COMPLAINT FORM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The purpose of this form is to assist you in filing a complaint with the Coordination and Review Section. You are not required to use this form; a letter with the same information is sufficient. However, the information requested in the items marked with a star (*) must be provided, whether or not the form is used. 1.* State your name and address. Name: Brandia Alida Marea Taamu Address: 16003 Hwy 99 #6 Lynwood Wa. Zip 98087 Telephone No: Home: (425) 319-3298 Work: (_____)_______________ 3* Agency and department or program that discriminated: Name: 1) Everett Animal Control, 2) The City of Everett attorney & prosecutor 3) The City of Everett Municipal Court 4) Judge David Mitchell 5) Superior Court Commissioner Tracy Waggoner: 6) Mike Fisher, (City of Everett Prosecuting Attorney) 7) James Iles, (City of Everett Attrney) 8) Judge Mitchell, (Municipal Court Judge) 9) Shannon Delgado, (City of Everett Animal Control Asst. Manager) 10) Ingrid Weaver, (City of Everett Animal Control Officer) 11) Lisa Thompson, (City of Everett Vet) 12) Mayor Ray Stephenson, (Mayor) 13) Councilman Gipson Councilman in charge of Everett City Shelter) Adresses 1) 2) 3) OMB No. 1190-0008 Page 1 of 8

4A.* Non-employment: Does your complaint concern discrimination in the delivery of services or in other discriminatory actions of the department or agency in its treatment of you or others? If so, please indicate below the base(s) on which you believe these discriminatory actions were taken.

YES Race/Ethnicity: RACE YES National origin: NATIVE AMERICAN NO Sex: _____________________________________ YES Religion: NATIVE AMERICAN NO Age: ____________________________________ YES Disability: AUTISM/THYROID PROBLEMS 5. What is the most convenient time and place for us to contact you about this complaint? ANYTIME VIA PHONE OR EMAIL DAYTIME AT MY HOME 6. If we will not be able to reach you directly, you may wish to give us the name and phone number of a person who can tell us how to reach you and/or provide information about your complaint: Name: ____________________________________________ Telephone No:(_____)_______________ 7. If you have an attorney representing you concerning the matters raised in this complaint, please provide the following: Name: ____________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________ _____________________________ Zip ____________ Telephone No: (_____)_______________ 8.* To your best recollection, on what date(s) did the alleged discrimination take place? Earliest date of discrimination: 2002 Most recent date of discrimination: 2011 9. Complaints of discrimination must generally be filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. If the most recent date of discrimination, listed above, is more than 180 days ago, you may request a waiver of the filing requirement. If you wish to request a waiver, please explain why you waited until now to file your complaint. FEAR OF RETALIATION THEY ARE HOLDING MY DOGS HOSTAGE, I JUST RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THEY HAD THEM FOR 7 HOURS & WHEN THEY FINALLY GOT THE TO THE EVERETT SHELTER, ONE WAS BLEEDING FROM HIS RECTUM & COULDN'T WALK, ONE WAS BLODDY MISSING TEETH & HYPOTHERMIC, & A 3RD WAS IN FULL THROES OF SEIZURES. 10.* Please explain as clearly as possible what happened, why you believe it happened, and how you were discriminated against. Indicate who was involved. Be sure to include how other persons were treated differently from you. (Please use additional sheets if necessary and attach a copy of written materials pertaining to your case.) 8. PLEASE SEE A) MY ATTACHED TORT CLAIM, B) DEMAND FOR RETURN OF MY DOGS C) MOTION FOR DISMISSAL. D) MY COMPLAINTS TO THE WASHINGTON STATE ETHICS BOARD WHICH I HAVEN'T SENT OUT YET BUT PLAN ON DOING SO THE SAME DAY AS THIS IS SENT OUT BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE DESIGNATION FOR THEM E) ALSO SEE MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS & DOCUMENTS I WILL INCLUDE TO SUBSTANTIATE MY CLAIM. I AM PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS NOT IN A TRADITIONAL FORMAT, I AM AUTISTIC, & THIS CASE HAS BECOME SO CONVOLUTED & IDIOTIC THAT THE

BEST I CAN DO IS TO SHOW YOU UP TO THE POINT WHAT THEY HAVE IGNORED, & THEY LAWS THEY HAVE VIOLATED. IF IT NEEDS TO BE IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT PLEASE HELP ME FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP ME WITH IT. SINCE THEY TOOK MY SERVICE & THERAPY DOGS IT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY HARD TO HOLD IT TOGETHER. THERE ARE AUDIO TAPES FROM THE COURT HEARINGS AS WELL BUT I DON'T HAVE THE 10.00 EACH TO ORDER THEM & CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE BEEN TO COURT WELL OVER 30 TIMES THAT IS MORE THAN I CAN AFFORD. AFTER FINDING OUT THAT THEY HAD MY ANIMALS FOR 7 HOURS & BROUGHT THEM IN BLOODY, HYPOTHERMIC, MISSING TEETH, BLEEDING FROM THEIR RECTUM, UNABLE TO WALK, & IN FULL ON SEIZURES, THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT OF MY HOPE THAT ANY OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE & THE FACT THAT THEY LOST ONE OF MY DOG'S BODY SERIOUSLY REDUCES THE CHANCES OF ANY KINDER FATE FOR THE REST OF THEM. THE SHELTER MANAGER LAUGHED AT ME WHEN I FOUND OUT HE WAS DEAD, SO I DOUBT THEY LOST HIM AT ALL 11. The laws we enforce prohibit recipients of Department of Justice funds from intimidating or retaliating against anyone because he or she has either taken action or participated in action to secure rights protected by these laws. If you believe that you have been retaliated against (separate from the discrimination alleged in #10), please explain the circumstances below. Be sure to explain what actions you took which you believe were the basis for the alleged retaliation. AT ONE TIME I USED TO RESCUE ANIMALS FROM THE EVERETT SHELTER BUT ALL OF THE ANIMALS WERE COMING OUT INJURED & MACED, SOMETIMES BOTH & MOST HAD FRACTURES OR BROKEN BONES. I COMPLAINED ABOUT IT & THEY STOPPED ME FROM TAKING ANYMORE ANIMALS & NOW THAT THEY GOT MY WITNESS LIST THEY HAVE DISALLOWED EVERYONE ON MY WITNESS LIST FROM RESCUING DOGS FROM THERE AS WELL, SO NOW THEY JUST AUTOMATICALLYY KILL THEM ALL 12. Please list below any persons (witnesses, fellow employees, supervisors, or others), if known, whom we may contact for additional information to support or clarify your complaint. N/A 13. Do you have any other information that you think is relevant to our investigation of your allegations? 14. What remedy are you seeking for the alleged discrimination? I WANT THESE PEOPLE REMOVED FROM POWER & REPRIMANDED, I WANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE INNER WORKING OF THE EVERETT MUNICIPALITY & THE EVERETT ANIMAL SHELTER. I WANT THEM TO GIVE ME BACK ALL OF MY ANIMALS INCLDING MY SERVICE & THERAPY DOGS. I WANT THEM TO FIND MY DEAD DOGS BODY SO I CAN TAKE HIM TO CEREMONY SO HE WON'T BE TRAPPED ON EARTH FOR ALL ETERNITY, & I WANT A LIFETIME ANTIHARRASMENT/PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST ALL THE ACTORS NAMED ABOVE. I WANT CAMERAS INSTALLED IN THE CITY SHELTER SO WE CAN FIND OUT WHO IS BEATING THE DOGS & TO ENSURE THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS ELIMINATED. 15. Have you (or the person discriminated against) filed the same or any other complaints with other offices of the Department of Justice (including the Office of Justice Programs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, etc.)?

No 16. Have you filed or do you intend to file a charge or complaint concerning the matters raised in this complaint with any of the following? NO U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission YES Federal or State Court YES Your State or local Human Relations/Rights Commission NO Grievance or complaint office 17. If you have already filed a charge or complaint with an agency indicated in #16, above, please provide the following information (attach additional pages if necessary): Agency: ____________________________________________ Date filed: ___________________________________ Case or Docket Number: ________________________ Date of Trial/Hearing: __________________________ Location of Agency/Court: ___________________________________________ Name of Investigator: _____________________________________________ Status of Case: _____________________________________________ Comments: 18. While it is not necessary for you to know about aid that the agency or institution you are filing against receives from the Federal government, if you know of any Department of Justice funds or assistance received by the program or department in which the alleged discrimination occurred, please provide that information below. 19.* We cannot accept a complaint if it has not been signed. Please sign and date this complaint form below. ____________________________ ____________________________ (Signature) (Date) Please feel free to add additional sheets to explain the present situation to us. We will need your consent to disclose your name, if necessary, in the course of any investigation. Therefore, we will need a signed Consent Form from you. (If you are filing this complaint for a person whom you allege has been discriminated against, we will in most instances need a signed Consent Form from that person.) See the "Notice about Investigatory Uses of Personal Information" for information about the Consent Form. Please mail the completed, signed Discrimination Complaint Form and the signed Consent Form (please make one copy of each for your records) to: United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Coordination and Review Section - NWB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Toll-free Voice and TDD: (888) 848-5306 Voice: (202) 307-2222 TDD: (202) 307-2678 20. How did you learn that you could file this complaint? IN TALKING TO A FIELD AGENT ABOUT MY PROBLEMS 21. If your complaint has already been assigned a DOJ complaint number, please list it here: ________________________ If a currently valid OMB control number is not displayed on the first page, you are not required to fill

out this complaint form unless the Department of Justice has begun an administrative investigation into this complaint. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division "Coorilination and Review Section NOTICE ABOUT INVESTIGATORY USES OF PERSONAL INFORMATION NOTICE OF COMPLAINANT AND INTERVIEWEE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES Complainants and individuals who cooperate in an investigation, proceeding or hearing conducted by DOJ are afforded certain rights and protections. This brief description will provide you with an overview of these rights and protections. - A recipient may not force its employees to be represented by the recipient's counsel nor may it intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any employee who refuses to reveal to the recipient the content of an interview. An employee does, however, have the right to representation during an interview with DOJ. The representative may be the recipient's counsel, the employee's private counsel, or anyone else the interviewee authorizes to be present. ,:t'-:"~ The laws and regulations which govern DOJ's compliance and enforcement authority :provide that no recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any individual because he/she has made a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted under DOJ's jurisdiction, or has asserted rights protected by statutes DOJ enforces.- Information obtained from the complainant or other individual which is maintained in DOJ's investigative files may be exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act or under the Freedom of Information Act if release of such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy There are two laws governing personal information submitted to any Federal agency, including the Department of Justice (DOJ): The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U. S. C. 552). THE PRIVACY ACT protects individuals from misuse of personal information held by. the Federal Government. The law applies (0, records that are kept and that can be located by the individual's name or social security number or other personal identification system. Persons who submit information to the government should know that: - DOJ is required to investigate complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, and, in some instances, religion against recipients of Federal financial assistance. DOJ also is authorized to conduct reviews of federally funded recipients to assess their compliance with civil rights laws. - Information that DOJ collects is analyzed by authorized personnel within the agency. This information may include personnel records or other personal information. DOJ staff may need to reveal certain information to persons outside the agency in the course of verifying facts or gathering new facts to develop a basis for making a civil rights compliance determination. Such details could include the physical condition or age of a complainant. DOJ also may be required to reveal certain information to any individual who requests it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. (See below) - Personal information will be used only for the specific purpose for which it was submitted, that is, for authorized civil rights compliance and enforcement activities. Except in the instances defined in DOJ's regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 16, DOJ will not release the information to any other agency or individual unless the person who supplied the information submits a written consent. One of these exceptions is when release is required under

the Freedom of Information Act. (See below) - No law requires a complainant to give personal information to DOJ, and no sanctions will be imposed on complainants or other individuals who deny DOJ's request. However, if DOJ fails to obtain information needed to investigate allegations of discrimination, it may be necessary to close the investigation. - The Privacy Act permits certain types of systems of records to be exempt from some of its requirements, including the access provisions. It is the policy of DOJ to exercise authority to exempt systems of records only in compelling cases. DOJ may deny a complainant access to the files compiled during the agency investigation of his or her civil rights complaint against a recipient of Federal financial assistance. Complaint files - 2 - are exempt in order to aid negotiations between recipients and DOJ in resolving civil rights issues and to encourage recipients to furnish information essential to the investigation. - DOJ does not reveal the names or other identifying information about an individual unless it is necessary for the completion of an investigation or for enforcement activities against a recipient that violates the laws, or unless such information is required to be disclosed under FOIA or the Privacy Act. DOJ will keep the identity of complainants confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of the civil rights laws, or unless disclosure is required under FOIA, the Privacy Act, or otherwise required by law. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT gives the public access to certain files and records of the Federal Government. Individuals can obtain items from many categories of records of the Government -not just materials that apply to them personally. DOJ must honor requests under the Freedom of Information Act, with some exceptions. DOJ generally is not required to release documents during an investigation or enforcement proceedings if the release could have an adverse effect on the ability of the agency to do its job. Also, any Federal agency may refuse a request for records compiled for law enforcement purposes if their release could be an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" of an individual. Requests for other records, such as personnel and medical files, may be denied where the disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Coordi1U1lion and Review Section COMPLAINANT CONSENT/RELEASE FORM Your Name: Brandia Taamu Address: 16003 Hwy 99 #6 Lynnwood Wa 98087 Complaint number(s): (if known) ____________________ _ Please read the information be/ow, check the appropriate box, and sign this form. I have read the Notice of Investigatory Uses of Personal Information by the Department of Justice. (DOJ). As a complainant, I understand that in the course of an investigation it may become necessary for DOJ to reveal my identity to persons at the organization or institution under investigation. I am also aware of the obligations of DOJ to honor requests under the freedom of Information Act. I understand that it may be necessary for DOJ to disclose. information, including personally identifying details, which it has gathered as a part of its-investigation of my complaint. In addition, I understand that as a complainant I am protected by DOJ's regulations from intimidation or retaliation for having taken action or participated in action to secure rights protected by nondiscrimination statutes enforced by DOJ. CONSENT/RELEASED'CONSENT - I have read and understand the above information and authorize DOJ to reveal my identity to persons at the organization or institution under investigation. I hereby authorize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to receive material and information about me pertinent to the investigation of my complaint. This release includes, but is not limited to, personal records and

medical records. I understand that the material and information will be used for authorized civil rights compliance and enforcement activities. I further understand that I am not required to authorize this release, and do so voluntarily. SIGNATURE DATE

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 states 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 states ethics law, file a separate complaint form for each individual. Name: Mike Fisher Everett City Prosecutor Work Phone: (425) 257-8700 Employing Agency: City of Everett Position or Title:

Work Address: 3002 Wetmore Ave Everett Wa 98201

2. Explain why you believe that the individual name above may have violated the states 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 in Superior Court he & Commissioner Wagonner 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 Wagonner 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 all we are receiving is badly cut copied 7 pasted records, no lab results & only copies of black & white photos, most of which are missing & none of them are date stamped 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 23days 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. G) I think that Mr Fisher & the entire Everett Judiciary HONESTLY believe they are above the law & have made several statements that they are a 1st classs city & they are not accountable to the Washington state constitution or it's RCW's when I pointed out that the Everett Municipal Code on animals is in direct conflict with Washington state RCW's & that Wa Constitutional law states explicetely that they can not make laws in conflict & he stated they are not bound by those laws, & to prove his point he offered RCW 35.01.010 RCW 35.22.010 RCW 35.22.280 & Everett Municipal Code 6.04.070 to prove his point when I presented the Everett Municipal Code, the Snohomish County Code of Ordinances, Washington State Ordinance 16.52 & the WAC Title 35... then he charged me with the whole ENTIRE NEGLECT & ABUSE CODE, So for standing up for myself I am punished even more? H) It has come to my attention that the City of Everett dropped 3 gross misdemeanor charges against the lady who is starting all this in exchange for her testimony against me for 1 misdemeanor. It can now be established that she filed the false complaint against me the day she got the 6 infractions to take the focus off of her. I) The city has spent well over 100,000.00 so far to prosecute me for a misdemeanor, for which I have been to court over 30 times now, I filed a Tort Claim against them & they immediately offered me a plea deal & the only part of the POD that was in bolded letters was the demand that I drop my Tort Claim. I am including a copy of the Tort Claim I filed with the understanding that I still had many more points to make in regards to things they had done wrong, laws they had broken & rules they ignored.

TABLE OF AUTHORITY1) 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.Comment [1] 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. [2] 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 prose 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. [5] 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).

[6] 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.RCW 16.52.085 Removal of animals for feeding Examination Notice Euthanasia. (3) Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal. ***I was NEVER given any notice of any legal remedies available to me, I had to read pretty much the entire state's RCW's WAC's & Everett Municipal Codes on my own to find out (4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (5) If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal's removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal's return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. if the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner. If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter. (6) In a motion or petition for the animal's return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health. RCW 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. (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence:

(a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure; (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. Everett Municipal Codes 6.04.070 Prohibited conduct. C. Offenses Relating to Cruelty. It shall be unlawful for any person to: 2. Under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205, fail to provide an animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and a constant source of clear potable water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment; RCW 16.52.310 Definition (d) Provide dogs with easy and convenient access to adequate amounts of clean food and water. Food and water receptacles must be regularly cleaned and sanitized. All enclosures must contain potable water that is not frozen, is substantially free from debris, and is readily accessible to all dogs in the enclosure at all times. Snohomish County, Washington, Code of Ordinances >> Title 9 - ANIMALS Chapter 9.12 9.12.080 - Cruelty to animals. The following, singly or together, are deemed to constitute cruel treatment to animals. Therefore, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to: (3) Neglect to provide adequate daily rations of food or water to any animal within his care, custody or control; West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness. Title 35. Cities and Towns. Chapter 35.27. Towns. 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated Citation: WA ST 35.27.370 Citation: West's RCWA 35.27.370 Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 09/2010 Summary: This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances NOT IN CONFLICT with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States. Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock. Statute in Full: The council of said town shall have power: (1) To pass ordinances NOT IN CONFLICT with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States; (7) To impose and collect an annual license on every dog within the limits of the town, to prohibit dogs running at large, and to provide for the killing of all dogs found at large and not duly licensed; (16) To make all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as may be deemed expedient to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the town and its trade, commerce and manufacturers, and to do and perform any and all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter. 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 Signature: Your Printed Name: Brandia Taamu Address: 16003 Hwy 99 Lynnwood Wa 98087 Daytime Phone: (425) 319-3298 Date: 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

Here is my claim with a portion of the laws they have broken as well as some of my basis for claims:
GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIM Pursuant to Chapter 4.96 RCW, this form is for filing a tort claim against the City of EVERETT. Information requested on this form is required by RCW 4.96.020 and may be subject to public disclosure. Claim forms cannot be submitted electronically (via email or fax). PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN INK Mail or deliver :TO CITY CLERK 2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 1-A Everett, WA 98201 Original claim to: CITY HALL CLAIMANT INFORMATION 1. Claimants Name: Taamu, Brandia Alida Marea 2) Date of Birth: 07/29/1964 3) Current residential address: Lynnwood Wa 98087 4) Residential address on the date of the incident (if different from current address) 6404 Highland Dr. Everett Wa 5) Claimants daytime telephone number: (425) Home/Business Phone (425) 6.Claimants e-mail address: finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com INCIDENT INFORMATION 7. Date of incident: 01/06/2011 Time: Approximately 10 a.m. 8. If the incident occurred over a period of time, date of first and last occurrences: from 01/04/2011 Time: 11 a.m to 01/06/2011 Time: approximately 10 a.m. (LATEST OCCURANCE) PLEASE NOTE: I am still waiting for other records regarding run-ins I have had with Officer Trask over almost a decades time 9. Location of incident: 6404 Highland Dr. Everett Wa 10. If the incident occurred on a street or highway: Not Applicable 11.Agency or department alleged responsible for damage/injury: (1) CITY OF EVERETT LAW ENFORCEMENT; (2) CITY OF EVERETT ANIMAL CONTROL CARE AND CONTROL AUTHORITY; and (3) CITY OF EVERETT LAW ENFORCEMENT & ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL PERSONNEL INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS AGENTS FOR CITY OF EVERETT,AND (4) OTHER MUNICIPAL /STATE ACTORS, INCLUDING THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

12. Names, address and telephone numbers of all persons involved in or witness to this incident: 1) City of Everett Prosecutor Mike Fisher 425- 257- 8406 2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 10-C Everett, WA 98201 2) Commissioner Tracy Waggoner 425-388-3778 3000 Rockerfeller Ave Everett Wa 98201 3) Animal Control Agent Shannon Delgado 425-257-6000 333 Smith Island Rd Everett, WA 98201 4) Animal Control Agent Lori Trask 425-257-6000 333 Smith Island Rd Everett, WA 98201 5) Animal Control Agent Ingrid Weaver 425-257-6000 333 Smith Island Rd Everett, WA 98201 6) City of Everett Vet Lisa Thompson 425-257-6000 333 Smith Island Rd Everett, WA 98201 7) Counseleman Gipson 425-257-8703 2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 9-A Everett, WA 98201 Mayor Ray Stephanson 425-257-7115 2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 10-A Everett, WA 98201 9) James Iles 425- 257- 8406 2930 Wetmore Ave. Ste. 10-C Everett, WA 98201 13. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of all CITY OF EVERETT employees & Officials having knowledge about this incident: AC Officer Delgado (Contact info above) AC Officer Trask (Contact info above) AC Officer Weaver (Contact info above) AC Officer Harner Everett Police Officer Sutherland Counselman Gipson Mayor Ray Stephenson City of Everett Attorney James Iles 14. Names, address and telephone numbers of all individuals not already identified in #12 and #13 above that have knowledge regarding the liability issues involved in this incident, or knowledge of the Claimants resulting damages. Please include a brief description as to the nature and extent of each persons knowledge. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 15. Describe the cause of the injury or damages. Explain the extent of property loss or medical, physical or mental injuries. Attach additional sheets if necessary.

