come into the house. Brandia’s car stinks badly of cat urine, dog urine, and feces!! There are worms in her car all over, because her animals need to be treated, and they had Giardia too! When animal control came with several police cars there was NO WATER OR FOOD AVAILABLE FOR THE ANIMALS!!! Brandia claims you can not give them an endless supply of water, because they will pee all over her car. Animal Control of Everett recieved NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. AC came with a search warrant, and took all her animals. Also, animal control displayed on their computer that Brandia has actually dumped off dogs at the Everett Animal Control. The last time which was two dogs, a Husky mix, and the other one said “Golden Lab/Retriever. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Why Brandia Taamu’s dogs & cats were taken! Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:22:11 -0800 Anyone who has any questions about WHY Brandia Taamu’s dogs were taken by Everett Animal Control can call them, or they can call me at Ph# 425-750-7126, since they came to my house with a search warrant for Brandia Taamu’s car, and took her animals that were extremely dehydrated! By the way, they WERE NOT here for my animals, and I offered to let them look at my animals, but they were not interested they said there sole interest was in Brandia’s car, because of the NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS REGARDING BRANDIA TAAMU. Two days earlier, Animal Control was here to see Brandia, and Brandia REFUSED to let them see the animals in her car, which DID NOT have water then either, and as the woman was writing down Brandia’s plated number, Brandia floored it backwards down my long driveway almost running the AC officer down, and almost hitting my neighbors fence! My driveway curves, and is very long. Brandia is lying to everyone saying she came to stay at my house…… on Christmas Day, and that is a lie. There are NUMEROUS witnesses that she has been here since December 12th, 2010 after she was evicted from her house. She refused to take her animals out of the car even when Sadie was not here for days on end, and was with my son at his dad’s. Those animals that Brandia had were suffering. Everett Animal Control had to call me the other day to tell me I have to take all my animals in to be checked, because Brandia’s animals all had Giardia & Worms. The dogs Brandia took to Christine’s (the Eskies) all had Giardia too! She took those dogs to Christine BEFORE she ever came to my house. Animal Control aslo said that the animal garbage which Brandia shoved under our car trailer, and has NEVER cleaned up, along with the blankets that were in her car, AND NOW ON OUR GROUND, that are covered in her dogs & cats urine & feces is CONTAMINATED WITH GIARDIA!!! I can not let my dogs in the front yard at all, because thanks to Brandia our ground is contaminated! Brandia has sent out numerous postings lying to everyone about WHY her animals were taken. They were not taken because she was homeless, which really is not true, because she has been with us since December 12th, when one of your fosters asked me to take her in. Her dogs and cats were taken because she NEVER IN 3 PLUS WEEKS LET THEM OUT OF HER CAR, AND THEY HAD NO WATER WHEN ANIMAL CONTROL SHOWED UP!!! Also, remember that Animal Control DOES NOT take someone’s animals without evidence that they are abused or neglected! Brandia is facing criminal charges, for many reasons. BRANDIA TAAMU NEEDS TO TELL THE TRUTH!!! Color Of Law Violations Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 108 (1945). This section was before us in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, where we said: “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of’ state law.” Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 109 (1945). For it was abuse of basic civil and political rights, by states and their officials, that the Amendment and the enforcing legislation were adopted to uproot. The danger was not merely legislative or judicial. Nor was it threatened only from the state’s highest officials. It was abuse by whatever agency the state might invest with its power capable of inflicting the deprivation. In all its flux, time makes
some things axiomatic. One has been that state officials who violate their oaths of office and flout 117*117 the fundamental law are answerable to it when their misconduct brings upon them the penalty it authorizes and Congress has provided. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 116-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. “It is not open to question that this statute is constitutional. . . [It] dealt with Federal rights and with all Federal rights, and protected them in the lump . . .” United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386, 387. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 119 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. Separately, and often together in application, §§ 19 and 20 have been woven into our fundamental and statutory law. They have place among our more permanent legal achievements. They have safeguarded many rights and privileges apart from political ones. Among those buttressed, either by direct application or through the general conspiracy statute, § 37 (18 U.S.C. § 88), are the rights to a fair trial, including freedom from sham trials [including sham Collection Due Process Hearings] ; to be free from arrest and detention by methods constitutionally forbidden and from extortion of property [by threat of levy, lien, or lockdown letters] by such methods; from extortion of confessions; from mob action incited or shared by state officers; from failure to furnish police protection on proper occasion and demand; from interference with the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and assembly; and 127*127 the necessary import of the decisions is that the right to be free from deprivation of life itself, without due process of law, that is, through abuse of state power by state officials, is as fully protected as other rights so secured. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 126-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. They simply misconceived that the victim had no federal rights and that what they had done was not a crime within the federal power to penalize. That kind of error relieves no one from penalty. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 128 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. Violations of 3.8 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; (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 Comment  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.  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. My animals should’ve been returned to me well over 7 months ago but with all the games you have played, getting me to reveal my whole case thereby amending your complaint when you knew I was proceeding Pro Se at that point, (again going back to Rule 3.8) You have violated just about every aspect of RCW 69.50. Please read & review these LAWS, not suggestions, they are laws, & you can not make up your own as you go along, even though your city prosecutor stated in open Superior court that you are NOT subject to Washington state RCW’s or the Constition because you are a first class city & remember he used the stautes about 1st Class Cities as his exhibits, seriously, proving you think you are above the law. RCW 69.50.505 Washington state’s civil forfeiture act was adopted to protect people from having their property wrongfully seized by the government. In Guillen v. Contreras (Sup. Ct. En Banc. No. 82531-9 (9/2010), amicus notes that “an owner has the right to resist the taking of any of his property regardless of market value.” Amicus Br. At 8, cf Guillen v. Contreras, Sup. Ct. En Banc, No. 82531-9 (9/9/2010). A citizen has the right to object to seizure, even if temporary, of his personal property no matter the market value. Forfeitures of personal and real property are not favored in the law and very specific procedures must be followed.by government officials and its agents when seizing property, including animals. If statutory procedures are not followed, the property was illegally seized and a person is lawfully entitled to possession thereof. Unless the seized property is needed for evidence, the petitioners are not the rightful owners, the property is contraband, or the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to statute, the seized property must be returned. RCW 69.50.505(a)(2). Notice must be given within 15 days of seizure. RCW 69.50.505(c). If the property is personal property, one claiming an interest in it then has 45 days to respond, and if a response is made, a hearing must be held. RCW 69.50.505(d), (e). Washington State’s forfeiture statutes are exclusive. Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners’ pr
operty. A court does not have inherent authority to forfeit property. See, State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). You & I both know there are at the very least 64 other laws, rules & amendments you have broken but I want my animals back & I want a full scale investigation into what happened to them, & I want some answers by the end of the week or I will really start bugging everyone. These are my babies, I kept them in a car with me for 17 days, it was temporary & even though it was not ideal it was the best we could do to stay together, I would’ve rather died than to have dumped them somewhere, now they may all be dead because you are vengeful… What a sad commentary on your ethics, morals or humanity: or blatant lack thereof. What is even more sad is that I had to file a Tort Claim in order to get your attention, your money can’t bring back my dogs or my cats, it can’t bring back the last 221 days, it can’t take away the last memories I had of them or that they had of me while they were being ripped away from the only person they had ever known who had treated them kindly & loved them. I love them more than my life, maybe you will never understand that, I don’t care, but you do seem to understand money. There is more to life. I want my dogs back & the charges dropped immediately & I want a full scale investigation For those of you reading this that don’t have the discovery or further info on this case please go to the following webpages for the documents & discovery. I haven’t loaded the vet records yet but hopefully will have it done by the end of the week. If you need the paperwork or proof that I have, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 319-3298 I will be happy to talk to you, explain the situation & let you see whatever records you want. The web pages have most of the info on them though. Just be warned that this case has become so convoluted that there is a lot of information.
Sincerely, Reverend Brandia Taamu
Click on this link to donate! https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=K9XR33WFR6MTE