IN LEGAL TERMS Unlawful taking conversion & destrustion as well as forfeiture of personal property without due process of law, and without compensation, by the City of Everett and its agents under the Color of Law; violation of state and federal laws including 42 USC 1983 by the City of Everett and its agents; violations under Washington state and U.S. constitutions; race, gender and age discrimination under state and federal laws by the City of Everett and its agents; discrimination under the federal ADA and parallel state law by City of Everett and its agents. Claimaint has suffered unlawful racial discrimination and intimidation, as indicated in the attached reports by agents of the City of Everett in enforcement of its municipal ordinances. Claimant has suffered severe emotional distress, physical injury and financial damage in the market value and her investment in the sentient personalty seized and/or destroyed, transferred or otherwise disposed of by defendants. The claimant has suffered damages in intrinsic value in a sum to be determined at trial. Claimant/guardian/owner of the animals has suffered severe impact regarding events leading up to, and since, the animals were detained, injured, or killed by the wrongful and grievous intentional acts of the City of Everett and its agents including loss of companionship, and emotional distress including mental anguish. Claimant has suffered as a result of unlawful, discriminatory, and intentional policies and enforcement actions of the wrongdoers in the intrinsic value of the pets. Claimant has been damaged in that the City of Everett has a standard policy and practice which violates the rights of taxpayers and citizens, and others similarly situated, through unconstitutional and unlawful actions, errors and omissions, which result in the intentional and improper enforcement of its municipal codes and other state and federal laws. As well as outrageous violations of most of our states court rules & codes of ethics. IN LAYMANS TERMS In 2002 I moved into the City of Everett with a pit bull terrier & an AC agent harrassed 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 In 2009 I was rescuing terriers from the Everett Shelter that were ALL coming out injured or maced, just because your city has BSL doesnt give you or any of your agents the rights to abuse them, so I complained & surprise they stopped me from pulling after complaints from Ms Trask In 1/4/2011 Ms Trask came to a residence where I was temporarily residing part time & we had a confrontation once again, 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. 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. 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. 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. They have also refused to give me back his body, & didnt inform of his death until the next month. They are still withholding the dogs or any visitations with them, they have them farmed out all over the county & wont give me any staus reports so EVERY DAY, EVERY NIGHT I have to wonder if they are dead or alive, safe or not. Your own codes are directly in CONFLICT with Wa state RCWs & the only response from the City prosecutor was that Everett was a first class city & you made the rules & didnt have to acknowledge the state or US constition either: REALLY??? One also has to wonder WHY the City of Everett attorney wrote a brief for court defaming me in direct violations of court rules as well as 3.8 Special rules of a prosecutor. Why did he take time out of his busy city schedule to write a statement about a woman sleeping in her car? So you have taken my property without a forfieture hearing as REQUIRED BY BASHINGTON STATE & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. You are not above the laws of the land you do not make up your own laws as you go along, you are only granted your very right to existance by the kindness of the state you so heartily disregard. Ms Trask is OBVIOUSLY a very prejudiced woman, I put an ad on Craigslist asking for others who had trouble with her & surprise all of them were ALSO minorities I have been to court on 23 seperate occasions, you have violated about 5 different Constitutional Amendments, as well as state law & numerous codes of ethics & if you believe for one single solitary moment I will go away & shut up you are absolutely mistaken. I wrote to Counsilman Gipson as well as Mayor Stephenson & both ignored me which I take as DIRECT CONDONEMENT of this behavior. Now as the final blow they have disallowed everyone on my witness list from rescuing animals from the everett Shelter & just recently killed a puppy who had rescue & sanctuary outside of the county, showing further your bloodlust for innocent lives with your unconstitutional & antiquated breed specific legislation which I have several agencies looking into, I mean really: Who kills a puppy to get back at me for complaining about mistreatment at YOUR shelter? Havent YOU noticed that 94% of the time when you seize someones property & they take it appeals you are always ruled against? Why you continue to break the law & disregards RCWs is beyond me, I can send you every one of the case files from the appeals courts f you need a subtle reminder. I have almost killed myself, I had myself admitted into a psych ward for this nonsense, those animals were my life, they have been with me more than 5 yrs most of them, I am about ready to take this to every newspaper in this state, to let them know how YOU use & abuse tax dollars & citizens. Not only did your agents take my animals, & destroy them but the person YOU have chosen to represent YOUR shelter & your city actually laughed at me when I was crying for my animals, it is against the law for you to keep me from them but it is your policy. Do you know that the Rutherford Institute is working with myself & my attorney on all of these matters, an institution that gets 1000s of requests every day is taking on my cause because it so blantently laughs in the face of the law & the Constitution that even they had to step in & do something, they have a current pool of 15 attorneys that I have to choose from to take this case, some of which have offered to do it for free

16. Has this incident been reported to law enforcement, safety or security personnel? If so, when and to whom? No 17. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of treating medical providers. Attach copies of all medical reports and billings. I reserve comment on this until this goes to court, to a jury, you will have discovery in time for court though. 18.Please attach documents which support the claims allegations. See Attached.. A) 3 DIFFERENT REPORTS STATING THAT I AM A THIN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN FROM OFFICER TRASK AS WELL AS REPORTS FROM OTHER OFFICERS WHO DIDNT FEEL THE NEED TO DESCRIBE ME AS SUCH & FROM THE RESPONDING POLICE OFFICER WHO ALSO DIDNT NEED TO POINT OUT MY BODY WIEGHT OR ETHNICITY B) STILL TRYING TO OBTAIN RECORDS FROM MY PAST EXPERIENCES & HARASSMENT FROM OFFICER TRASK OVER ALMOST A DECADES TIME PERIOD C) NUMEROUS SLANDEROUS EMAILS FROM THE COMPLAINANT ABOUT ME & THE RELEASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT MYSELF & MY ANIMALS WHICH WERE NOT TRUE D) REPORT FROM OFFICER WEAVER & OFFICER TRASK MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT EXIST FOR A TIME PERIOD THAT DID NOT EXIST E) CHARGING PAPERS WHICH SLANDERED ME, & ATTACKED MY CHARACTER F) PHOTOS WHICH WERE OBVIOUSLY SLANTED TO MAKE ME LOOK BAD. (TAKING PHOTOS OF 3 SIDES OF MY CAR & THE BACK & LEAVING OUT THE FOURTH SIDE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED I HAD SUFFICIENT FOOD & SUPPLIES FOR MY ANIMALS G) FRIVOLOUS MOTIONS OF LIMINE FROM INFORMATION GLEANED FROM MY PUBLC BLOG REQUESTING I BRING IN ALL OF THE 169 PEOPLE WHO OFFERED TO TESTIFY ON MY BEHALF AFTER I HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE PROSECUTOR A WITNESS LIST OF 23 PEOPLE I HAD NARROWED IT DOWN TO 19.I claim damages from the City of EVERETT in the sum of $ 4,750,000 FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. (which will be itemized shortly before court as well which will also include my list of demands/requests) The Claimant must sign this claim form unless he or she is incapacitated, a minor, or a nonresident of the state, in which case it may be signed on behalf of the Claimant by any relative, attorney, or agent representing the Claimant.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. ____________________________________ _____________________________________________ (Signature of Claimant) (Date and place (residential address, City and County) CC: Counsel, EJN, PDD INSTRUCTIONS FOR General Liability Claim Please be advised that improperly filed Tort Claims will be rejected. Before filing a Tort Claim, please read these instructions and the Tort Claim forms in their entirety. Type or print clearly in ink and sign the Tort Claim form. If you are incapacitated, a minor or a nonresident of the state, a relative, attorney or agent may sign on your behalf. Provide all requested information and any available documents or evidence supporting your claim, such as medical records or bills for personal injuries, photographs, proof of ownership for property damages, receipts for property value, etc. If the requested information cannot be supplied in the space provided, please use additional blank sheets so your claim can be easily read and understood. The following are examples on how to complete the Tort Claim Form: 1. Smith, Karen Michelle 2. 1234 College Way NW, Apt. 56, Seattle WA 98178 3. PO Box 910, Seattle WA 98178 4. Same 5. (206) 123-4567 6. 8:00 a.m., August 9, 2004 7. If the incident that caused the damages occurred over a period of time, please provide the beginning time and the ending time in item 7. 8. Washington, Thurston, Tumwater, Campus of South Puget Sound Community College, Building number 22. 9. I-5, Southbound, Milepost 109, near the Martin Way Exit 10. Washington State Department of Transportation, Highway 11. Smith, Thomas Arthur, 1234 College Way NW, Apt. 56, Seattle WA 98178 (360) 456-3456; Tow Truck Driver, Nisqually Towing 12. Unknown 13. List all other witnesses having knowledge of the incident in question, with their names, addresses, and telephone numbers that are not listed within items 11 and 12. Also include a description of their knowledge. For example, if your sister was with you, when the alleged incident occurred, please include her name, address, telephone number, and indicate she witnessed the incident. 14. Please provide all of your medical providers with their names, address, telephone

numbers, and the type of treatment. If you were treated for a personal injury, please include your medical records and bills. 15. Please describe the incident that resulted in the injury or damages, specifically answering the questions who, what, where, when and why. 16. If you reported this incident to law enforcement, safety, or security personnel, please provide a copy of the report or contact information to the person you spoke with. 17. Please provide the dollar amount for your damages, including your time loss, medical costs, property damage loss, etc. This amount should represent your opinion of total compensation. POLICE MISCONDUCT RESOURCE GUIDE WHAT IS POLICE MISCONDUCT Police misconduct refers to brutality, corruption or other objectionable actions like It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. 241, 242). Color of law simply means that the person doing the act is abusing power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). HOW TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST POLICE MISCONDUCT If you feel your rights have been violated, make sure to document the incident. There is never an excuse for the police to abuse you. Police officers can and do make mistakes. In this respect, they are no different than you or I. And it is for this reason that they must also be held accountable when their actions take them beyond their scope of privilege as a sworn officer of the law. The area of law concerning police misconduct involves situations like excessive force, false arrest and malicious prosecution. These are the most common cases that are filed in the Court System. Police officers are trained to make split-second decisions under the most stressful of situations, yet it is in those situations where countless people have found themselves victims of police misconduct. You can file a complaint with the internal affairs department, or a tort claim with the city or county where the abuse took place. You can write letters to the editors of community papers; the idea being that this will help bring attentionto the issue, and possibly alert members of your community to what is happening. Its also important to support your community members when needed. When something happens in your community show up at Board of Supervisors meetings, City Council meetings, and at the Police Commission meetings; they listen when people are in numbers. If you witness someone being abused by the police, write down as much information as you can: badge numbers, car numbers, names, and uniform types. BECOME A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST. EDUCATE YOURSELF AND YOUR COMMUNITY ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS You can take what you learned and then help teach others of their rights. Its important to network with people who have had similar experiences and have community meetings. You can always volunteer at a local organization that is working on these issues and find

a way to start your own. The more community awareness the better. HOW/WHERE TO FILE COMPLAINTS Everyone has the right to access a departments grievance process without harassment or obstacles. You should be able to pick up a complaint form in person or have it mailed to you. A complaint can be filed at any time after your incident. You want to keep in mind that there could be a risk of retaliation and also you dont want to do anything to impede your criminal case and have it result in being played out longer than you would want it to. . Malicious Prosecution A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the proceeding ended in the victims favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings. 42.20.040 False report. Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 42.20.050 Public officer making false certificate. Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 42.20.080 Other violations by officers. Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall wilfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 42.20.110 Improper conduct by certain justices. It shall be a misdemeanor for any judge or justice of any court not of record, during the hearing of any cause or proceeding therein, to address any person in his presence in unfit, unseemly or improper language. 42.23.070

Prohibited acts. (4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officers position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit. 42.52.020 Activities incompatible with public duties. No state officer or state employee may have an interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in a business or transaction or professional activity, or incur an obligation of any nature, that is in conflict with the proper discharge of the state officers or state employees official duties. 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 officials or employees official position. (2) No state officer or state employee may make a disclosure of confidential information gained by reason of the officers or employees 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. 42.52.160 Use of persons, money, or property for private gain. (1) No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officers or employees official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the private benefit or gain of the officer, employee, or another. 42.52.330 Interpretation. By constitutional design, the legislature consists of citizen-legislators who bring to bear on the legislative process their individual experience and expertise. The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted in light of this constitutional principle. 42.52.460 Citizen actions. Any person who has notified the appropriate ethics board and the attorney general in writing that there is reason to believe that RCW 42.52.180 is being or has been violated may, in the name of the state, bring a citizen action for any of the actions authorized under this chapter. A citizen action may be brought only if the appropriate ethics board or the attorney general have failed to commence an action under this chapter within forty-five days after notice from the person, the person has thereafter notified the

appropriate ethics board and the attorney general that the person will commence a citizens action within ten days upon their failure to commence an action, and the appropriate ethics board and the attorney general have in fact failed to bring an action within ten days of receipt of the second notice. If the person who brings the citizens action prevails, the judgment awarded shall escheat to the state, but the person shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the state of Washington for costs and attorneys fees incurred. If a citizens action that the court finds was brought without reasonable cause is dismissed, the court may order the person commencing the action to pay all costs of trial and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the defendant. Upon commencement of a citizen action under this section, at the request of a state officer or state employee who is a defendant, the office of the attorney general shall represent the defendant if the attorney general finds that the defendants conduct complied with this chapter and was within the scope of employment. 42.52.900 Legislative declaration. Government derives its powers from the people. Ethics in government are the foundation on which the structure of government rests. State officials and employees of government hold a public trust that obligates them, in a special way, to honesty and integrity in fulfilling the responsibilities to which they are elected and appointed. Paramount in that trust is the principle that public office, whether elected or appointed, may not be used for personal gain or private advantage. The citizens of the state expect all state officials and employees to perform their public responsibilities in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards and to conduct the business of the state only in a manner that advances the publics interest. State officials and employees are subject to the sanctions of law and scrutiny of the media; ultimately, however, they are accountable to the people and must consider this public accountability as a particular obligation of the public service. Only when affairs of government are conducted, at all levels, with openness as provided by law and an unswerving commitment to the public good does government work as it should. The obligations of government rest equally on the states citizenry. The effectiveness of government depends, fundamentally, on the confidence citizens can have in the judgments and decisions of their elected representatives. Citizens, therefore, should honor and respect the principles and the spirit of representative democracy, recognizing that both elected and appointed officials, together with state employees, seek to carry out their public duties with professional skill and dedication to the public interest. Such service merits public recognition and support. All who have the privilege of working for the people of Washington state can have but one aim: To give the highest public service to its citizens. 526 State v. Boehning May 2005 127 Wn. App. 511 ANALYSIS

Prosecutorial Misconduct [1]19 We begin our discussion with an obvious truism: Every prosecutor is a quasijudicial officer of the court, charged with the duty of insuring that an accused receives a fair trial. State v. Coles , 28 Wn. App. 563 , 573, 625 P.2d 713, review denied , 95 Wn.2d 1024 (1981); State v. Huson , 73 Wn.2d 660 , 663, 440 P.2d 192 (1968), cert. denied , 393 U.S. 1096 (1969). We hold that the prosecutors misconduct in this case violated that duty, both in the closing argument and in the presentation of evidence. [2]20 In order to establish prosecutorial misconduct, Boehning must show that the prosecutors conduct was improper and prejudiced his right to a fair trial. State v. Dhaliwal , 150 Wn.2d 559 , 578, 79 P.3d 432 (2003). Prejudice is established where there is a substantial likelihood the instances of misconduct affected the jurys verdict. Dhaliwal , 150 Wn.2d at 578 (quoting State v. Pirtle , 127 Wn.2d 628 , 672, 904 P.2d 245 (1995), cert. denied , 518 U.S. 1026 (1996)). [3, 4]21 Boehning did not object to the prosecutors questioning and arguments below. A defendant who fails to object to an improper remark waives the right to assert prosecutorial misconduct unless the remark was so flagrant and ill intentioned that it causes enduring and resulting prejudice that a curative instruction could not have remedied. State v. Russell , 125 Wn.2d 24 , 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1129 (1995). In determining whether the misconduct warrants reversal, we consider its prejudicial nature and its cumulative effect. State v. Suarez-Bravo , 72 Wn. App. 359 , 367, 864 P.2d 426 (1994). [5, 6]23 We review a prosecutors comments during closing argument in the context of the total argument, the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the jury instructions. Dhaliwal , 150 Wn.2d at 578 ; State v. Brown , 132 Wn.2d 529 , 561, 940 P.2d 546 (1997), cert. denied , 523 U.S. 1007 (1998). A prosecutor has wide latitude in closing argument to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and to express such inferences to the jury. State v. Hoffman , 116 Wn.2d 51 , 94-95, 804 P.2d 577 (1991). However, a prosecutor may not make statements that are unsupported by the evidence and prejudice the defendant. State v. Jones , 71 Wn. App. 798 , 808, 863 P.2d 85 (1993), review denied , 124 Wn.2d 1018 (1994). 134 Wn. App. 907, Sept. 2006 State v. Perez-Mejia DISCUSSION Prosecutorial Misconduct 30 In closing argument, the prosecutor appealed to the jurys passions and prejudices, urging jurors to base a guilty verdict on a goal of sending a message to gangs or taking part in a mission to end violence, rather than returning a verdict based upon a consideration of the evidence properly admitted in the case. The majority of this improper argument followed a timely objection interposed by Soto-Rodriguezs counsel. The trial court overruled this objection and, thus, no curative instruction was given. We conclude that the prosecutors improper argument irreparably damaged the fairness of the trial and diminishes our confidence in the verdict reached. As a result, Soto-

Rodriguezs conviction must be reversed and a new trial held. [1-3]31 Prosecutors have a duty to seek verdicts free from appeals to passion or prejudice. State v. Belgarde , 110 Wn.2d 504 , 507, 755 P.2d 174 (1988); State v. Echevarria , 71 Wn. App. 595, 598, 860 P.2d 420 (1993).7Accordingly, a prosecutor engages in misconduct when making an argument that appeals to jurors fear and repudiation of criminal groups or invokes racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice as a reason to convict. Belgarde , 110 Wn.2d 504 . Likewise, inflammatory remarks, incitements to vengeance, exhortations to join a war against crime or drugs, or appeals to prejudice or patriotism are forbidden. State v. Neidigh , 78 Wn. App. 71 , 79, 895 P.2d 423 (1995).8In closing argument, a prosecuting attorney has wide latitude to draw and express reasonable inferences from the evidence. State v. Hoffman , 116 Wn.2d 51 , 9495, 804 P.2d 577 (1991). However, a prosecutor may never suggest that evidence not presented at trial provides additional grounds for finding a defendant guilty. State v. Russell , 125 Wn.2d 24 , 87, 882 P.2d 747 (1994) (citing United States v. Garza , 608 F.2d 659, 663 (5th Cir. 1979)). 7This principle is one of long standing. Almost three decades ago, our Supreme Court explained: In presenting a criminal case to the jury, it is incumbent upon a public prosecutor, as a quasi-judicial officer, to seek a verdict free of prejudice and based upon reason. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the prosecutor, in the interest of justice, must act impartially, and his trial behavior must be worthy of the position he holds. Prosecutorial misconduct may deprive the defendant of a fair trial. And only a fair trial is a constitutional trial. State v. Charlton , 90 Wn.2d 657 , 664-65, 585 P.2d 142 (1978). 8Federal courts addressing these issues have likewise held that it is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to view this case as a battle in the war against drugs, and the defendants as enemy soldiers, Arrieta-Agressot v. United States , 3 F.3d 525, 527 (1st Cir. 1993), that the constitution prohibits appeals to racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice, United States v. Cabrera , 222 F.3d 590, 594 (9th Cir. 2000), and that it is improper for a prosecutor to direct the jurors desires to end a social problem toward convicting a particular defendant. United States v. Solivan , 937 F.2d 1146, 1153 (6th Cir. 1991) (reversing based on prosecutors call to send a message to drug dealers, notwithstanding curative instruction given by trial court). 125 Wn. App. 895, State v. Jungers Court of Appeals: Holding that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct at trial by attempting to elicit opinion testimony as to the defendants guilt and by arguing stricken credibility testimony to the jury, and that the trial court erred by denying the defendants motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutorial misconduct, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. Pattie Mhoon , for appellant . Gerald A. Horne , Prosecuting Attorney, and John M. Sheeran , Deputy, for respondent . 1 HUNT , J . Lisa D. Jungers appeals her conviction for unlawful possession of

methamphetamine. She argues (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence seized during an illegal search of probationer Michael Hodgkins residence, (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in eliciting and arguing inadmissible opinion evidence, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Jungers motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Holding that the search and seizure were legal, we affirm the trial courts ruling that the methamphetamine was admissible. Holding further that prosecutorial misconduct required a mistrial, we reverse. ANALYSIS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT 17 Jungers argues (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting inadmissible credibility testimony and arguing stricken credibility testimony to the jury, and (2) the trial court erred by denying her motion for a mistrial based on this prosecutorial misconduct. A. Standard of Review [1]18 A criminal defendants right to a fair trial is denied when the prosecutor makes improper comments and there is a substantial likelihood that the comments affected the jurys verdict. State v. Reed , 102 Wn.2d 140 , 145, 684 P.2d 699 (1984). Such is the case here. 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 states 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),[24] 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;[25] 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.[30] 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. 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 prosecutors 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 [1] 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. [2] 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. [6] 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 lawyers 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. 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. RCW 69.50.505 Washington states 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 States forfeiture statutes are exclusive. Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners property. 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). 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 defendants failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendants control.

EVERETT CITY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER LORI TRASK

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 states 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 states ethics law, file a separate complaint form for each individual. Name: Lori Trask Position or Title: Animal Control Officer Employing Agency: Everett Animal Control Work Address: Work Phone: (425)

2. Explain why you believe that the individual name above may have violated the states 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. 1) Officer Trask's & I's problems started in 2002 when she mercilessly harassed my entire family because we had 2 pit bull terriers, it got so bad that I gave away my dogs because I feared for their lives, she at one time actually WALKED INTO OUR HOUSE & I shoved her back out the door. 2) In 2009 I was rescuing pit bull terriers ever single dog that was coming out of the Everett Animal Shelter was either injured or maced, sometimes both, it got so bad that I would have a friend who is a Seattle Officer meet me down the street. I started raising a stink about it so they stopped me from pulling from there, with Officer Trask being the complaining officer. 3) January 4th 2011 she came out to a lady's house I was staying at & started harassing me, (the lady I was staying with who is currently facing a forgery charge, as well as having an issue with charges from AC herself about 7 unlicensed & 2 aggressive dogs with a bite history was the one who called on me) she was being very combative & I already knew no matter what I said she was going to try to take my animals or in some way harass me. Tow days later she showed up with a search warrant, she took my babies & they killed one. All of this time I honestly believed it was her hatred for pit bulls that fueled her hatred for me but as she started filling out more paperwork it occured to me that she had another entirely different reason. In every report, the warrant request, the letter to the court she refers to me as a "THIN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN" every single one. Everyone else somehow are able to fill out reports, without having to use these indicators, everyone else. Not once did she check out he credibility of her witness or she could've found the same things I did, possibly more (Spinelli V United States)

4) Officer Trask was telling this woman who posted well over 100 ads on craigslist & emailed over 500 people I work with in rescue with information, private information that Officer Trask had given her, most of it untrue. 5) Officer Trask LIED on her statement to the court, & presented hearsay, she evidently is not a good liar, she claims another officer called our vet (Officer Ingrid Weaver) & they told her that they had been worried about my dogs for years & were glad they were out of that situation. The vet is mad beyond belief & still contemplating suing Everett AC after my case has gone to trial, because they don't have anyone by the name given who made the statements & that particular vet has only been our vet for approximately 6 or 7 months, they said if anything they are worried about me because I only take the sick & old or dying dogs who no one else would even bother with & don't know why I waste my time or money on them. 6) This goes on The Color of Law, along with discrimination, of which I am going to file a Tort Claim against the City of Everett. It is despicable that these kinds of people & thinking still pervade our legal system & that they have any kind of power of control to push or enforce their hatred. It should be noted that she is an obese caucasian woman, which I personally have no control over, nor can I control my Race or my metabolism. That is not something you should take to work with you, it should not colour your decisions, I thought or hoped I was wrong but I ran an ad on craigslist as well seeking people who had been harassed by this woman as well... all minorities, almost all women, & almost all medium to petite. I am filing a complaint as well with the Dept of Justice, against teh entire City because I also found something very interesting... they have no, none, not a one minorities working at most of the City agencies, their interim manager, although named DelGado is a married name, & in hindisght in the past 11 yrs I have been dealing with Everett AC I have never seen even a minority volunteer let alone employee. This is also following deprivation of my cultural beliefs & goes against the ADA in so much as Soffie one of the dogs seized was my therapy dog, so every time, every day that I get out of the house to go to court is terrifying to me, I spend the prior night throwing up & I sweat profusely, the whole time as well as having panic attacks, they said it's not their problem & that really was too bad for me. Why do I have agoraphobia? I was almost murdered in 2000, my whole face had to be reconstructed but because of my fear I haven't even finished that, I moved to Everett to hide from my stalker & instead got a new one in a uniform who terrorized me so badly I gave my only source of comfort or sense of safety away to save their lives. 7) Furthermore this also goes into deprivation of property since the aw insists on calling sentient beings "property" & also includes conspiracy to deprive me permanently of my civil & property rights. Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to the owners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have been denied procedural due process by the City of Everett and/or (AC) authorities. The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they "substantially prevail," recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). (6) In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the claimant. In addition, in a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 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. Id. 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. Id. The petitioner is the rightful owners of their dogs and cats, their property in dogs and cats is not "contraband", statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the petitioners. If the state argues that the pets are "derivative contraband" and that petitioner is somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property in dogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvannia, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is "derivative contraband". Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory forfeiture procedure. . . 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 claming 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' property. 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). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner's property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State's civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. RCW 16.52.100 provides that if an animal is confined without necessary food or water for more than 36 hours, and the officer finds it extremely difficult to provide the animal with food or water, the officer may remove the animals to protective custody for that purpose. RCW 16.52.085 sets forth the method whereby an animal may be seized for protective custody for feeding and care. An animal may be seized by an officer only with a warrant UNLESS the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. If the officer decides that an animal is in an immediate life threatening condition to justify summary seizure of the animals, proper notice must be given to the owner of the animal by (1) posting at the place of seizure, and (2) personal service to a person residing at the place of seizure, OR by registered mail to the owner. The Notice must be written notice to the owner of the circumstances of the removal of the animals (without a warrant) and the legal remedies available under this chapter to the owner of the animal(s). The proper procedures by statute are enumerated below. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated. 8) It should also be noted that Officer Trask took my animals at around 10 a.m. But didn't show up at the Everett Animals shelter until 4:40 p.m. At which time my Eskimo dog was bleeding from his rectum & unable to walk, my Kelpie dog was in full throes of seizures even though he had been seizure free for over a year, & my Schnauzer was bloody, missing teeth & hypothermic. I

want to know what those sick & twisted sadistic people did to my dogs, if you notice NONE of these injuries are noted on any of my charging papers except to say the Eskimo wouldn't walk & that the Kelpie had a seizure.She is also listed as treating my dogs along with another animals control officer when they are in NO way qualified to treat my animals Please note: again I am not trying to be fresh in citing laws that you all know full well but I am giving myself a frame of reference & trying to communicate why I think I have cause for a Tort Claim, & for filing a complaint. TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I SUBCHAPTER IGENERALLY 1981. Equal rights under the law (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law 1982. Property rights of citizens All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. 1996. Protection and preservation of traditional religions of Native Americans On and after August 11, 1978, it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. RCW 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, unless the disclosure has been authorized by statute or by the terms of a contract involving (a) the state officer's or state employee's agency and (b) the person or persons who have authority to waive the confidentiality of the information. (3) No state officer or state employee may disclose confidential information to any person not entitled or authorized to receive the information. 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; (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.). 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.

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. I indicate a desire for nondisclosure. Initials: ___________ Initials: ___________

4. Attestation. I declare that the foregoing information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Your Signature: Your Printed Name: Address: Daytime Phone: Date: _____________________________________ 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.

Okay so here is the states STAR witness She is sending out these emails saying Everett Animal Control is releasing personal information to her about me. The beauty of it is she is lying, or maybe they really did release the info to her & they are lying but its going to make court very interesting Here is why: Okay if they say they released the personal information they need to come up with proof of it & they leave the City of Everett open to yet another Tort Claim, if they try to cover their butts & say they didnt release it to her it just goes to prove my case that she is a lunatic & a liar. The thing about it is this woman posted almost 100 ads on Craigslist about me maybe more, she sent out emails to well over 500 people about me, so this is something sicker & more sinister than her trying to help animals The first night I came over to her house on the 19th of December, she was helping me with my phone that a doggie chewed up to get all my numbers & pictures off of it to put on my new phone & I gave her my old phone after that,but I noticed she had let the computer sit & it plays all the pictures on her computer for her screensaver & there were several pictures of me & several of my husband & I, sorry but that creeped me out. I think she gets obsessed with someone & goes after them to destroy them, I think that is what she does with her whole life. Please keep in mind this is a woman who counts all her knives, forks & spoons, & who made me crawl up on a chair with a tube of toothpaste to cover up pinholes in the corner of her ceilings because she thought the 2 rapists next door had crawled up in the crawl space & poked a hole in them to watch her & masturbate. She was also facing forgery charges earlier in 2010 but I dont know what happened with that. This is also a woman who gets restraining orders on 8 yr old boys. Also a woman who has an eviction every year near as I can figure every year since 1991 & some years 2 of them! Maybe she thought she could get some kind of a reward from Crime-Stoppers for turning me to pay the rent she was 3 months late on. Then again she may have other reasons for doing this. I know she was calling CPS on her sons girlfriend AND her ex-son in law & his new girlfriend one night & lying, & I told her she could go to jail for that or worse yet those peoples kids could get taken away, & possibly be abused or molested in a foster home at which point she told me to shut the f*ck up, that she knew what she was doing & why. Or it could be because she was also in trouble with Animal Control, I am still trying to find out the disposition of that case because if was dropped Im going to have a ball with that at my trial, if she is testifying in behalf of the state in exchange for having those charges dismissed they are done. Either way as long as I can get this information to the jury I might have a chance. I wonder what they are going to think about 30+ emails she sent to animal control in just a matter of days, I have requested them but havent received them yet but no worries I will be sure to post them as well What amazes me is that the state is still going to call her as a witness, amazing, but who cares, it helps my case tremendously. ==================================================================== Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:13:13 -0800 From: stopanimalabuseandfraud@yahoo.com Subject: Brandia Taamu/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!!! To: animalcarenetwork@yahoogroups.com; information@popptricities.org; cascadeanimal@yahoo.com; melissa_companionanimal@hotmail.com; info@kindredsoulsfoundation.org; perrin@savinggreatanimals.org; spot@savingpetsoneatatime.org; violet@ucarerescue.com; sccpets@yahoo.com; drawashington@hotmail.com; info@vipp.org;

dogs@vipp.org; sandjswanson@juno.com; info@paws.org; amy@seattlehumane.org; xol@drizzle.com; southsoundadoptions@gmail.com; vickijimniles@msn.com; dogfarm@gmail.com; andreanelson2005@yahoo.com; WECARE161@hotmail.com; angelahoschek@msn.com Brandia Taamu came to stay at a friends 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. Brandias 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: roseandgeorge@hotmail.com To: animalcarenetwork@yahoogroups.com; information@popptricities.org; cascadeanimal@yahoo.com; melissa_companionanimal@hotmail.com; info@kindredsoulsfoundation.org; perrin@savinggreatanimals.org; spot@savingpetsoneatatime.org; violet@ucarerescue.com; sccpets@yahoo.com; drawashington@hotmail.com; info@vipp.org; dogs@vipp.org; sandjswanson@juno.com; info@paws.org; amy@seattlehumane.org; xol@drizzle.com; southsoundadoptions@gmail.com; vickijimniles@msn.com; dogfarm@gmail.com; andreanelson2005@yahoo.com; wecare161@hotmail.com; angelahoschek@msn.com; betshar@fairpoint.net; rr_flores@comcast.net; outwestpetrescue@yahoo.com; thebigdogproject@yahoo.com; dogs@homewardpet.org; dmelsha@charter.net; rescue@cprgroup.org; toni@happytailsrescue.com; washingtonshepherds@yahoo.com; pattyk@folcas.org; jme@motleyzoo.org; marthalight@aol.com; sandy@animalnature.com; wigglesandwags@comcast.net; musicaldreams@gmail.com; dyarchak@q.com; camelot@gemsi.com; catherine.m.wilson@gmail.com; info@peopleunitedforpets.com; elleny@comcast.net; puglady@hotmail.com; nwinternationalpetrescue@gmail.com; shannon@loveamutt.org; lynn@loveamutt.org; cmanning23@comcast.net; crimis@msn.com; linda.logan@myquiznos.com Subject: Why Brandia Taamus dogs & cats were taken! Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:22:11 -0800 Anyone who has any questions about WHY Brandia Taamus 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 Taamus 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 Brandias 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 Brandias 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 dads. 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 Brandias animals all had Giardia & Worms. The dogs Brandia took to Christines (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 someones animals without evidence that they are abused or neglected! Brandia is facing criminal charges, for many reasons. BRANDIA TAAMU NEEDS TO TELL THE TRUTH!!! Rose

CITY OF EVERETT V BRANDIA TAAMU STATEMENT OF FACTS:

( DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ( RETURN OF MY SEIZED ( ANIMALS & PROPERTY

1) I have tried petitions, I have tried motions, & yet the City of Everett, refuses to return property & animals which clearly belongs to me amounting to criminal theft. 2) The court made statements in a criminal court hearing that were absolutely inappropriate during a hearing to place my dogs outside of the Everett Animal Shelter to the effect of "you abused your dogs so I think that the shelter knows what is better for them" When I asked if the court had already indicted me, there was a refusal to answer but it was crystal clear from the statement that the courts had already done so. The statement was indictive in intent. 3) In my Motion for dismissal which the courts said "made me look bad" I have also cited the various laws. At the cost of "looking bad", I have begged the courts, petitioned the courts, now I am demanding that my animals & property be returned to me including my dead dog's body so he can have a customary blessing & proper burial. At the cost of "looking bad" I am demanding my rights as a citizen of the United States of America, & Washington state. 4) My due process & civil rights have been violated & I am citing the laws to you in regards to this matter in case you are not aware of it A) I was never given notice of my legal remedies as REQUIRED by state law under 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. B) My animals are NOT subject to forfeiture pursuant to 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. C) Everett Animal Control has already gleaned all the "evidence" they needed from blood work, lab testing & photographs, my animals are not contraband: derivative, or otherwise & they are not subject to forfeiture under statute. They have not been used in the commission of a felony, they have not been used in any drug transaction & in case it has been forgotten by the courts I have not been criminally convicted my court case has not even commenced yet. Furthermore The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is derivative contraband. Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory forfeiture procedure. . . 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' property. 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). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to the owners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have been denied procedural due process by the City of Everett and/or (AC) authorities. D) The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. I am the rightful owners of these dogs and cats, my property in dogs and cats is not contraband, statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the me. If the state argues that the pets are derivative contraband and that I am are somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property in dogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. Washington State's forfeiture statutes are exclusive. Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners' property. 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). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner's property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State's civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. The proper procedures by statute are enumerated above. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated. E) In regards to the euthanasia of George amounting to permanent deprivation of property & the continued impound of my animals/property my due process rights have been blatantly trampled on. There is no question that I have a protected property interest in the ownership of these animals, and the seizure and impoundment of these dogs triggers due process, Pasco v. Reihl, 635 So.2d 17 (S.Ct. 1994). In the instant case, the petitioner's private property was subject to, among other things, physical confinement, and muzzling. In the aggregate, these restrictions are a deprivation of property and before such restrictions are imposed, a property owner must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. I have suffered a deprivation of property without benefit of a hearing, and such violation was a violation of my procedural due process rights. Id. at 19. See also, Mansour v. King, 131 Wash. App. 255 (Wash. App.2006) and Philips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. of Animal Regulation, 183 Ca. App. 3d 372 (Cal. App. 1986). The deprivation here is unquestionably more severe than Pasco, as this case involves destruction; a total, complete and final deprivation of my property rights. Where the property was forfeited without constitutionally adequate notice to the claimant, the courts must provide relief, either by vacating the default judgment, or by allowing a collateral suit. See Seguin v Eide, 720 F2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1983), on remand after judgment vacated, 462 U.S.1101,103 S. Ct. 2446 (1983); Wiren v Eide, 542 F2d 757 (9th Cir. 1976). Menkarell v. Bureau of Narcotics, 463 F2d 88 (3rd Cir. 1972); Jaekel v United States, 304 F Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y 1969); Glup v United States, 523 F2d 557, 560 (8th Cir. 1975). (See FED. R. CIV. P. Supplemental Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions Rule A(1)(B) (making rules applicable to forfeiture actions in rem arising from a federal statute) Where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process, "it is no answer to say that in his particular case due process of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits." Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 35 S. Ct. 625, 629, 59 L. Ed. 1027 (1915). As we observed in Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965), only "wip[ing] the slate clean ... would have restored the petitioner to the position he would have occupied had due process of law been accorded to him in the first place." The Due Process Clause demands no less in this case. Peralta, supra, 108 U.S. at 898-99, 900. F) I have an affirmative defense, which is required as in Federal Forfeiture laws & in Washington state law. Affirmative defenses must be raised in the answer, Fed. R. Civ. P and Sup. Ct. R. Civil Rule 8(c), but the answer may be amended even at the time of trial to conform with the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P and Sup. Ct. R.-Civil Rule 15(b). Also in Washington state 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. G) This whole situation seems to be falling into the "Color of Law" In the words of Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice Rutledge He who acts under "color" of law may be a federal officer or a state officer. He may act under "color" of federal law or of state law. The statute does not come into play merely because the federal law or the state law under which the officer purports to act is violated. It is applicable when and only when someone is deprived of a federal right by that action. The fact that it is also a violation of state law does not make it any the less a federal offense punishable as such. Nor does its punishment by federal authority encroach on state authority or relieve the state from its responsibility for punishing state offenses. 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),[24] 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;[25] 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.[30] 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. I am the owner of these animals, I was never given proper notice of my rights & all of my constitutional rights have been violated, from the the 4th, 5th, 8th & 14th amendments at least. Not to mention I have suffered cruel & unusual punishment, as have my animals more so than myself. It has been 108 DAYS since I have seen MY dogs & cat, not yours, not the City of Everett's, not the Everett Animal Shelter's, but MY dogs & cat. I am not even sure WHY Everett is continuing in the case against me, unless they have this much money to waste on a woman sleeping in a car, which is absolutely entirely ridiculous & I am sure the people of the city would love to know that their tax dollars are hard at work trying to prosecute MISDEMEANOR cases that have an affirmative defense. I realize that these statements may be taken as contempt, they are NOT, they are common sense, which has up til now not prevailed. Because of your bias, law says you should step down anyway, it is recorded, these are statements you have made in an open court that have been recorded & will soon be transcribed. I am completely flabbergasted with the lack of regard or respect for Washington state law, & Constitutional law, I would submit that is the courts who are in contempt of me, not I, who are in contempt. In your statement that the "Washington State Supreme Court believes I have the right to represent myself, but you in Snohomish County don't think so" further illustrates my point. In every appeal docket I have read, when Snohomish or Everett seizes property the appellate always wins, so this is a pattern in this district, the arbitrary taking of a persons property is prohibited, but beyond the law, the permanent deprivation of the last days of life with George, & the past 108 days without my animals are reprehensible & the courts have made themselves a willing party to this with just the statements that have been made. I now ask for the relief sought, or another quick dismissal so that I can move forward with this action to other administrative agencies as well as the governing court authority of the state of Washington. I am not a lawyer, I am sick & tired, & broken-hearted, you have summarily dismissed my Petition for the return of my animals & property, the Petition to represent myself Pro Se, my Petition for Dismissal, & my request to leave my animals where they were so that I would know where they are at. It is absolutely insane that I have to learn the law & cite law to anyone in the courts. I want my animals & property back, I am entitled by law to have them returned, no matter what the court's "opinion" is of me, the law is the law which you have sworn to uphold. Respectfully Submitted, Brandia Taamu April,23rd, 2011

Municipal Court of Everett Washington County of Snohomish

In re: No. CRP-3735 City of Everett V. Brandia Taamu (Petition for Dismissal (of all Charges & Return (of all Seized Property

Brandia Taamu moves the court for an order dismissing this action City of Everett V. Brandia Taamu for these reasons: 1) It will be shown that my affirmative defense is in fact credible & that my animals did NOT suffer unjustifiable pain. I got evicted, my husband ran off with everything & I was out of work 16.52.207 Animal cruelty in the second degree. (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence: (a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure (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. 2) It will be shown that Officer Weaver & Officer Trask conspired to make false allegations attirbuting statements to a party who did not make them, taking photos that CLEARLY left out one side of my vehicle that in particular contained the dog's food & supplies. My vet is supposed to be consulting a lawyer as well because of the statements Officer Weaver made that were untrue. It is also amazing to me that Prosecutor Fisher even believed he could file a case that would have any merit, with all the conflicting evidence. He also let me present my whole case in front of the Commissioner in Superior Court & neither one let me know I had the right to invoke my 5th Amendment rights in order not to incriminate myself or give away my case. If you honestly take a look at my dogs intitial vet exam records you will see all but George (who was terminally ill)were "Bright, Alert, & Responsive" all had clean fecals, except for non-motile bacteria on 2 of them, then the next statement from the same day they were all "dying", had bloodshot eyes, even their teeth got worse, oh but most precious of all is my GRAY dog supposedly had urine stains on her fur, impossible, & my Tri-Colored dog with BLACK feet also had urine stains supposedly. You will aslo note that Soffie the dog who had a bladder stone removed... They never even called the vet in Shelton to confirm she had been seen there & tested, not did they request her records from our current vet. Shelton said she had cancer, our new vet said she was just fat (because I thought she was dying so I spoiled her but after a year of her doing well & just getting fat I took her to our new vet & he didn't catch anything about a bladder stone) 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
[1] 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. [2] 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. [6] 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.] CHAPTER 42.52 RCW ETHICS IN PUBLIC SERVICE. RCW 42.52.010 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in

this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Agency" means any state board, commission, bureau, committee, department, institution, division, or tribunal in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of state government. "Agency" includes all elective offices, the state legislature, those institutions of higher education created and supported by the state government, and those courts that are parts of state government. (2) "Head of agency" means the chief executive officer of an agency. In the case of an agency headed by a commission, board, committee, or other body consisting of more than one natural person, agency head means the person or board authorized to appoint agency employees and regulate their conduct. (3) "Assist" means to act, or offer or agree to act, in such a way as to help, aid, advise, furnish information to, or otherwise provide assistance to another person, believing that the action is of help, aid, advice, or assistance to the person and with intent so to assist such person. (6) "Confidential information" means (a) specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to the general public on request or (b) information made confidential by law. (12) "Official duty" means those duties within the specific scope of employment of the state officer or state employee as defined by the officer's or employee's agency or by statute or the state Constitution. (13) "Participate" means to participate in state action or a proceeding personally and substantially as a state officer or state employee, through approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise but does not include preparation, consideration, or enactment of legislation or the performance of legislative duties. (14) "Person" means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, firm, institution, or other entity, whether or not operated for profit. (15) "Regulatory agency" means any state board, commission, department, or officer, except those in the legislative or judicial branches, authorized by law to conduct adjudicative proceedings, issue permits or licenses, or to control or affect interests of identified persons. (16) "Responsibility" in connection with a transaction involving the state, means the direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either exercisable alone or through subordinates, effectively to approve, disapprove, or otherwise direct state action in respect of such transaction. (17) "State action" means any action on the part of an agency, including, but not limited to: (a) A decision, determination, finding, ruling, or order; and (b) A grant, payment, award, license, contract, transaction, sanction, or approval, or the denial thereof, or failure to act with respect to a decision, determination, finding, ruling, or order. (18) "State officer" means every person holding a position of public trust in or under an executive, legislative, or judicial office of the state. "State officer" includes judges of the superior court, judges of the court of appeals, justices of the supreme court, members of the legislature together with the secretary of the senate and the chief clerk of the house of representatives, holders of elective offices in the executive branch of state government, chief

executive officers of state agencies, members of boards, commissions, or committees with authority over one or more state agencies or institutions, and employees of the state who are engaged in supervisory, policy-making, or policy-enforcing work. For the purposes of this chapter, "state officer" also includes any person exercising or undertaking to exercise the powers or functions of a state officer. (19) "State employee" means an individual who is employed by an agency in any branch of state government. For purposes of this chapter, employees of the superior courts are not state officers or state employees. (21)(a) "Transaction involving the state" means a proceeding, application, submission, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, case, or other similar matter that the state officer, state employee, or former state officer or state employee in question believes, or has reason to believe:(i) Is, or will be, the subject of state action; or (ii) Is one to which the state is or will be a party; or (iii) Is one in which the state has a direct and substantial proprietary interest. RCW 42.52.040 Assisting in transactions. (1) Except in the course of official duties or incident to official duties, no state officer or state employee may assist another person, directly or indirectly, whether or not for compensation, in a transaction involving the state: (4) This chapter does not prevent a state officer or state employee from assisting, in a transaction involving the state: RCW 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, unless the disclosure has been authorized by statute or by the terms of a contract involving (a) the state officer's or state employee's agency and (b) the person or persons who have authority to waive the confidentiality of the information. (3) No state officer or state employee may disclose confidential information to any person not entitled or authorized to receive the information. (4) No state officer or state employee may intentionally conceal a record if the officer or employee knew the record was required to be released under chapter 42.17 RCW, was under a personal obligation to release the record, and failed to do so. This subsection does not apply where the decision to withhold the record was made in good faith. [1996 c 213 4; 1994 c 154 105.] RCW 42.52.060 Testimony of state officers and state employees. This chapter does not prevent a state officer or state employee from giving testimony under oath or from making statements required to be made under penalty of perjury or contempt. [1994 c 154 106.] RCW 42.52.100 Conditions on appearance before state agencies or doing business with the state-Hearing-Judicial review. (1) The head of an agency, upon finding that any former state officer or state employee of such agency or any other person has violated any provision of

this chapter or rules adopted under it, may, in addition to any other powers the head of such agency may have, bar or impose reasonable conditions upon: (a) The appearance before such agency of such former state officer or state employee or other person; and (b) The conduct of, or negotiation or competition for, business with such agency by such former state officer or state employee or other person, such period of time as may reasonably be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. (2) Findings of violations referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be made on record after notice and hearing, conducted in accordance with the Washington Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Such findings and orders are subject to judicial review. (3) This section does not apply to the legislative or judicial branches of government. [1994 c 154 110; 1969 ex.s. c 234 27. Formerly RCW 42.18.270.] RCW 42.52.160 Use of persons, money, or property for private gain. (1) No state officer or state employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer's or employee's official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the private benefit or gain of the officer, employee, or another. (2) This section does not prohibit the use of public resources to benefit others as part of a state officer's or state employee's official duties. (3) The appropriate ethics boards may adopt rules providing exceptions to this section for occasional use of the state officer or state employee, of de minimis cost and value, if the activity does not result in interference with the proper performance of public duties. [1996 c 213 7; 1994 c 154 116; 1987 c 426 3. Formerly RCW 42.18.217.] RCW 42.52.360 Authority of executive ethics board. (1) The executive ethics board shall enforce this chapter and rules adopted under it with respect to state-wide elected officers and all other officers and employees in the executive branch, boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. (2) The executive ethics board shall: (a) Develop educational materials and training; (b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt rules defining working hours for purposes of RCW 42.52.180 and where otherwise authorized under chapter 154, Laws of 1994; (c) Issue advisory opinions; (d) Investigate, hear, and determine complaints by any person or on its own motion; (e) Impose sanctions including reprimands and monetary penalties; (f) Recommend to the appropriate authorities suspension, removal from position, prosecution, or other appropriate remedy; and (g) Establish criteria regarding the levels of civil penalties appropriate for violations of this chapter and rules adopted under it. (3) The board may: (a) Issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence relating to any matter under examination by the board or involved in any hearing; (b) Administer oaths and affirmations; (c) Examine witnesses; and (d) Receive evidence. ( 4) The executive ethics board may review and approve agency policies as provided for in this chapter. (5) This section does not apply to state officers and state employees of the judicial branch. [1994 c 154 206.] RCW 42.52.370 Authority of commission on judicial conduct. The commission on judicial

conduct shall enforce this chapter and rules adopted under it with respect to state officers and employees of the judicial branch and may do so according to procedures prescribed in Article IV, section 31 of the state Constitution. In addition to the sanctions authorized in Article IV, section 31 of the state Constitution, the commission may impose sanctions authorized by this chapter. [1994 c 154 207.] RCW 42.52.410 Filing complaint. (1) A person may, personally or by his or her attorney, make, sign, and file with the appropriate ethics board a complaint on a form provided by the appropriate ethics board. The complaint shall state the name of the person alleged to have violated this chapter or rules adopted under it and the particulars thereof, and contain such other information as may be required by the appropriate ethics board. (2) If it has reason to believe that any person has been engaged or is engaging in a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it, an ethics board may issue a complaint. [1994 c 154 211.] RCW 42.52.420 Investigation. After the filing of any complaint, except as provided in RCW 42.52.450, the staff of the appropriate ethics board shall investigate the complaint. The investigation shall be limited to the alleged facts contained in the complaint. The results of the investigation shall be reduced to writing and a determination shall be made that there is or that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it has been or is being committed. A copy of the written determination shall be provided to the complainant and to the person named in such complaint. [1994 c 154 212.] RCW 42.52.430 Public hearing-Findings. (1) If the ethics board determines there is reasonable cause under RCW 42.52.420 that a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it occurred, a public hearing on the merits of the complaint shall be held. (2) The ethics board shall designate the location of the hearing. The case in support of the complaint shall be presented at the hearing by staff of the ethics board. (3) The respondent shall file a written answer to the complaint and appear at the hearing in person or otherwise, with or without counsel, and submit testimony and be fully heard. The respondent has the right to cross-examine witnesses. (4) Testimony taken at the hearing shall be under oath and recorded. (5) If, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the ethics board finds that the respondent has violated this chapter or rules adopted under it, the board shall file an order stating findings of fact and enforcement action as authorized under this chapter. (6) If, upon all the evidence, the ethics board finds that the respondent has not engaged in an alleged violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it, the ethics board shall state findings of fact and shall similarly issue and file an order dismissing the complaint. (7) If the board makes a determination that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation has been or is being committed or has made a finding under subsection (6) of this section, the attorney general shall represent the officer or employee in any action subsequently commenced based on the alleged facts in the complaint. [1994 c 154 213.] RCW 42.52.440 Review of order. Except as otherwise provided by law, reconsideration or judicial review of an ethics board's order that a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it has occurred shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW applicable to

review of adjudicative proceedings. [1994 c 154 214.] RCW 42.52.450 Complaint against legislator or state-wide elected official. (1) If a complaint alleges a violation of RCW 42.52.180 by a legislator or state-wide elected official other than the attorney general, the attorney general shall conduct the investigation under RCW 42.52.420 and recommend action to the appropriate ethics board. (2) If a complaint alleges a violation of RCW 42.52.180 by the attorney general, the state auditor shall conduct the investigation under RCW 42.52.420 and recommend action to the appropriate ethics board. [1994 c 154 215.] RCW 42.52.460 Citizen actions. Any person who has notified the appropriate ethics board and the attorney general in writing that there is reason to believe that RCW 42.52.180 is being or has been violated may, in the name of the state, bring a citizen action for any of the actions authorized under this chapter. A citizen action may be brought only if the appropriate ethics board or the attorney general have failed to commence an action under this chapter within forty-five days after notice from the person, the person has thereafter notified the appropriate ethics board and the attorney general that the person will commence a citizen's action within ten days upon their failure to commence an action, and the appropriate ethics board and the attorney general have in fact failed to bring an action within ten days of receipt of the second notice. If the person who brings the citizen's action prevails, the judgment awarded shall escheat to the state, but the person shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the state of Washington for costs and attorneys' fees incurred. If a citizen's action that the court finds was brought without reasonable cause is dismissed, the court may order the person commencing the action to pay all costs of trial and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the defendant. Upon commencement of a citizen action under this section, at the request of a state officer or state employee who is a defendant, the office of the attorney general shall represent the defendant if the attorney general finds that the defendant's conduct complied with this chapter and was within the scope of employment. [1994 c 154 216.] RCW 42.52.470 Referral for enforcement. As appropriate, an ethics board may refer a complaint: (1) To an agency for initial investigation and proposed resolution which shall be referred back to the appropriate ethics board for action; or (2) To the attorney general's office or prosecutor for appropriate action. [1994 c 154 217.] RCW 42.52.480 Action by boards. (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, an ethics board may order payment of the following amounts if it finds a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it after a hearing under RCW 42.52.370 or other applicable law: (a) Any damages sustained by the state that are caused by the conduct constituting the violation; (b) From each such person, a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars per violation or three times the economic value of any thing received or sought in violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it, whichever is greater; and (c) Costs, including reasonable investigative costs, which shall be included as part of the limit under (b) of this subsection. The costs may not exceed the penalty imposed. The payment owed on the penalty shall be reduced by the amount of the costs paid. (2) Damages under this section may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment in a civil case. [1994 c 154 218.]

RCW 42.52.490 Action by attorney general. (1) Upon a written determination by the attorney general that the action of an ethics board was clearly erroneous or if requested by an ethics board, the attorney general may bring a civil action in the superior court of the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred against a state officer, state employee, former state officer, former state employee, or other person who has violated or knowingly assisted another person in violating any of the provisions of this chapter or the rules adopted under it. In such action the attorney general may recover the following amounts on behalf of the state of Washington: (a) Any damages sustained by the state that are caused by the conduct constituting the violation; (b) From each such person, a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars per violation or three times the economic value of any thing received or sought in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted under it, whichever is greater; and (c) Costs, including reasonable investigative costs, which shall be included as part of the limit under (b) of this subsection. The costs may not exceed the penalty imposed. The payment owed on the penalty shall be reduced by the amount of the costs paid. (2) In any civil action brought by the attorney general upon the basis that the attorney general has determined that the board's action was clearly erroneous, the court shall not proceed with the action unless the attorney general has first shown, and the court has found, that the action of the board was clearly erroneous. [1994 c 154 219.] RCW 42.52.520 Disciplinary action. (1) A violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it is grounds for disciplinary action. (2) The procedures for any such action shall correspond to those applicable for disciplinary action for employee misconduct generally; for those state officers and state employees not specifically exempted in chapter 41.06 RCW, the rules set forth in chapter 41.06 RCW shall apply. Any action against the state officer or state employee shall be subject to judicial review to the extent provided by law for disciplinary action for misconduct of state officers and state employees of the same category and grade. [1994 c 154 222; 1969 ex.s. c 234 26. Formerly RCW 42.18.260.] RCW 42.52.530 Additional investigative authority. In addition to other authority under this chapter, the attorney general may investigate persons not under the jurisdiction of an ethics board whom the attorney general has reason to believe were involved in transactions in violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it. [1994 c 154 223.] RCW 42.52.540 Limitations period. Any action taken under this chapter must be commenced within five years from the date of the violation. However, if it is shown that the violation was not discovered because of concealment by the person charged, then the action must be commenced within two years from the date the violation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered: (1) By any person with direct or indirect supervisory responsibilities over the person who allegedly committed the violation; or (2) if no person has direct or indirect supervisory authority over the person who committed the violation, by the appropriate ethics board. [1994 c 154 224.] RCW 42.52.900 Legislative declaration. Government derives its powers from the people.

Ethics in government are the foundation on which the structure of government rests. State officials and employees of government hold a public trust that obligates them, in a special way, to honesty and integrity in fulfilling the responsibilities to which they are elected and appointed. Paramount in that trust is the principle that public office, whether elected or appointed, may not be used for personal gain or private advantage.The citizens of the state expect all state officials and employees to perform their public responsibilities in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards and to conduct the business of the state only in a manner that advances the public's interest. State officials and employees are subject to the sanctions of law and scrutiny of the media; ultimately, however, they are accountable to the people and must consider this public accountability as a particular obligation of the public service. Only when affairs of government are conducted, at all levels, with openness as provided by law and an unswerving commitment to the public good does government work as it should. The obligations of government rest equally on the state's citizenry. The effectiveness of government depends, fundamentally, on the confidence citizens can have in the judgments and decisions of their elected representatives. Citizens, therefore, should honor and respect the principles and the spirit of representative democracy,recognizing that both elected and appointed officials, together with state employees, seek to carry out their public duties with professional skill and dedication to the public interest. Such service merits public recognition and support. All who have the privilege of working for the people of Washington state can have but one aim: To give the highest public service to its citizens . [1994 c 154 1.] 3) It can be clearly shown that Officer Trask made NO attempt to check out the credibility of the witnesses, as evidenced by the fact that the Landlord made the complaint thinking they were Rose Adams dogs, & the fact that right in the Washington state court system is a termination of parental rights for Rose Adams that clearly states she is mentally deficient & has been for quite some time, the "nieghbor" staking the complaint did so at the request of Rose Adams & it should be noted that she is also living with 2 sexual predators who are currently under supervision & trying to conceive a child with her current boyfriend who repeatedly raped a 3 yr old child & stalked a 13 yr old child as well & who by court order is not even supposed to be around children Just a precusory look at Rose Adams criminal record should've been enough to give anyone pause. 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 Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington Opinion Information Sheet Title of Case: Docket Number: 50636-6-I In RE the Dependency Of: XXX (dob 8/20/92) v. Rose Adams and George Beutler, App. V. Dshs, Resp. File Date: 03/03/2003 SOURCE OF APPEAL Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County Docket No: 017006963 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 06/06/2002 Judge signing: Hon. Richard J. Thorpe IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN RE THE DEPENDENCY OF: No. 50636-6-I XXX consol. with Cause Nos. DOB: 08/20/92, 50637-4-I, 50739-7-I XX DOB: 05/31/86, DIVISION ONE Minor Children. ROSE ADAMS and GEORGE BEUTLER, Appellants, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Facts Adams and Beutler are the biological parents of X.X. who was born on August 20, 1992. Adams is also the biological mother of X.X., who was born on May 31, 1986. Both XX and XX were removed from the home following the filing of a dependency petition in February 2000. The dependency petition recited a lengthy history of referrals and concerns about neglect, anger management, domestic

violence,parenting skills, and mental health issues. In particular, the petition alleged that Adams had physically and verbally assaulted both children and expressed concerns about Beutler's ability to protect the children. 1 In June 2000, C.A. and J.B. were found dependent as to Adams; J.B. was found dependent as to Beutler. Under the terms of the agreed dependency order, Adams and Beutler acknowledged that there had been "extreme family conflict" in the home, including "inappropriate discipline" of the children. The parents also acknowledged that there had been indications of substance abuse, including the fact that Beutler had tested positive in February 2000 for amphetamine/methamphetamine and THC. Dr. Wagner diagnosed Adams with antisocial personality disorder, finding her to be hostile and with little insight into the events involving her children. Adams also displayed features of narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. Adams generally blamed "the system" for her children's behavior and emotional difficulties. According to Dr. Wagner, it is difficult to treat individuals with a similar profile because they tend to blame others. Dr. Wagner observed little evidence of bonding between Adams and C.A. or Adams and J.B. and concluded that an attempt at reunification with their mother was not in the children's best interest Dr. Wagner diagnosed Beutler with dependent personality disorder, noting his difficulty in expressing disagreement with others, his excessive need for others to assume responsibility for most major areas in his life, and his difficulty in making everyday decisions without advice and reassurance. Dr. Wagner found Beutler's dependency reflected in his commitment to the relationship with Adams, which was generally controlled by Adams and in which Beutler was demoralized and verbally abused. Beutler moved out of Adams' house shortly after the hearing and obtained a separate residence. But he went to Adams' house on December 16, 2001, in violation of a restraining order. After January 2002,The court also terminated Beutler's parental rights in J.B, finding that he had failed to complete certain court-ordered services, failed to stay in contact with his social worker, and that he had been unable to sever his relationship with Adams. Decision At the termination hearing, Adams flatly denied ever abusing J.B. or C.A. Beutler denied that he ever saw Adams abusing the children, but acknowledged that he suspected physical abuse when he heard yelling and something that sounded like slapping. J.B. and C.A. consistently reported ongoing emotional and physical abuse by the biological mother to the evaluators in this case, the therapists, school personal {sic}, social worker, and guardian ad litem. Any hearsay statements were not proof of abuse but the fact that J.B. and C.A. made consistent repeated statements is evidence of abuse. 1.29 The totality of the trial evidence confirms, and this court finds that the children were physically abused by the mother. But the State's witnesses clearly established that Adams had made no significant progress in her ability to parent J.B. or C.A. Dr. Wagner, who diagnosed Adams with an antisocial personality disorder, noted that during the psychological evaluation, Adams frequently became angry and raised her voice, cursing and going off on tangential topics. Adams dominated the conversation whenever Beutler was present and frequently abused him verbally. Despite her acknowledgement at the time of the agreed dependency order that there had been extreme family conflict and inappropriate discipline, Adams blamed C.A., Beutler, and "the system" for the family's difficulties, and characterized C.A. as manipulative and dishonest. The record was also undisputed that J.B. and C.A. suffer from severe emotional or behavioral problems. J.B. had gone through extensive counseling, with the recognition that he needed continued social and emotional development in a structured and safe environment. C.A. told Dr. Wagner that her greatest fear was that her mother was correct and that she was a bad child. No evidence indicated that Adams had any insight into the severity of the children's problems, whatever their source, or that she could acquire any meaningful ability to respond to the children's needs in the foreseeable future. Dr. Wagner also observed little evidence of a psychological bond in the interaction between Adams and J.B. and C.A. J.B. remained unresponsive to Adams' attempts at affection, and Adams exhibited little eye contact, smiling, or verbal give and take in her interaction with both children. Adams did not respond to C.A.'s rudeness and the two maintained a

wide distance between one another. Based on her evaluation, Adams' inability to control her anger, lack of insight, poor prognosis for treatment, and failure to benefit from many years of services, C.A.'s strong desire to remain in her father's home, and J.B.'s expressed fear of Adams, Dr. Wagner concluded that reunification with their mother was not in the children's best interest. Other State witnesses reached similar conclusions. Ellis Amdur, a child mental health specialist, interviewed Adams in conjunction with an assessment of C.A.'s placement with her father. During the interview, Adams asserted that all of C.A.'s allegations were false and blamed C.A. for many of the things that had happened during the dependency. Adams denied any personal responsibility. Dr. Bramhall diagnosed Adams with a bipolar II disorder, "characterized by alternating cycles of hypomania and depression and recently mixed states." During the interview, Adams insisted that prior CPS referrals had all been based on deliberate lies. Dr. Bramhall concluded that Adams' inability to control her anger prevented her from forming significant attachments with her children and setting appropriate limits. Leila Copeland testified that she provided in-home parenting services for Adams for approximately 18 months. Copeland felt that Adams wanted to make changes in her behavior patterns, that she was resourceful in seeking out assistance in the community, and that there was improvement in Adams' ability to control her anger as to the child that remained in her home. But Copeland also observed that Adams frequently reverted to old habits. Copeland characterized Adams' overall progress with parenting, anger management, and communication skills as "minimal." At the end of the intervention, Copeland concluded that Adams had "minimal" insight into the effect of her actions on others. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports the trial court's findings that all necessary and reasonably available services capable of correcting parental deficiencies have been offered or provided, that no amount of services will be capable of correcting Adams' parental deficiencies, and that there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied within the foreseeable future. 50636-6-I - In RE the Dependency Of: J.A.B. (dob 8/20/92) v.Rose Adams and George Beutler, App. V. Dshs, Resp.

Spinelli v.United States 393 U.S. 410 (1969)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Spinelli (D) argued that the evidence gathered was inadmissible having been obtained pursuant to a search warrant improperly issued on the basis of a confidential informant's tip, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The warrant lacked probable cause. PROCEDURE BELOW: The D was convicted of traveling in interstate commerce with the intention of conducting illegal gambling activities. The District Court refused to suppress evidence obtained through a search of an apartment. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: The D was convicted for traveling to Missouri from Illinois with the intention of gambling. D appealed, challenging the search warrant obtained by the FBI to obtain evidence. The application on which the warrant was based included four main parts: 1. The FBI had tracked D for five days, during four of which he traveled from Illinois to a certain apartment house in Missouri, and on one day he was further tracked to a specific apartment in the building; 2. Two phone numbers are associated with the specific apartment; 3. The government officials stated that this person was a known bookie; and 4. A reliable informant told the FBI that D was a bookie and used the two phone numbers associated with the apartment in Missouri. LEGAL ISSUE: Does an informant's tip provide probable cause for the issuance of a search

warrant if the tip does not state reasons why the informant is reliable and does not include specifics regarding the facts known by the informant? HOLDING: An informant's tip does not provide probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant if the tip does not state reasons why the informant is reliable and does not include specifics regarding the facts known by the informant. OVERVIEW: Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the warrant that authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) search, which uncovered the evidence necessary for his conviction. The warrant was granted by a magistrate judge upon an affidavit stating that the FBI had observed defendant's travels to and from an apartment and that a confidential reliable informant had informed the authorities that defendant was operating a gambling operation. On certiorari, the court found that the application for the warrant was inadequate because it failed to set forth the underlying circumstances necessary to enable the magistrate to independently judge the validity of the informant's information. Also the affiant-officers failed to support their claim that their informant was "credible" or his information "reliable." The bald assertion that defendant was "known" as a gambler was entitled to no weight in appraising the magistrate's decision and the Court rejected as imprecise the "totality of circumstances" approach embraced by the court of appeals. Thus, the affidavit fell short of providing probable REASONING: (Harlan, J.) An informant's tip does not provide probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant if the tip does not state reasons why the informant is reliable and does not include specifics regarding the facts known by the informant IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL SO THAT THE MAGISTRATE MAY KNOW HE IS RELYING ON SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A CASUAL RUMOR. The Aguilar two part test is used: 1. Is the information reliable? 2. Is the informant reliable? In this case, there are no facts provided in the informant's tip to explain why the informant thought D was involved in gambling. The FBI also did not provide any reasons why they thought this particular informant was reliable. Therefore, there was no probable cause to issue the warrant. The conviction should be overturned. Reversed, for D. CONCURRENCE: (White, J.) The Draper approach would justify the issuance of a warrant in this case; nonetheless, pending a full reconsideration of that case and the Aguilar-Nathanson cases, a vote to affirm would produce an equally divided court. CRITICAL SUMMARY: I agree with the decision; otherwise, the authorities could fabricate their own tips and have almost unlimited access to our homes. AGULARA TEST: [1] RELIABILITY--- IN THIS CASE WE NEED TO KNOW WHY THE INFORMATN IS RELIABLE, A TRACK RECORD WOULD HELP,

(can be coroberated (helps w/ great details), track reckord, veracity) [2] BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE ---IN THIS CASE WE DONT KNOW HOW THE INFORMAT GOT THE INFO At no point in her request for a warrant does Officer trask say how or why she knows the rose adams is a credible witness she just says she know her to live there 4) It is evident that Officer Trask has an ongoing personal issue with my body wieght & ethnicity as evidenced in her REPEATED mention of both in any report she makes about me from the court report, the warrant report & the incident report, yet the other animal control officers & the Everett Police Officer can describe me without having to use those identifiers. In her warrant request, in her statement to the court & in her incedent report she repeatedly refers to me as a "Thin Native American Woman" if it was once, I could get that but it is crystal clear that there is an underlying personal theme in this. The ACLU & the Department of Justice both, give this merit as well. I haven't figured it out yet but somewhere in law there has to be something to do with being a "whistleblower" in regards to my complaints against the injured dogs I was puling from the shelter, but don't worry I will figure it out. I would also like to point out no matter how much good stuff I find I always check for an appellate ruling on it to make sure I am not just making pointless claims or statements 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 249 434; RRS 2686.] 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.). 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. [2003 c 53 40; 1992 c 7 15; 1909 c 249 117; Code 1881 899; 1873 p 203 98; 1854 p 92 89; RRS 2369.] 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. [2010 c 119 1; 2009 c 180 1; 1993 c 127 2; 1989 c 95 1; 1984 c 268 1; 1981 c 267 1.] Notes: Severability -- 1993 c 127: See note following RCW 9A.36.078. Construction -- 1989 c 95: "The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose." [1989 c 95 3.] Severability -- 1989 c 95: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1989 c 95 4.] Harassment: Chapters 9A.46 and 10.14 RCW. 5) It is also clearly evident that someone from the Everett Animal Shelter has been sharing some true & some false information with Rose Adams in regards to my private personal information. 6) The person responsible for this personal attack on me has been given other personal information in regards to my case BY THE COURTS THEMSELVES, Judge Odell sent them to HER houseeven though they knew my address & it was CLEARLY NOT her address they sent it there anyway, even if it was not malicious in intent it was lazy & damaging to my own personal safety & reputation. 7) Everett Municipal Code is CLEARLY in conflict with Washington state's RCW's & contrary to Prosecutor Fisher's assertions that Everett is a "First Class City" & does not answer to the Constitution

of Washington State or The Constitution of the United States he is incorrect in his assumptions, Municipal Courts are only granted thier very right to EXIST by Washington state laws, Constitiions & RCW's. His statements were recorded in an open Superior court room on my petition matter, he honestly believes that he is NOTaccountable to the state of Washington & that the City has free will to make up laws as they see fit, which is a very dangerous & wreckless attitiude, leaving the City itself open to many lawsuits RCW 16.52.085 Removal of animals for feeding Examination Notice Euthanasia. (3) Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal. ***I was NEVER given any notice of any legal remedies available to me, I had to read pretty much the entire state's RCW's WAC's & Everett Municipal Codes on my own to find out (4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date. If the custodial agency still has custody of the animal when the bond or security expires, the animal shall become the agency's property unless the court orders an alternative disposition. If a court order prevents the agency from assuming ownership and the agency continues to care for the animal, the court shall order the owner to renew a bond or security for the agency's continuing costs for the animal's care. When a court has prohibited the owner from owning or possessing a similar animal under RCW 16.52.200(3), the agency having custody of the animal may assume ownership upon seizure and the owner may not prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by petitioning the court or posting a bond. *** I am willing to do whatever the court requests to get my babies back (5) If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal's removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal's return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. if the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner. If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter. *** My dogs & cat were seized on January,6th, 2011... 80days ago (6) In a motion or petition for the animal's return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health. ***We now have a studio apt & are no longer homeless, all of my own dogs & foster dogs have vet records & are all fully immunized [2009 c 287 2; 1994 c 261 6; 1987 c 335 1; 1974 ex.s. c 12 2.]

RCW 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. (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence: (a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure; (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. ***I believe it was establshed that I was homeless & was doing the best I could for the animals at that time. Although I realize full well that living in a car is not a good situation it was only a temporary situation & I would gladly live under a bridge if it meant keeping my animals with me. They are a lifetime commitment not something to be taken lightly, I guarentee those animals would die for me, I was trying to show them the same love & loyalty that they would freely give to me. It was not their fault we were homeless, it was mine but I atleast tried to keep up with my responsibility to them to the best of my abilites [2007 c 376 1; 2005 c 481 2; 1994 c 261 9.] Notes: Finding -- Intent -- 1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011. Everett Municipal Codes 6.04.070 Prohibited conduct. C. Offenses Relating to Cruelty. It shall be unlawful for any person to: 2. Under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205, fail to provide an animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and a constant source of clear potable water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment; RCW 16.52.310 Definition (d) Provide dogs with easy and convenient access to adequate amounts of clean food and water. Food and water receptacles must be regularly cleaned and sanitized. All enclosures must contain potable water that is not frozen, is substantially free from debris, and is readily accessible to all dogs in the enclosure at all times. *** The revised code of Washington states the animals must be given access to ADEQUATE amounts of clear potable water. I was following Washington state law & common sense in regards to giving them water. I had just given them water before we all went to bed, several hours earlier, there was a water container on the hood of my car & if you can view the pictures they took of a big black pan you could still see a little water at the bottom of the pan so it didn't have time to dehydrate. Snohomish County, Washington, Code of Ordinances >> Title 9 - ANIMALS Chapter 9.12 - 9.12.080 - Cruelty to animals. The following, singly or together, are deemed to constitute cruel treatment to animals. Therefore, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to:

(3) Neglect to provide adequate daily rations of food or water to any animal within his care, custody or control; West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness. Title 35. Cities and Towns. Chapter 35.27. Towns. 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated Citation: WA ST 35.27.370 Citation: West's RCWA 35.27.370 Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 09/2010 Summary: This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances NOT IN CONFLICT with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States. Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock. Statute in Full: The council of said town shall have power: (1) To pass ordinances NOT IN CONFLICT with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States; (7) To impose and collect an annual license on every dog within the limits of the town, to prohibit dogs running at large, and to provide for the killing of all dogs found at large and not duly licensed; (14) To impose fines, penalties and forfeitures for any and all violations of ordinances, and for any breach or violation of any ordinance, to fix the penalty by fine or imprisonment, or both; but no such fine shall exceed five thousand dollars, nor the term of imprisonment exceed one year, except that the punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the punishment provided in state law for the same crime; or to provide that violations of ordinances constitute a civil violation subject to a monetary penalty, but no act which is a state crime may be made a civil violation; (16) To make all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as may be deemed expedient to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the town and its trade, commerce and manufacturers, and to do and perform any and all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter. CREDIT(S)[2008 c 129 3, eff. June 12, 2008; 1993 c 83 7; 1986 c 278 6; 1984 c 258 805; 1977 ex.s. c 316 25; 1965 ex.s. c 116 15; 1965 c 127 1; 1965 c 7 35.27.370. Prior: 1955 c 378 4; 1949 c 151 1; 1945 c 214 1; 1941 c 74 1; 1927 c 207 1; 1925 ex.s. c 159 1; 1895 c 32 1; 1890 p 201 154; Rem. Supp. 1949 9175.]

8) I was never given a copy of my legal remedies, nor was I given a copy of the warrant, the warrant was handed to me by Officer Trask who is NOTa law enforcement officer. The warrant disappeared when everyone left & I had NO pockets in which to put the warrant in as asserted by Officer Harmer. 9) I was not given competent counsel, who had ANY experience in Animal Law or Civil Rightslaw. As

a matter of fact I was given an attorney who had just passed her bar exam 2 yrs ago who could not & would not produce any experience in my type of criminal case. I might add that she was a graduate of the Cooley Law School a 4th tier law school & an online schol at that, where the SAT & GPA qualifications make it the bottom of the 4th tier plus to make matters worse the rest of her training was at Gonzaga. I called over 30 law firms & got the same response many times over: When they see those credentials on an applicant the "can" the resume. I even had one of them tell to go it alone because it was better to have a fool for a client (myself) then an idiot for a lawyer. She may turn out to be an incredible lawyer but I don't want her "practicing" on me when my dogs lives are at stake. Animal law is a newly emerging practice which is mixed with procedural, civil & even admiralty laws regardingsearch & seizure, best left to someone with experience with all or part of these areas of law. 10) I have already been deprived of my due process & my personal property permanantly without even being convicted yet, so I would respectfully request that the court redeem themselves to the extent they are able & dismiss all charges, expunge this records & all proceedings within,return my personal property, & refrain from harassing me any further Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to the owners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have been denied procedural due process by theCity of Everett and/or (AC) authorities. The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they "substantially prevail," recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). (1) The following are subject to seizure and forfeiture and no property right exists in them (6) In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the claimant. In addition, in a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 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. Id. 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. Id. The petitioner is the rightful owners of their dogs and cats, their property in dogs and cats is not "contraband", statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the petitioners. If the state argues that the pets are "derivative contraband" and that petitioner is somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property in dogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvannia, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is "derivative contraband". Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory

forfeiture procedure. . . 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 claming 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' property. 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). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner's property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State's civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. RCW 16.52.100 provides that if an animal is confined without necessary food or water for more than 36 hours, and the officer finds it extremely difficult to provide the animal with food or water, the officer may remove the animals to protective custody for that purpose. RCW 16.52.085 sets forth the method whereby an animal may be seized for protective custody for feeding and care. An animal may be seized by an officer only with a warrant UNLESS the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. If the officer decides that an animal is in an immediate life threatening condition to justify summary seizure of the animals, proper notice must be given to the owner of the animal by (1) posting at the place of seizure, and (2) personal service to a person residing at the place of seizure, OR by registered mail to the owner. The Notice must be written notice to the owner of the circumstances of the removal of the animals (without a warrant) and the legal remedies available under this chapter to the owner of the animal(s). The proper procedures by statute are enumerated below. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated. I have not seen my animals in 80 days, i have not been allowed to visit them, to call to check on them, I did not even find out the one was dead til the prosecutor just casually said oh they put that one to sleep. This is more than cruel & unusal punishment for a crime I have not even been convicted of yet, I was not even a resident of the city of Everett, nor would I ever be even if I was paid to be. It should also be noted that I used to rescue dogs from the Everett Shelter til I started to realize that EVERY dog I pulled from there was either injured or maced, sometimes both so it is very evident because of the prior harassment of Officer trask when I was an Everett citizen years ago, & the complaints I made about the injured dogs I was pulling out of there. It is crystal clear that this is malicious, in intent, & motivated by revenge & prejudice I pray that you & your courts will no longer be a party to this action. Please also let it be noted that if you deny this motion that I am willingready & able to proceded with the court hearing as it stands. I have 32 reams of evidence, 42lbs of vet records & I have a witness list of over 148 people so far, still waiting on word from another 78 people. Two of the 148 are going to fly up from California so I would like to go on record stating that I will not waive my rights to a speedy trial nor will I accept any continuances in this matter. I have not recieved full discovery, nor have I recieved competent counsel, the last attorney didn't even understand about the concept of Affidavit of Prejudice & why Judge Odell could not rule on her motion to withdraw the same day. I also have 14 motions ready for consideration, & want to have a jury trial of my peers including "Thin Native American Women" the real kind, not the blond blue eyed ones who's grandmother was a Cherokee "Princess" or still believe that Pocahontas & John Smith fell in love & got married & lived happily ever after, the one's who are college educated, & I would like atleast 1 or 2 people who have high functioning autism like myself. I am not trying to make you crazy I just want to make sure that I present every scrap of evidence as I can so I have something to appeal in case I were to lose. Plus the prosecutor ATTACKED my character by stating that I kept my dog with cancer alive to garner donations when I never have asked a dime for him, he was my boy. I was just trying to get the last few precious moments with him that I could. The day Mr fisher told me he was dead I wanted to die myself, to think he died alone, afraid & thinking I had abandoned him is more than either one of us deserved. The prosecutor has the

responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty, I have the Constitutional right to prove beyond a doubt that I am not & to defend myself & my character, this charge could destroy my ability to rescue, my ability to own my own animals, it could ruin my life which is exactly what it was intended to do. By taking my animals from me all I have to do is read & learn for 18 to 20 hours a day, I can't sleep because I have nightmares that they are killing my animals, they won't even give me back my dead dog's body because he is "evidence" he WAS a iving breathing loving sentient being, with feelings, who could love, feel fear, feel pain, & feel sorrow, & now I don't know where he is or all of his parts are. He spent 12 yrs in a puppy mill before he was rescued, I only got less than 2 years of his life to prove to him all humans weren't bad, I was wrong. Meanwhile my dogs are living in glass cages barely twice the size of my car, having to eat, sleep, pee & poop in the same area, they are left alone from 6p.m. to 10a.m. & their cages are hosed down to be cleaned out. In a shelter that can not guarantee that they will even be safe from disease or harm as evidenced by all the cats they killed several months ago becausethey have no clear cut methods for quarantining animals. They are being separated from eachother in a shelter that animals are abused in, when they are used to sleeping with me, eating with me & being together. Soffie(my schnauzer)Hoki (my Kelpie)& Taz (my cat) have never been away from me for more than 46hrs. Dogs are pack animals by nature, & my poor cat thinks he's a dog because he actually was nursed by a wolf mother, he fetches, walks on a leash & the doofus even lifts his leg to pee, he just doesn't know any better. They are giving my Kelpie 4 times higher doses of Phenobarbitol then is required, They are seniors dogs & a black cat, they stand no chance of being adopted. I know for legal purposes they are defined as "property" & I am going to change that law, but they are not just property they are my babies, everyone has a story, I found Hoki in a ditch in Lewis county with his mother & father & most of his littermates heads bashed in only 3 of them lived, his head was caved in & I put him in the back of my van with his parents & siblings bodies til I heard a scream from the back, his sister & brother got adopted but no one wanted a spaztic siezure dog except for me, & I was glad, Soffie I got her from the Everett Police Dept she was covered over 75% of her body in cigarette burns, she was terrified of everything, pop bottles, cans, lighters, cigarette packs, plastic bags, grooming, nail clips, the vet estimated that all of her ribs had been fractured multiple times, she had also been bred atleast 10 times by the time I got her maybe 11, she had a hernia & an exploded uterus from giving birth so much, which may be why she had the bladder stone as well. Taz was no bigger than my hand when he ran out in front of my van almost 6 yrs ago, on Broadway, I tried to take him to the Everett Shelter but they were just going to euthanize him so I became the mother of a snot nosed, bloody eared, green goopy eyed monster who was nursed by a wolf mother & got a lttle screwy in life as a result but he a good guy. Misty was taken from a puppy mill, guarding the skeletal remains of 6 of her puppies, she was taken by another rescue, adopted out & I got her back pregnant when it turns out the rescue was breeding those dogs. Libby was literally rotting away when I pulled her from an Eastern Washington shelter, I kid you not she was mostly bald & rotting flesh, she had maggots under the patch of scabs & skin she had left, the shelter manager just shook her head when I pulled her & put her in my car, she said "You know that one is going to die too right?" I told her she would die at home being loved then, those are the kind I take, the kind that break my heart, but the ones I love the most, Libby didn't die, she thrived, now she is once again abandoned for all she knows.The people who brought her in said she was old & they dumped her there to be put to sleep & adopted another puppy that day, she is only 2 or 3 yrs old. This is my life's work, my heart & my soul. I have a beat up little Toyota that stinks to high Heavens because in the little over 15 mnths I have owned it I have put 40,000 miles on it & have transported, rescued, & pulled somewhere around 1200 dogs, cats, even a 400lb pig, ferretts, rabbits, birds, raccoons, possoms, a few old ladies & numerous college kids stranded on old lonely roads in that car. I am the one who sits up in the woods for days on end trying to catch an injured feral dog, getting jumped by stupid bobcats, & the crud kicked out of me by deers, not to mention being followed around by cougars & bears, or drives over 2 mountian passes in freezing rain storms & white out blizzards by just letting a little air out of my bald tires & driving slow,no

chains, no snow tires I'm the one who chases vagrants around uder bridges & over passes to give their dogs, shots, wormers, dog food & flea meds. When you see the ads on craigslist offering free flea meds, wormer & shots, that's me too.This whole fiasco has caused the lives of over 180 animals at last count & I quit counting 3 weeks ago because it hurt too bad. I'm pretty sure, or atleast I was til this, that is how I'm gonna die, saving some animal, but that was okay with me. I will go to court, I will fight & win, even if I have to take this to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't know what line of Mitchell's you decend from but I come from West Virginia line & we don't quit fighting til we're dead & there's even a few folk legends of us fighting after that. True story, you can look it up on WVCuture.org just type in Mitchell when you have a couple few free days I don't know if I did this right or not, I'm pretty sure I have laid out my whole case here, along with my defense, but it is the best I can do with what I know so far. Not to mention I have been sleep deprived for 80 days because i keep having nightmares that that lady is drowning my dogs & I keep running towards them but they just keep getting further away no matter how fast i run & I can hear them screaming for me & she just keeps holding them under & then brings them up to revive them & then drowns them some moreI would also like you to take a look at my web pagethe 3rd link is to do with my court case, it was private but since the prosecutor already tricked me into presenting my case in front of him at the Superior Court hearing it's kind of pointless to hide it anyway.Doesn't seem fair since i oly got some vet reports, & the warrant request,even though I asked for discovery weeks ago, but if we go to court I can fie a motion for that too I guess. Rescue Page http://www.orgsites.com/wa/finallyhomerescue/ Ministry Page http://finallyhomerescueministries.yolasite.com/ Court Page http://taamuvcityofeverettanimalcontrol.yolasite.com/ Brandia Taamu Signature of moving party Date: March 27th, 2011

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH BRANDIA TAAMU PETITIONER | OFDUE V | CITY OF EVERETT & CITY OF EVERETT ANIAL CONTROL ANIMAL RESPONDENTS | | | | COMPLAINT FOR RELEASE OFPETITIONER'S PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR VIOLATION PROCESS, PROCEDURAL ERRORS.&UNDUE HARDSHIP. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR | STAY OF EXECUTION OR TRANSFER OFPETS | & A CEASE & DESIST FOR EVERETT CONTROL RELEASING PRIVATE INFO

PETITIONER BRANDIA TAAMU, PRO SE, RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS PETITION, & MOTION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR RELEASE OF PETITIONERS PETS FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS & UNDUE HARDSHIP. ALSO FOR AN EMERGENCY INJUCTION PREVENTING THE EUTHANISIA OF ANY MORE OF PETITIONER'S PETS OR TRANSFER OUT TO ANOTHER FACILITY. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1) ON JANUARY 6 2011 EVERETT ANIMAL COTROL SHOWED UP WITH EVERETT POLICE DEPT WITH A WARRANT TO TAKE DOGS FROM MY VEHICLE. (SEE EXHIBIT 1,2 ,3, 4, 5, 6) THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER SHOWED ME THE WARRANT NOT THE EVERETT POLICE DEPT. I WAS NEVER READ MY RIGHTS & THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER DID NOT LEAVE THE WARRANT, THE REPORT, OR ANY INFO THAT WOULD LET ME KNOW WHAT IF ANY LEGAL REMEDIES THAT I HAD AVAILABLE TO GET MY DOGS BACK IN VIOLATION OF RCW 16.52.085 (3). (SEE EXHIBIT 7) & I BELIEVE THAT BEFORE THE WARRANT I WAS NEVER CITED NOR GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY ANY CONDITIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SEEN UNFIT. I WAS NOT EVEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF EVERETT & WAS HOMELESS AT THE TIME. 2) EVERETT ANIMAL CONTROL HAS NOT ALLOWED ME TO CALL TO CHECK ON THE HEALTH & WELARE OF MY ANIMALS NOR ALLOWED ME TO VISIT THEM. I DID NOT FIND OUT THAT MY SENIOR ESKIMO WAS DEAD UNTIL THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT. I HAVE NOT SEEN MY DOGS OR CAT IN OVER 41 DAYS. 3) OFFICER'S TRASK & DELGADO HAVE REFUSED TO LET ME SEE A REPORT OR THE COMPLAINT OR EVEN GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT I WAS BEING CHARGED WITH. THEY ARE ALSO REFUSING TO GIVE ME MY DEAD DOGS BODY BECAUSE THEY SAY HE IS "EVIDENCE" 4) THE PERSON WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT LIED & DID THIS OUT OF MALICIOUSNESS & HAS POSTED NUMEROUS SLANDEROUS POSTS ABOUT ME ON CRAIGSLIST & SENT OUT MASS EMAILS DISCREDITING ME. SHE IS ALSO CLAIMING THAT ANIMAL CONTROL AGENTS ARE SHOWING HER ON THEIR COMPUTER THAT I HAVE DUMPED NUMEROUS DOGS ON THEM, WHEN IN FACT I USED TO PULL DOGS OUT OF THERE FOR RESCUE.

SHE IS ALSO CLAIMING THEY ARE CALLING HER TO TELL HER MY DOGS HAVE GIARDIA & WORMS. HER HARASSMENT HAS GOTTEN SO BAD THAT I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GET AN ANTI HARASSMENT ORDER AGAINST HER AS WELL. IF IN FACT ANIMAL CONTROL IS GIVING HER PERSONAL INFORMATIION ABOUT MY ANIMALS I WOULD LIKE A CEASE & DESIST ORDER PUT IN PLACE AS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCUSS MY CASE OR ANY OF MY INFORMATION WITH ANYONE EXCPET FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. SHE HAS GONE SO FAR AS TO CLAIM I DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE & THAT I AM NOT A MINISTER (SEE EXHIBITS .8.9.10.11) 5) ALL OF MY ANIMALS ARE RESCUES & HAVE SEVERE EMOTIONAL & SOME PHYSICAL ISSUES & BEING CONFINED IN AN AREA BARELY TWICE AS BIG AS MY CAR WITHOUT LOVE & COMFORT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HELATH & SAFETY. I REALIZE LIVING IN A CAR WAS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION FOR ANY OF US BUT I WAS ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR A NEW HOME FOR ALL OF US BUT TRYNG TO SAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO SO. I HAVE NOW SECURED A RESIDENCE WHERE WE CAN ALL BE TOGTHER INSIDE FROM THE ELEMENTS. 6) IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE OFFICER TOLD ME SHE WAS TAKING THE ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE 24 HOUR A DAY WATER. WHEN THEY CAME THER WAS IN FACT A WATER BOTTLE ON THE HOOD OF THE CAR. EVERETT MUNICIPAL CODE 6.04.070 STATES THE DOGS MUST HAVE CONSTANT ACCESS TO WATER 24HRS A DAY WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH RCW 16.52.310 (D) THAT STATES THEY MUST HAVE ADEQUATE WATER. RCW 35.27.370 (1) & (16) CLEARLY STATE THAT ANY TOWN IS NOT ALLOWED TO PASS LAWS WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT STATE RCW'S. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS TOOK PICTURES OF THE 5 BAGS OF DOG FOOD I HAD FOR THE DOGS AS WELL AS THE CASES OF WET FOOD FOR THE DOGS & THE CAT(S) & I BELIEVE THAT UNDER 16.52.207 (4) I BELIEVE I WILL BE AQUITTED OF ANY CHARGE (SEE EXHIBIT 12 & 13) 7) I AM ALSO REQUESTING THE RETURN OF ALL OF MY DOG'S MEDICATIONS, MY KENNELS, & OTHER DOG SUPPLIES THAT WERE TAKEN FROM MY CAR. (SEE EXHIBIT 14) 8) Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to the owners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have been denied procedural due process by the City of Everett and/or (AC) authorities. The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. (SEE EXHIBIT 15) Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they substantially prevail, recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). (1) The following are subject to seizure and forfeiture and no property right exists in them (6) In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the claimant. In addition, in a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 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. Id. 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. Id. The petitioners are the rightful owners of their dogs and cats, their property in dogs and cats is not contraband, statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the petitioners. If the state argues that the pets are derivative contraband and that petitioners are somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property in dogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvannia, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is derivative contraband. Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory forfeiture procedure. . . 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 claming 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' property. 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). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner's property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State's civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. RCW 16.52.100 provides that if an animal is confined without necessary food or water for more than 36 hours, and the officer finds it extremely difficult to provide the animal with food or water, the officer may remove the animals to protective custody for that purpose. RCW 16.52.085 sets forth the method whereby an animal may be seized for protective custody for feeding and care. An animal may be seized by an officer only with a warrant UNLESS the animal is in an immediate lifethreatening condition. If the officer decides that an animal is in an immediate life threatening condition to justify summary seizure of the animals, proper notice must be given to the owner of the animal by (1) posting at the place of seizure, and (2) personal service to a person residing at the place of seizure, OR by registered mail to the owner. The Notice must be written notice to the owner of the circumstances of the removal of the animals (without a warrant) and the legal remedies available under this chapter to the owner of the animal(s). The proper procedures by statute are enumerated below. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated.

IN SUMMARY ON 1/6/2011 EVERETT ANIMAL CONTROL TOOK MY DOGS & CAT FROM MY VEHICLE WITHOUT GIVING ME DUE PROCESS TO FIX OR RESPOND TO ANY ISSUES. ON 1/4/2011 I HAD A RUN IN WITH OFFICER TRASK WHO WAS BEING VERY ARGUMENTATIVE & LEFT THE PROPERTY, WHEN I REURNED EARLY ON 1/6/2011 SHE SHOWED UP WITH POLICE & AFTER THE FACT THE WOMAN LIVING AT THE RESIDENCE GAVE ME A NOTICE SHE HAD

LEFT THERE SAYING I HAD TO TAKE THEM TO A VET & CALL HER BUT NO TIME FRAME WAS GIVEN. THE REPORT WAS A LIE, BUT THEY TOOK THE WOMAN'S WORD BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE ALL THE INFO, VIDEO, & WITNESSES TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTOR TO SHUT DOWN THE RENE ROSKE PUPPY MILL & ONCE I PROVED THAT IT WAS IN FACT ME WHO PROVIDED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST ME. IT ALSO SAYS IN MY CHARGING PAPERS THAT I AM GUILTY OF ABOUT 6 DIFFERENT THINGS. WHEN THE OFFICERS ARRIVED I WAS ASLEEP IN MY CAR WITH MY ANIMALS WHICH IS WHERE I ALWAYS SLEPT SO I COULD TURN ON THE CAR WHEN WE NEEDED HEAT & SO THEY DIDN'T GET COLD, THE OFFICERS TOOK PICTURES OF THE BAGS OF FOOD & THE CANNED FOOD, I HAVE WELL OVER 42LBS OF VET PAPERS PERTAINING TO MOST OF THE DOGS YOU HAVE IN CUSTODY TO PROVE THEY WERE GETTIN VET CARE, THAT MY ANIMALS HAVE ALWAYS RECIEVED TIMELY VET CARE. MY SENIOR ESKIMO THAT WAS KILED HAS LYMPHOMA, IT WAS TERMINAL, THERE WAS NO TREATMENT & IT HAS BEEN THE EXPERIENCE OF THE VETS & MYSELF THAT THE TREATMENT USUALLY KILLS THEM FASTER, SO OUR PLAN WAS TO KEEP HIM WITH ME UNTIL IT SEEMED HE WAS IN PAIN OR WAS SUFFERING, HE WAS ACTUALLY IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE EXCEPT FOR CHRONIC CONJUNCTIVITIS, BUT SINCE I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW BEING TAKEN FROM ME AFFECTED HIM EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS TRUE CONDITION WAS WHEN HE WAS MURDERED. NONE OF THE DOGS HAD ANY LIFE THREATENING CONDITIONS NONE WERE MALNOURISHED OR DEHYDRATED, NONE WERE INJURED, ALL WHO HAD PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS HAD MEDICATIONS FOR THEM LIKE LIBBY HAD HOT SPOTS, SHE HAD MEDS, HOKI HAS SEIZURES, HE HAS MEDS, SOFFIE HAD CHRONIC BLADDER INFECTIONS WHICH I WAS TOLD BY ONE VET IN SHELTON WAS BLADDER CANCER BUT ANOTHER VET IN SEATTLE SAID SHE WAS JUST FAT, SINCE SHE HAD BEEN BRED 11 TIMES BY THE TIME I GOT HER AT ALMOST 6 YRS OLD, HE SAID IT WAS LIKELY THAT SHE HAD ALOT OF INTERNAL DAMAGE AS WELL, SHE DID HAVE A HERNIA THAT REQUIRED EMERGENCY SURGERY FROM BEING OVERBRED SOME 4 YRS AGO AS WELL. I KNOW LIVING IN A CAR WAS NOT IDEAL BUT THEY WERE NEVER UNPROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS, & I ONLY FEED MY DOGS QUALITY HIGH END FOODS, WHICH WERE PRESENT IN THE CAR. I NOW HAVE A HOME FOR THEM TO BE, & STILL HAVE ALL OF THEIR FOOD, TOYS & SUPPLIES. IF YOU WILL NOT ORDER THE RETURN OF MY ANIMALS I WANT AN ORDER ALLOWING ME TO SEE THEM TO CHECK ON THEM DAILY SO THAT I CAN KNOW HOW THEY ARE DOING & TO PREVENT FURTHER EMOTIONAL DAMAGE TO THEM OR MYSELF. I AM OPEN TO CONDITIONS OF RELEASE WHICH WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO MY LIVING & ECONOMIC SITUATION, AS THIS IS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR ME EMOTIONALLY & ECONOMICALLY AS WELL. I AM NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THIS MATTER IS SETTLED IN CASE I AM NEEDED AT COURT & BECAUSE I AM POOR SO I AM HAVING TO DO ALL OF THE RESEARCH FOR MY OWN CASE. ALMOST EVERY DAY I PARK ACROSS THE RIVER HOPING TO CATCH A GLIMPSE OF MY DOGS & NEVER HAVE SEEN THEM SO THEY ARE NOT BEING BROUGHT OUTSIDE FOR EXERSIZE & ARE BEING KEPT IN A PLACE BARELY TWICE AS BIG AS MY CAR, WITH THEIR KENNELS BEING HOSED DOWN ONCE A DAY UNTIL WHICH THEY ARE FORCED OT STAND OR SIT IN THEIR OWN WASTE, THEY ARE BEING HOUSED SEPERATELY & HAVE BEEN USED TO BEING TOGETHER, THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES WHICH THEY COULD BE BEING EXPOSED TO ON A DAILY BASIS, WHICH IS ENDANGERING THEM DAILY. I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE BEING KEPT & WHAT THE HOLDING CELLS LOOK LIKE BECAUSE I USED TO RESCUE DOGS FROM EVERETT ANIMAL SERVICES

WHICH THEY PROBABLY WON'T ADMIT BUT I HAVE THE PAPERWORK & VET RECORDS TO PROVE IT. I AM REQUESTING THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF MY DOGS, & OTHER PROPERTY. I REALIZE IN A COURT OF LAW THAT ANIMALS ARE PROPERTY, BUT THEY ARE SENTIENT BEINGS, WITH FEELINGS, THAT FEEL PAIN, DEPRESSION SADNESS, JOY, ELATION, LOVE, LOYALTY, BETRAYAL, & ANY OTHER HOST OF EMOTIONS THE SAME AS YOU OR I WOULD FEEL, KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM ME & EACHOTHER IS NOTHING SHORT OF CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME I HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN CONVICTED OF & DUE IN NO PART TO ANY WRONG DOING FROM THEM. THEY ARE INNOCENT. RESPECTFULLY BRANDIA TAAMU (425) 319-3298 FINALLYHOMERESCUE@YAHOO.COM

From: Life Matters <saving_them_all@yahoo.com> Subject: Police Report from Brandia Taamu Inre: Rose Adams To: dprather@ci.everett.wa.us Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 7:22 PM I am reporting constant severe harassment from Rose Adams AKA Rose Adams Beutler as she calls herself. She has called animal control & gotten my animals taken away by lying to them, now she is posting ads about me on craigslist & sending out foul emails about me to pretty much every one I know. I would like to obtain a restraining order against her, a cease & desist action of some kind, & would like animal control to answer to the fact that they took a person with over 103 criminal & civil convictions word over mine without giving me a chance to rectify anything they thought unfit. So I would also like to request the return of my dogs as they were taken because of her lies. While I was staying with her, I was bitten repeatedly by dogs & fleas, she has 2 pit bull terriers who have known bite histories, as a matter of fact I have had to stitch them up after a fight, one of the pits (both are named Sadie 1 is white, the other is black & white) attacked the cat who laid there & died over a two week period because no matter how much I begged her to take him to the vet & have him checked or put down she would not, when he finally died in my arms I handed him to her & she just looked at him & said Poor Junkyard & threw him in a box & left him on the front porch for 2 days, after 12 yrs & she didn't even shed a tear for him. I was also bitten numerous times by her mini pins & witnessed the pittie dog (Black & White Sadie) attack her little Chihuahua twice, & at one point she also attacked the white Sadie, & it took 4 of us to separate them, at which time she never got medical treatment for either of them so I had to leave the wound on white Sadie's head open so I could irrigate & treat it every day, you can see all the visible scars all over this girl, she gets on well with the other smaller dogs but black & white Sadie keeps trying to kill her, but on the other hand every time Rose's husband walks in the door she goes after him & I've seen her bite him about 7 times, all she does is laugh & tell him she is going to stab him if he does anything to the dog for it, she has bitten 4 other people that we know of because she has been passed around to 3 different rescues & 5 fosters that I know of. The thing that bothers me is the cat & the Chihuahua, the cat is dead so no one can hurt him anymore, but the Chi is

helpless. When I got there to stay somewhere around Christmas all of her dogs had fleas & tapeworms so badly that I wouldn't even give my dogs water from inside her house, I got it from the artesian well off of 164th or from her outside hose, she refused to get flea meds or worming treatment, so I went & got flea meds but not wormer, because their butts were bloody raw & pretty much bald from the fleas, the hair is growing back but you can sit next to the dogs & watch worms crawling out of their butts, one is so bloated she looks pregnant. Everett animal control won't let me see my dogs, won't tell me anything about them, & haven't told me anything about what I am supposed to do, but according to her posting in email they are showing her imaginary dogs I am supposedly dumping there, & calling her telling her my dogs have worms & giardia, which I can guarantee they don't. I have all the vet records for all of the animals none were sick, except as noted below in my original letter below. I have sat there in her house while she was calling CPS on 2 different people, 1 her ex-son-in-law & his current girlfriend & also on her son's current girlfriend & heard her deliberately lie, when I told her that was false reporting she told me to shut up she was doing what she had to do. It has also come to my attention that she is claiming she gathered most of the facts & even the witnesses in regards to the Renee Roske case.... I forwarded almost all of that info to her & did most of the research which can be proven by looking in my email. She claims to have gotten in a stand off with the Mount Lake Terrace Police & have single handedly beat up a 400lb Samoan & a Snohomish county deputy at a Wal-Mart, whether this is true or not I don't know but looking at her criminal record & listening to her stories about all the times she has assaulted her husband it makes me fear for my own life as it would seem combined with her tales & her criminal history that she is not a balanced or sane person. I have included her record which I have put in order of dates & jurisdictions, copies of the Craigslist ads she is placing as well as some of the emails she has been sending out, my responses to her are in bold letters to make it easier to understand. I don't know what you can do or if you can even figure this out, I still have my vet records which are about 17lbs, so I am not sending them. While I was there my other cat disappeared & now I am thinking she did something with her, I can't prove anything so I don't know what you can do about that, but I have to file a report in order to tr to get a court order for her. Thank you for your time, patience & hopefully understanding. Brandia Taamu 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 Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Everett Municipal

CR0081455 /04-02-2008 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 Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct APPELANT Adams, Rose Appellant Adams, Rose Appellant Coa, Division I Coa, Division I 65919 06-06-1991 201656 06-22-1991 201656 06-22-1994 06-19-2002 06-19-2002

506374 506366

PIERCE COUNTY Adams, Rose M Petitioner Pierce Co Superior 93-3-01866-4 04-19-1993

Craigslist ads: Visit the posting at http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pet/2161141893.html to contact the person who posted this. Do not give her money Date: 2011-01-14, 5:23PM 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. It is said she is pretending to be a rescue, but is not.This is really awful because it gives ALL rescue people a BAD name when they work tireless and spend all their time rescuing animals. Most rescues donate their own personal funds, some rescues raise money and just donate all of their time Me personally, I am not a 501c3 certified rescue but I do rescue and lose thousands/year rehoming dogs from super high kill shelters. We wish everyone would tell the truth! She does post on CL how AC was not correct. * Location: Bellevue * it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests Original URL: http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pet/2161141893.html Visit the posting at http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164497124.html to contact the person who posted this. Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me Date: 2011-01-17, 1:47AM Brandia adopted my dog and then almost immediately gave her to a 'shelter' Who claim they have never heard about my dog. I don't know what this woman is doing but nobody else give their pets to her if you know what's good for them!! * it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests Original URL: http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164497124.html EMAILS SHE IS SENDING OUT Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:13:13 -0800 From: stopanimalabuseandfraud@yahoo.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!!! To: animalcarenetwork@yahoogroups.com; information@popptricities.org;

cascadeanimal@yahoo.com; melissa_companionanimal@hotmail.com; info@kindredsoulsfoundation.org; perrin@savinggreatanimals.org; spot@savingpetsoneatatime.org; violet@ucarerescue.com; sccpets@yahoo.com; drawashington@hotmail.com; info@vipp.org; dogs@vipp.org; sandjswanson@juno.com; info@paws.org; amy@seattlehumane.org; xol@drizzle.com; southsoundadoptions@gmail.com; vickijimniles@msn.com; dogfarm@gmail.com; andreanelson2005@yahoo.com; WECARE161@hotmail.com; angelahoschek@msn.com 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. Re: WARNING TO BRANDIA ALIDA MAREA PEREZ-TA'AMU! DO NOT COME ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN! Monday, January 17, 2011 7:49 PM From: "Life Matters" <finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com> View contact details To: "Rose Adams" <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> Bcc: "Christine CJ & Al" <3purple@gmail.com>, "CARINA COLLARD" <drawashington@hotmail.com> You do realize you are an idiot right, saying your lies in BIG letters does not make them any more true, they are still lies & think about it ROSE, I couldn't have come on your property to look for the cat, your other neighbor let me look in their back yard & they are keeping an eye out for the cat. You just love drama don't you, all of the stories you told me about all kinds of people who try to kill you or threaten your life constantly.. If it's even true, I dont wonder why. Don't worry you are of no use to me, I dont care what you do or don't do, you are a liar & you have shown your ass to pretty much everyone so rant on rose rant on. I wonder what they'll find buried in your front yard.. If they do a necropsy on that poor cat & find out truly how much he suffered & about those 2 crazy ass pit bulls you have in the city of everett in a rental property.... or how george's hand got hurt. You are pathetic Rose, I almost feel sorry for you

--- On Mon, 1/17/11, Rose Adams <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Rose Adams <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> Subject: WARNING TO BRANDIA ALIDA MAREA PEREZ-TA'AMU! DO NOT COME ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN!

To: Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 2:35 PM WARNING TO BRANDIA ALIDA MAREA PEREZ-TA'AMU! DO NOT COME ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN! Monday, January 17, 2011 2:35 PM From Rose Adams Mon Jan 17 22:35:05 2011 X-Apparently-To: finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com via 69.147.94.104; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:35:40 -0800 Return-Path: <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> X-YahooFilteredBulk: 65.55.90.97 Received-SPF: pass (mta1078.mail.ac4.yahoo.com: domain of roseandgeorge@hotmail.com designates 65.55.90.97 as permitted sender) X-YMailISG: 3RwNo94cZAodA2QT5SGfJnJDCIDKAtFa6ghAmrv56zgXv9W4 nufBAeGfPnL0OHlduzQJisTCU2NHwyncZTJIx862RUmvs69dsVYRPTOoEtJA Tm.N31HSdjkqvs3q.lv6GUq_qw7ioM.Yj6iX2pDglN6O9XvZoF9D4CMENxXE mR.rWL2ehsLgOcqGPbKIrH5EiCa1QbzWT1eaJYwmWBqLUh8q7LE0C9qMfVkG OU5c5DAnt8qg.c0lGlHDGMqlymFHmD7hDP5vjNupkzpiua7D4i4IBFF00U4P uljHUIwAWOzaT5Jt.yGbQwKQOHKtySR0VBasJQRCGP4egsZvV4zRSu6dSIlY 4F1MkEDeMVQtkY4z1BC2Bsxu_zHqwHzM7Xzw9BlqMUe1yIQKUqiE2l_AFKg6 gC7RXtCW_Ocy.t7R12oCXtH5shxoCoiSH4IGbCX96.xvw10dz9yEMBuWGc3m U84xVqbz2KMcuiZoKsqa6m.9h5oXTotNGWmi0qwel96ZNTYZRJXmqXhCgErz QwTpO2trbrMou5bjTKq8OQuwYPMAamRLC.MicOsIygwF3GGCuYfYv.QLaNMm FldSw5jMKwfn3kkSaXebfsBA6zGxVucRuI_QymEeeSLQsyvq7atCm7eeVD0K fIlANHq7sNp_CaMmkphtYn8ZE9Q_Ri0VijZi0HaJ7n8WKkMIwrxDF.5qzfj0 vi5OIXfwmhmXtk4uKYMZEI9vA9vcT3koRAExuiSf7lVc5PPG3bchFuF0CoSB ZRG_0fDxcORO4ZEXGw0Lc2psYcObtbYk1FKLqME1Ep7kOG.9WmKxOhffsAUE Z0ud_BJb8UJFfgNdCaFmWleK_3wTjwa3WSCkJmkVB7_zEEqTf6Lcr9j0HP7Q bQCRHnOBsbRv3q61id6.eFmScgtsExMPon76RajJ75E0e_NAFY..Vl.scBVw fz15L.Dy3z9eStcBrsPCC0eshuZ0_AUEBoTO5HFIOGpmSP3G5syCZ_sdhkI2 lJph0Pcib4aoS5o2AmjjIuvTVbzPDkGrWOhVu9A3kenA3Qanh.SPKBW7n8ds peK2YmkoMRO.biocP4wrOFaeIG8PFMuGjOHBQVtahrsAzWVRpg1B08xX9GCm xDk2ZnKnskpYtPXRYsvUHHHSuJxOFVDgZUKXg04hOT49J4YyMOuSkUGCFUqW piS6IqxDG2GVNb6hbgyCzRp.OsejV0Q2dsUivdw1OEXiSNWHMoTQPPppspFL uOuTMxraUpYVeKMnSzHkRhjuIAOxKE3jcDZWSsI9LJVQ5SRlFDQ7Fy_uz8TG RAioVcT33cfGOwnrHu85sppaefLMIhGQXn3tzaiSuUl0MnD8sFPeYkZaEb5o VA2EU62czrssMF6MPKFkBAx9ntAUf0oEX9Q34nU2.92IKciBVUR1UvB8seiO y4UYPi5ZRIf3NQHmhUNMm2ZTk.8LuUBpS9z_GgIHRrXBk2OjdMGJQpTBLeu1 TyUY21ODtn_iHKwF4tuqeQMWyjXIyNFNo5Gm_yxA8xCabzIT9PA0zFdLGcrB I9zo8iY7mLzP_FVp6jKG7nrIP5PK99jyw7KPzDmoHDcOHcBINu.AK7YKRPf. kLzfCCAL X-Originating-IP: [65.55.90.97] Authentication-Results: mta1078.mail.ac4.yahoo.com from=hotmail.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=hotmail.com; dkim=neutral (no sig) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO snt0-omc2-s22.snt0.hotmail.com) (65.55.90.97) by mta1078.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:35:39 -0800 Received: from SNT131-W13 ([65.55.90.73]) by snt0-omc2-s22.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:35:05 -0800 Message-ID: <SNT131-w134675DCF40D1021D3CAD1B2F40@phx.gbl>

Return-Path: roseandgeorge@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_fd1f59df-9a80-44f3-953a-c3048f439b33_" X-Originating-IP: [71.23.40.56] From: Rose Adams <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> View contact details Subject: WARNING TO BRANDIA ALIDA MAREA PEREZ-TA'AMU! DO NOT COME ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN! Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:35:05 -0800 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Bcc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2011 22:35:05.0462 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9A5B160:01CBB696] Content-Length: 11192 We saw your Facebook page, and YOU OR YOUR HUSBAND ARE NOT TO COME NEAR OR ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN. THE EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS HERE AND SAW THE BELOW POSTING ALONG WITH YOUR THREATENING E-MAIL TO ME AND MY NEIGHBORS. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL BEEN NOTIFIED. IF YOU COME BACK ON THIS PROPERTY YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND WILL GO TO JAIL AND BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL TRESPASS AGAIN. WE HAVE INSTALLED MORE CAMERAS TODAY, SO BE AWARE I WILL PROSECUTE YOU FOR A CRIME IF YOU COME BACK HERE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO LET YOUR CAT OUT OF YOUR CAR AFTER HE HAD BEEN STUCK IN THERE FOR 23 DAYS WITH THE SMELL OF URINE AND FECES. SO IF YOUR CAT DOES NOT COME BACK IT IS DUE TO YOU AND ONLY YOU NEGLECTING YOUR ANIMALS, AND THAT IS WHY YOUR ANIMALS WERE TAKEN AFTER MY NEIGHBORS AND LANDLORD CALLED ANIMAL CONTROL ON YOU. YOU THREATENING ME IS FELONY INTIMIDATION OF A STATE WITNESS, SO YOU NEED TO STOP. I HAVE FORWARDED THIS PLUS YOUR THREATENING EMAIL TO THE PROSECUTER'S OFFICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL. THEY TOLD ME THURSDAY THAT I AM A STATE WITNESS, BECAUSE YOU HAD STAYED AT MY HOME SINCE DECEMBER 12TH, NOT DECEMBER 25TH AS YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE OTHERS BELIEVE. ANIMAL CONTROL TOOK YOUR ANIMALS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY PHYSICALLY SAW IN YOUR CAR BRANDIA. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, AND STAY OFF OF OUR PROPERTY. MY LAWYER WILL BE IN COURT TOMORROW MORNING SEEKING A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND. THIS WILL BE YOUR ONLY WARNING TO STAY OFF OF OUR PROPERTY.

* o Finally Home Rescue http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge HERE IS THE WITCHES PAGE... MY CAT CAME UP MISSING WHEN WE WERE THERE SO NOW I WONDER WHAT SHE DID TO HER. SHE TRIED TO TELL ME SHE WAS UNDER HER CAR TRYING TO GET ME TO COME BACK THE OTHER NIGHT SO STAY...ING OUT OF CAMERA RANGE, SHE HAS CAMERAS ON HER HOUSE, WE LOOKED FOR HER &

SHE WAS NO WHERE AROUNDSee More Yesterday at 3:13am LikeUnlike Red roseRose Red heart GeorgeRed rose roseandgeorge@hotmail.com Dog face"Saving one dog will not change the world; but surely for that one dog the world will change forever."Cat face Cat face"In this life we can not do great things. We can only do small things with great love."Dog face ~Mother Teresa The 18th century author, Edmund Burke, once said: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. THIS IS THE EMAIL I SENT HER NOT HER NEIGHBORS WHO SHE TOLD ME WERE SEX OFFENDERS, I SENT THE EMAIL TO HER ONLY JUST TO LET HER KNOW THAT I KNEW IT WAS HER: IT'S ALL IN MY MAILBOX & CAN BE SUBPEONAED AS CAN ALL OF HER CL ADS & HER OTHER EMAILS Now I know who got my dogs taken away... Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:09 AM From: "Life Matters" <saving_them_all@yahoo.com> To: "Rescue Rose" <stoppuppymilling@hotmail.com> Cc: "Rose Adams" <roseandgeorge@hotmail.com> WOW! I had no idea you were this low. I should've realized when you called CPS on your son's ex & your ex son in law's kids... I know exactly what is going on now. I have an appt with an attorney to get all of this straightened out & you forget I know your little stop abuse email addy too. you should really call animal control & tell them the truth now. I am going to also make my own reports. Think Rose, think before you speak, you never know who I have BCC'd in this email or have sent the IP address too. You or the neighbor better take my cat to the Everett Shelter & leave her there. Brandia you know the rest Taamu Now I know who got my dogs taken away... by Finally Home Rescue on Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 3:11am Your changes have been saved. Okay so as most know animal control came & took my dogs away. I couldn't figure out why they were being such A-HOLES til I found a nifty little site that lets you see flagged craigslist ads & any posts on yahoo groups even if they are set to private or members only... The craigslist ad didn't give me all I needed but then the other site gave me proof! This is long & complicated so please go grab yourself a cup of coffee & a snack so you can see evil unfold... I wil put my answers in bold letters....

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 <!-- #yiv1310200399 .yiv1310200399ExternalClass div { } --> Brandia Ta'amu came to stay at a friend's home 32 days ago. Came to Rose's house on 12/25/2010 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. Actually she continually asked me to bring my small dogs in the house with 2 pit bulls who have attacked each other & her smaller dogs, they also all had fleas & tapeworms crawling out of their butts which she keeps feeding them dimctus earth on rice & claims it treats their fleas & worms 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!!! Car stinks, I've hauled HUNDREDS of animals in it in the past 15 months, I will have the results from all of my dogs who were in fact tested & given a clean bill of health at the pound, & there were no worms in the car that is just stupid 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. Animal control did not & legally can not display on their computer any such thing & you can look at every dog I have had, never (oddly enough) even had a golden, not even in transport, & I most certainly haven't dumped any dogs off on them. Full Name: Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Ta'amu She is a fake rescuer of animals, and all her animals were removed, by Everett Animal Control via search warrant, on Thursday January 6th, 2011! She is frauding people, for donations! She is spending donations on her own personal bills, rent, etc., instead of spending donations for the animals on the animals. She is currently homeless, yet again, after many, many evictions Well then I must SUCK at fundraising considering I was homeless, what rent or bills was I paying? I was homeless This is a letter that Brandia sent out to everyone at animal shelters, rescues, and news stations, and these ARE NOT the facts. She is lying 100% in this letter.___ WOW isn't this the actual letter which I forwarded to you with a couple of other people. So I didn't have 5 dogs & cat, so animal control never took them, so we were not homeless, so they must all be imaginary dogs, this is a bad dream & I am in my private mansion in Aruba drinking a virgin Mai Tai right? January, 6th 2011 Thursday Everett Animal Control has seized my 5 dogs & 1 cat. The reason given to me is I didn't have water in the car & that I was making them sleep out in the cold car. It was obvious that I sleep in the car with them & turn the heat on several times a night, as I was asleep in the car with them this morning when they came with an Everett Police Officer & a warrant. There was also a water jug sitting outside my car or rather on top but I can't leave it in there or my Kelpie will chew it up.

I am homeless, I run a rescue, but made a decision to get vet care for a dog or pay my rent, I chose the dog, the house we were supposed to get fell through so yes we have been sleeping out in the car because I refuse to just dump the animals at the pound. 3 of the dogs are mine & 2 were supposed to be going to another rescue today or tomorrow, whenever I could get the gas money. They claimed I had no food in the car, but they clearly seen 5 bags of dry & 1 case of wet food, they said I had no water in there for them but we were sleeping & I have never heard of a dog who drinks in their sleep. Also you don't want a dogs drinking constantly who are in a car or they pee all over & there are not enough potty pads to keep up with them, most dogs in a house don't get water at will, they are given water 5 times a day when i can take each one out to walk them. Oh & they also managed to take pictures of the huge bowl of food I had for them, they are free fed food because most are mill dogs who have food issues. None of them are underweight, they are all current on their shots. Several days ago the officer came out & it was very clear that she had an attitude & was very combative. Anything I would try to say to her she would try to counter, or would ask me the same questions in different ways over & over again. IE: I had a water jug I had just filled up, she said it couldn't be outside it had to be inside, I told her I had just filled it up, she asked where I pointed to the hose right in front of us & she looks me dead in my face & asked me where I got the water & why it wasn't inside, well DUH I said I just filled it up & asked her if she preferred me to take the water hose inside the car to keep the jug in there to fill it up & she looks at me again & goes so where did you get the water.... WHAT???? No matter what I said to her, no matter what I told her she wanted to argue with me about everything so I got in my car & left. She then left a notice saying I had to take them all to a vet, & get back to her. Really? I am homeless, but I am supposed to run up to the vet's all the way in Burien & what print some money up on my handy dandy little notebook? First off I am homeless I don't live in Everett, she never told me what if any claims were made against me, & as far as I know it is not a crime to sleep in your car with your dogs instead of dumping them at soe shelter somewhere. These 5 dogs are all rescues & most wouldn't make it at a shelter, they also have emotional & health issues. Soffie-Mini Schnauzer, 11yrs old. Had had 11 litters of puppies by the time I got her , she is afaraid of pop bottles lighters cigarette packs, & having her legs touched at all, we have to sedate her to groom her legs & toenails. Her legs are matted right now because we were supposed to knock her out to do this but I figured if we were going to be living in the car I sure wasn't going to shave her & let her freeze Hoki- Kelpie, 7 yrs old has seizures because his owner tried to kill him with a hammer but "his hands got tired" so he threw them all on the side of the road, he is terrified of everything & will undoubtedly have siezures in a shelter. Misty- Toy Aussie, she is actually pretty healthy & I was going to get her fixed & keep her, she is also a mill dog, she is very timid at first but she is very sweet & once she is comfortable with you she will just melt into your arms. Libby- Pom, Pap mix, she was literally bald when we got her from teh shelter, she had sores all over, under some of them were actually maggots, we treated her at teh vet's & she has only had one outbreak

since then & it was pretty mild, & she has an adoptive home waiting for her. Oh & her paperwork says she is a senior but she is no more than 2 or 3 years old. She has a wall licking fetish so please be sure the walls are clean & disinfected, she also licks windows so don't use any chemical cleaners George- American Eskimo, he has some eye issues, & we beieve he has lymphoma, but I haven't had the heart or the funds to confirm, he is having a flair up for his eye conjunctivitis right now but he is a sweet boy, we have had most of his teeth pulled but he still can eat hard food, but wet food still has to be given to him because he can't chew the hard food so he is not getting the nutritional value from it that he should. You also have to give him his own portions of water or else he will drink til he throws up & being an old man he gets it up his nose & will get what looks like a cold for several days, so you actually need to give him 1 cup a day 7 times a day & make sure no one else takes it from him. Taz- My cat, he is heathy he is fixed, he is my boy I found him in front of the Safeway on Broadway when he was no bigger than a mouse & tried to take him to Everett Animal shelter but they wouldn't take him & treat him, they wee just going to euthanize him so I kept him & learned a lot about cats, because of him. So I am to understand that you can't be homeless & still have your pets in the city of everett & no matter what you do or don't do, they will be taken from you. Of course I had just gotten 2 bags of potty pads, & done some of our laundry & the dirty blankets were in there stinking the car up, so the car was a mess because I hadn't rearranged it yet, or finished my laundry & last night we stopped at a rest stop & their garbage was full so I threw their potty pads in an unused kennel so no one would get at it. I want my dogs back, I didn't do anything wrong except try to keep them back out of the shelter. As I said before George & Libby have homes to go to now. Hoki, Soffie, & Taz are my animals, & I don't know who to go to or how to fight but I will. I am trying to get Abigail Cromwell to help me as well. I am not a retard & I realize full well that living in a car is not a good environment for them, but it's better than dumping them. As to the animal control officer"s snide remarks, I might be autistic but I still understand that you have issues about power & control. If one single thing happens to any of my animals, mine or foster dogs, whether you think I'm a "real" rescue or not, I will sue you all stupid. I realize the dogs need a bath, that is about it & Soffie needs her grooming but it has been too cold to get them wet. So I am off to find every homeless advocate & every reporter, & every advocay group I can find, now that you have my animals I have nothing to stop me from going anywhere because I don't have to be afraid to leave them in the car alone now. Brandia Taamu 425-319-3298

Her full name is Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Taamu. She has 5 Facebook pages. Her rescue license with the state is a "For Profit" license, NOT a 501(c)3 NON-Profit license! Her license is also NOT FOR RESCUE, it is for pet boarding, pet grooming, and pet training, which she DOES NOT do. Below is her business license. Below is her business license. Look at the NAICS CODE, and I am including what that code stands for, from the NAICS lookup website. You Searched For: * NAICS Code=812910 15 Matches Found (displaying 1 to 15) Common Keywords

NAICS Code US NAICS Title "Boarding services, pet" Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services "Grooming services, animal" Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services "Kennels, pet boarding" Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services "Obedience training services, pet" Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services "Sitting services, pet" Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Animal grooming services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services DIDN"T YOU SEE THIS ONE NUMB NUTS Animal shelters Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Dog pounds Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Guard dog training services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Guide dog training services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Other Personal Services Other Personal Services Pet boarding services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet grooming services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet sitting services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet training services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Brandia sent this out to everyone trying to get donations to her www.chipin.com account, for a dog that she DOES NOT HAVE, and the dog is in California, and IS NOT coming to Brandia! She needs to stop lying to people to get money! Please donate to our chip-in account so we can continue to save animals... every little bit helps & it does save liveshttp://finallyhome.chipin.com/rescue-needs-rescue-now This is the "signature' of my email... If you look at the actual chip-in it has nothing to do with this poor little mange puppy & there is CLEARLY a valid chip-in link for that dog. --- On Tue, 1/4/11, Life Matters <finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Life Matters <finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Turlock, CA: Shar-pei puppy in need of rescue Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 8:19 PM Here is the thread for him, he is already out & at the vet's office but is going to be moved to a holistic vet Melinda Naughton's Photos - PLS CHIP-IN TO SAVE MANGE PUP LEFT IN A FORGOTTEN SHELTER, CALIF. UPDATE: RESCUED; HOWEVER, WE NEED FUNDS for VET CARE AND TO TRANSPORT THIS LUCKY PUP TO HIS FOSTER. WOULD YOU PLEASE CHIP-IN TO SAVE THIS LITTLE ONE. THANK YOU! HEY!!! HERE IT IS STUPID THE CHIP IN ACCOUNT! HERE IS HIS CHIPIN! PLEASE DONATE & SHARE!!!!!!! http://helpmaxgetvettedandhome.chipin.com/mange-brindle-pup-in-cali-shelter-needs-out-now Turlock CA - one of the forgotten shelters! Mid-Central Valley~ 2 hours drive from San Francisco 1 hour from San Jose Listed as Shar Pei - just a pup ! Came in as stray on New Years Eve. No ID's assigned at this small pound. Suffering w/severe mange. Please Share him!!! Turlock Police Department Animal Control 801 S. Walnut Turlock, CA 95380 Phone: (209) 656-3140 Fax: (209) 668-5101 Office Hours: Monday - Saturday 10AM - 2PM (Closed Sundays and Holidays Mailing Address: 900 N. Palm Turlock, CA 95380 Here are links to her several facebook pages in different names that Brandia uses. It will show ALL of the other rescues and shelters that she works with that ARE NOT AWARE of her licensing being what it really is, or that she is misrepresenting herself to get money out of people to have money to get into yet another house to be evicted from yet again. She is constantly being evicted from everywhere she lives. Her last eviction in which the police put her out was in King County, on December 8th, 2010. UMMMM Aren"t you being evicted from your home right now? Ya as a matter of fact I was there when the server brought you the eviction papers.. Oh & you might want to check your dates. This is from the Washington state website.. Funny if you look long enough that when people accuse

you of something it is usually something they are guilty of. I can't access 2006n& 2008 but it looks like she has an eviction every year. She also has one just filed a week ago but it wont be on the state website til next month 2004 04-2-00445-2 Adams, Rose Marie 04-20-04 Petitioner Unlawful Harrassment 2005 05-2-10520-6 Adams, Rose 08-02-05 Defendant Unlawful Detainer 2007 07-2-07370-0 Adams, Rose 09-07-07 Defendant Unlawful Detainer 2009 09-2-11839-4 Adams, Rose 12-18-09 Defendant Unlawful Detainer 2010 10-2-02911-5 Adams, Rose 02-24-10 Defendant Unlawful Detainer OKAY NOW FOR THE BEST PART..... WAIT FOR IT... WHEN YOU COPY A LINK FROM SOMEONE'S PAGE IT TELLS YOUR NAME TOO. SO WHAT THE FRICK DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF YOU LYING CONIVING WITCH ROSE???????? LINKS TO FACEBOOK PAGES:For FeelFree ToLove: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge?sk=friends&v=friends#!/profile.php? id=100000836728591 Brandia Taamu: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge?sk=friends&v=friends#!/brandiaperez Finally Home Rescue: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge?sk=friends&v=friends#!/profile.php? id=100001145574333 Marea Perez: http://www.facebook.com/nwcoast.rescue, this is not mine For Finally Home Rescue & Ministries: http://www.facebook.com/pages/ This is a page... Not a FB account Finally-Home-Rescue-Ministries/161348620577961 Again this is a page, not a FB account HERE IS YET ANOTHER EMAIL: From: roseandgeorge@hotmail.com To: animalcarenetwork@yahoogroups.com; information@popptricities.org; cascadeanimal@yahoo.com; melissa_companionanimal@hotmail.com; info@kindredsoulsfoundation.org; perrin@savinggreatanimals.org; spot@savingpetsoneatatime.org; violet@ucarerescue.com; sccpets@yahoo.com; drawashington@hotmail.com; info@vipp.org; dogs@vipp.org; sandjswanson@juno.com; info@paws.org; amy@seattlehumane.org; xol@drizzle.com; southsoundadoptions@gmail.com; vickijimniles@msn.com; dogfarm@gmail.com; andreanelson2005@yahoo.com; wecare161@hotmail.com; angelahoschek@msn.com; betshar@fairpoint.net; rr_flores@comcast.net; outwestpetrescue@yahoo.com; thebigdogproject@yahoo.com; dogs@homewardpet.org; dmelsha@charter.net; rescue@cprgroup.org; toni@happytailsrescue.com; washingtonshepherds@yahoo.com; pattyk@folcas.org; jme@motleyzoo.org; marthalight@aol.com; sandy@animalnature.com; wigglesandwags@comcast.net; musicaldreams@gmail.com; dyarchak@q.com; camelot@gemsi.com; catherine.m.wilson@gmail.com; info@peopleunitedforpets.com; elleny@comcast.net; puglady@hotmail.com; nwinternationalpetrescue@gmail.com; shannon@loveamutt.org; lynn@loveamutt.org; cmanning23@comcast.net; crimis@msn.com; linda.logan@myquiznos.com 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. No I did not FLOOR it, no i did not almost hit anything or anyone, no they were not dehydrated 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. Why is Everett AC calling anyone to tell them anything about my animals when they won't even tell me anything about them???The dogs Brandia took to Christine's (the Eskies) all had Giardia too! They absolutely did not have it when they were brought there. 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!!! Rose took some pictures of 2 bags of garbage, one was hers one was mine, the one with the yellow top tie was mine, the one with the tie top was hers, she told me to leave it out there because they don't have garbage service so George her husband takes it somewhere, those blankets were clean, & she knocked the off of the trailer where I had them & the pictures were taken AFTER AC came to the house to take the dogs, & she actually ripped open my bag to take a picture of an empty bag of dog food & letting you clearly see the other empty bag therefore showing that I was in fact feeding my animals!!!! She did have some garbage in the yard that day but again it was hers... if you look at the bag, because that was her last one which is why I bought my own bags 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!!! Funny part is she was outside following me around like a stalker every time I was out walking the dogs trying to get me to bring them in, even after I flea treated all er dogs she got mad because I said o because her dogs are unstable & mine could catch the tapeworms from them, so there was also a full water jug on the outside of my car because I can't leave it inside because my Kelpie eats them 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!!! Okay I am facing charges because she was probably calling every day lying to them, evidently they DON'T check their sources before they jump to a conclusion, maybe if the AC officer wouldn't have been such a witch & talked to me like a human being we could've gotten this straightened out & maybe if Rose would've given me the notice she left I

would've had some warning but I'm sure that was planned as well Rose roseandgeorge@hotmail.com or stoppuppymilling@hotmail.com

Her Newest email...

Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 7:31:46 AM Subject: Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Taamu FINALLY charged with animal cruelty

I thought you might be interested in this as a story. Anything that I wrote, for an explanation is highlighted in yellow.

Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Taamu HAS BEEN CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY, from when Everett Animal Control siezed Brandia's animals with a warrant to search Brandia's car on January 6th, 2011. Keep in mind that the prosecuting attorney DOES NOT file charges unless they have enough clear & convincing evidence to take the case to trial. Brandia is guilty, and this I know,

because she spent 37 days living at my house, with her animals in her car, and would NEVER even take them out to go to the bathroom! Here is the link to the page below: http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm? fa=home.fmcdlist
Courts Home | Search Case Records Find My Court Date Case List Directions: Here is a listing of cases that match your criteria. You can click on a case number to view a printable page. Return to the Find My Court. There is 1 case that matches your search criteria. Case Participant Person Name Number Type CRP003735 Taamu, Brandia Alida M Defendant

Search | Site Map |

eService Center

Case Type Criminal NonTraffic

Date 02-16-11

Time 08:30 AM

Court Room 1

Here are links to her several other facebook pages in different names Brandia Taamu uses. It will show ALL of the other rescues and shelters that she works with that ARE NOT AWARE of her licensing being what it really is, or that she is misrepresenting herself to get donations out of people to have money to get into yet another house. She is constantly being evicted from everywhere she lives. Her last eviction in which the police put her out was in King County, on December 8th, 2010. Full Name: Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Ta'amu She is a fake rescuer of animals, and all her animals were removed, by Everett Animal Control via search warrant, on Thursday January 6th, 2011! She is frauding people, for donations! She is spending donations on her own personal bills, rent, etc., instead of spending donations for the animals on the animals. She is currently homeless, yet again, after many, many evictions .

LINKS TO FACEBOOK PAGES: For FeelFree ToLove: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge? sk=friends&v=friends#!/profile.php?id=100000836728591 For Brandia Taamu: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge? sk=friends&v=friends#!/brandiaperez For Finally Home Rescue: http://www.facebook.com/roseandgeorge? sk=friends&v=friends#!/profile.php?id=100001145574333 For Marea Perez: http://www.facebook.com/nwcoast.rescue For Finally Home Rescue & Ministries: http://www.facebook.com/nwcoast.rescue#!/pages/Finally-Home-RescueMinistries/161348620577961

Her full name is Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Taamu. She has 5 Facebook pages. Her rescue license with the state is a "For Profit" license, NOT a 501(c)3 NON-Profit license! Her license is also NOT FOR RESCUE, it is for pet boarding, pet grooming, and pet training, which she DOES NOT do. Below is her business license. Below is her business license. Look at the NAICS CODE, and I am including what that code stands for, from the NAICS lookup website.

You Searched For:

NAICS Code=812910

15 Matches Found (displaying 1 to 15)

Common Keywords "Boarding services, pet" "Grooming services, animal" "Kennels, pet boarding" "Obedience training services, pet" "Sitting services, pet" Animal grooming services Animal shelters Dog pounds Guard dog training services Guide dog training services Other Personal Services Pet boarding services Pet grooming services Pet sitting services Pet training services NAICS Code 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 US NAICS Title Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Other Personal Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services

This is an e-mail from another so called rescue, that also takes donations without a 501(c)3 Non-Profit license, that completely defends every move that Brandia Taamu makes, because they are doing the same thing that Brandia is doing.:
Trust me..i hear every bit of the Brandia situation (though not as constantly as you are) but by steering clear, I mean I am quietly absorbing info and dealing only with people who can help me help the dogs when and if the time comes. I have my doubts as to whether the dogs are better at Everett animal control. Because the dogs are mostly basket cases. They will most likely be deemed not adoptable and be euthanized. Which is not fair. And they are living in kennels, not all that much of an improvement. the ONLY improvement is constant access to water. and cleaner keeping. But cleanliness doesn't make dogs nonay less or more healthy unless they are worm and bug infested. Happy dogs live in filth. And even HEALTHY dogs live in filth. I cannot imagine how terrified those poor un-socialized dogs are right now.

Violet Collard Adoption Coordinator

http://drawrescue.webs.com/

im not too worried about the paypal. SO I pulled cash out for Brandia. Theres no reason for me not to. And its not like it ran through the DRAW account. I pulled cash out for her maybe 8 times. The highest amount was 100 bucks. A dog with cancer or a heart condition or seizures could easily be described as at deaths door in shelter speak.

Violet Collard Adoption Coordinator

http://drawrescue.webs.com/

This is about Brandia Taamu when she had her children taken away, and children drinking alcohol in her apartment. It was in the Seattle Times: Monday, October 21, 1996 - Page updated at 12:00 AM E-mail article Eastside Briefly An Arrest In `Filthy' Apartment Case BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy apartment last week, was arrested on a traffic warrant when police and a state Child Protective Services worker went to her home to take her young twins into protective custody. Police Lt. Bill Ferguson said officers and the CPS caseworker went to the College Place Apartments in the 1300 block of 145th Place Southeast at 6:30 p.m. Friday. He said the CPS worker explained to Taamu that the two 6-year-olds, a boy and a girl, were being taken because their welfare was endangered. Furthermore, Ferguson said, the caseworker said she had information that the woman had plans to leave for the weekend without the children. Taamu, 32, was booked into the King County Jail on an outstanding traffic warrant and released Saturday morning on her personal recognizance. When police responding to a 911 hang-up call Oct. 12 arrived at her apartment, they found two 14-year-old boys passed out in the midst of vomit on the floor. They were supposed to be taking care of six children, all under 8 years old. Police said the 14-yearolds had been drinking hard liquor supplied by a friend. Polcie said the apartment was dirty and stank and that the floors were covered with clothing and rotting food. Copyright (c) 1996 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved. Print view

This is a letter that Brandia sent out to everyone at animal shelters, rescues, and news stations, and these ARE NOT the facts. She is lying 100% in this letter.
Everett Animal Control has seized my 5 dogs & 1 cat. The reason given to me is I didn't have water in the car & that I was making them sleep out in the cold car. It was obvious that I sleep in the car with them & turn the heat on several times a night, as I was asleep in teh car with them this morning when they came with an Everett Police Officer & a warrant. There was also a wter jug sitting outside my car or rather on top but I can't leave it in there or my Kelpie will chew it up. I am homeless, I run a rescue, but made a decision to get vet care for a dog or pay my rent, I chose the dog, the house we were supposed to get fell through so yes we have been sleeping out in the car because I refuse to just dump the animals at the pound. 3 of the dogs are mine & 2 were supposed to be going to another rescue today or tomorrow, whenever I could get the gas money. They claimed I had no food in the car, but they clearly seen 5 bags of dry & 1 case of wet food, they said I had no water in there for thembut we were sleeping & I have never heard of a dog who drinks in their sleep. Also you don't want a dogs drinking constantly who are in a car or they pee all over & there are not enough potty pads to keep up with them, most dogs in a house don't get water at will, they are given water 5 times a day when i can take each one out to walk them. Oh & they also managed to take pictures of the huge bowl of food I had for them, they are free fed food because most are mill dogs who have food issues. None of them are underweight, they are all current on their shots. Several days ago the officer came out & it was very clear that she had an attitude & was very combative. Anything I would try to say to her she would try to counter, or would ask me the same questions in different ways over & over again. IE: I had a water jug I had just filled up, she said it coudn't be outside it had to be inside, I told her I had just filled it up, she asked where I pointed to the hose right in front of us & she looks me dead in my face & asked me where I got the water & why it wasn't inside, well DUH I said I just filled it up & aske dher if she preferred me to take the water hose inside the car to keep the jug in there to fill it up & she looks at me again & goes so where did you get the water.... WHAT???? No matter what I said to her, no matter what I told her she wanted to argue with me about everything so I got in my car & left. She then left a notice saying I had to take them all to a vet, & get back to her. Really? I am homeless, but I am supposed to run up to the vet's all the way in Burien & what print some money up on my handy dandy little notebook? First off I am homeless I don't live in Everett, she never told me what if any claims were made against me, & as far as I know it is not a crime to sleep in your car with your dogs instead of dumping them at soe shelter somewhere. These 5 dogs are all rescues & most wouldn't make it at a shelter, they also have emotional & health issues. Soffie-Mini Schnauzer, 11yrs old. Had had 11 litters of puppies by the time I got her , she is afaraid of pop bottles lighters cigarette packs, & having her legs touched at all, we have to sedate her to groom her legs & toenails. Her legs are matted right now because we were supposed to knock her out to do this but I figured if we were going to be living in the car I sure wasn't going to shave her & let her freeze

Hoki- Kelpie, 7 yrs old has seizures because his owner tried to kill him with a hammer but "his hands got tired" so he threw them all on the side of the road, he is terrified of everything & will undoubtedly have siezures in a shelter. Misty- Toy Aussie, she is actually pretty healthy & I was going to get her fixed & keep her, she is also a mill dog, she is very timid at first but she is very sweet & once she is comfortable with you she will just melt into your arms. Libby- Pom, Pap mix, she was literally bald when we got her from teh shelter, she had sores all over, under some of them were actually maggots, we treated her at teh vet's & she has only had one outbreak since then & it was pretty mild, & she has an adoptive home waiting for her. Oh & her paperwork says she is a senior but she is no more than 2 or 3 years old. She has a wall licking fetish so please be sure the walls are clean & disinfected, she also licks windows so don't use any chemical cleaners George- American Eskimo, he has some eye issues, & we beieve he has lymphoma, but I haven't had the heart or the funds to confirm, he is having a flair up for his eye conjunctivitis right now but he is a sweet boy, we have had most of his teeth pulled but he still can eat hard food, but wet food still has to be given to him because he can't chew the hard food so he is not getting the nutritional value from it that he should. You also have to give him his own portions of water or else he will drink til he throws up & being an old man he gets it up his nose & will get what looks like a cold for several days, so you actually need to give him 1 cup a day 7 times a day & make sure no one else takes it from him. Taz- My cat, he is heathy he is fixed, he is my boy I found him in front of the Safeway on Broadway when he was no bigger than a mouse & tried to take him to Everett Animal shelter but they wouldn't take him & treat him, they wee just going to euthanize him so I kept him & learned a lot about cats, because of him. So I am to understand that you can't be homeless & still have your pets in the city of everett & no matter what you do or don't do, they will be taken from you. Of course I had just gotten 2 bags of potty pads, & done some of our laundry & the dirty blankets were in there stinking the car up, so the car was a mess because I hadn't rearranged it yet, or finished my laundry & last night we stopped at a rest stop & their garbage was full so I threw their potty pads in an unused kennel so no one would get at it. I want my dogs back, I didn't do anything wrong except try to keep them back out of the shelter. As I said before George & Libby have homes to go to now. Hoki, Soffie, & Taz are my animals, & I don't know who to go to or how to fight but I will. I am trying to get Abigail Cromwell to help me as well. I am not a retard & I realize full well that living in a car is not a good environment for them, but it's better than dumping them. As to the animal control officer"s snide remarks, I might be autistic but I still understand that you have issues about power & control. If one single thing happens to any of my animals, mine or foster dogs, whether you think I'm a "real" rescue or not, I will sue you all stupid. I realize the dogs need a bath, that is about it & Soffie needs her grooming but it has been too cold to get them wet. So I am off to find every homeless advocate & every reporter, & every advocay group I can find, now that you have my animals I have nothing to stop me from going anywhere because I don't have to be afraid to leave them in the car alone now. Brandia Taamu 425-319-3298

Please donate to our chip-in account so we can continue to save animals...

every little bit helps & it does save lives

http://finallyhome.chipin.com/rescue-needs-rescue-now

_______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Her full name is Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Taamu. She has 5 Facebook pages. Her rescue license with the state is a "For Profit" license, NOT a 501(c)3 NON-Profit license! Her license is also NOT FOR RESCUE, it is for pet boarding, pet grooming, and pet training, which she DOES NOT do. Below is her business license. Below is her business license. Look at the NAICS CODE, and I am including what that code stands for, from the NAICS lookup website.

You Searched For:

NAICS Code=812910

15 Matches Found (displaying 1 to 15) 15 Matches Found (displaying 1 to 15)

Common Keywords "Boarding services, pet" "Grooming services, animal" "Kennels, pet boarding" "Obedience training services, pet" "Sitting services, pet" Animal grooming services Animal shelters Dog pounds Guard dog training services Guide dog training services Other Personal Services Pet boarding services Pet grooming services Pet sitting services Pet training services NAICS Code 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 812910 US NAICS Title Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Other Personal Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services

_______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Brandia sent this out to everyone trying to get donations to her www.chipin.com account, for a dog that she DOES NOT HAVE, and the dog is in California, and IS NOT coming to Brandia! She needs to stop lying to people to get money!

Please donate to our chip-in account so we can continue to save animals... every little bit helps & it does save lives
http://finallyhome.chipin.com/rescue-needs-rescue-now

--- On Tue, 1/4/11, Life Matters <finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Life Matters <finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Turlock, CA: Shar-pei puppy in need of rescue Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 8:19 PM
Here is the thread for him, he is already out & at the vet's office but is going to be moved to a holistic vet

Melinda Naughton's Photos - PLS CHIP-IN TO SAVE MANGE PUP LEFT IN A FORGOTTEN SHELTER, CALIF.
Photo 1 of 1 Back to Album Melinda's Photos Melinda's Profile

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

UPDATE: RESCUED; HOWEVER, WE NEED FUNDS for VET CARE AND TO TRANSPORT THIS LUCKY PUP TO HIS FOSTER. WOULD YOU PLEASE CHIP-IN TO SAVE THIS LITTLE ONE. THANK YOU! HERE IS HIS CHIPIN! PLEASE DONATE & SHARE!!!!!!! http://helpmaxgetvettedandhome.chipin.com/mange-brindle-pup-in-cali-shelter-needs-out-now Turlock CA - one of the forgotten shelters! Mid-Central Valley~ 2 hours drive from San Francisco 1 hour from San Jose Listed as Shar Pei - just a pup ! Came in as stray on New Years Eve. No ID's assigned at this small pound. Suffering w/severe mange. Please Share him!!! Turlock Police Department Animal Control 801 S. Walnut Turlock, CA 95380 Phone: (209) 656-3140 Fax: (209) 668-5101 Office Hours: Monday - Saturday 10AM - 2PM (Closed Sundays and Holidays

Mailing Address: 900 N. Palm Turlock, CA 95380

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Brandia claims on this web page that she is a minister now too! That she can perform funerals, blessings, and weddings! http://finallyhomerescueministries.yolasite.com/

BRANDIA HAD THEM WRITE AN UNTRUE ARTICLE ABOUT HER SITUATION. http://www.pictures-of-cats.org/homeless-pet-owners.html

Rose Adams

roseandgeorge@hotmail.com,

or stoppuppymilling@hotmail.com

"Saving one dog will not change the world; but surely for that one dog the world will change forever." "In this life we can not do great things. We can only do small things with great love." ~Mother Teresa The 18th century author, Edmund Burke, once said: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Craigslist Ads she is posting....

From: Life Matters <saving_them_all@yahoo.com> Subject: Google & Bing craigslist ads from Rose To: finallyhomerescue@yahoo.com Date: Saturday, January 29, 2011, 12:02 AM #

Brandia Taamu/Animal Abuser/Fake Rescuer/Scamming for Money! Brandia Taamu/Animal Abuser/Fake Rescuer/Scamming for Money! (All her animals were taken by AC!) seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/?2166460404.html # RE: Brandia Taamu, by Rose My ph# 425-750-7126 e-mail below Jan 16, 2011 unlike brandia taamu, i do not need to hide who i am, because i have nothing to hide. brandia is scamming people, and lying to everyone! anyone who has any questions ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/?2163664739.html # Brandia Taamu/Animal Abuser/Fake Rescuer/Scamming for Money! Jan 18, 2011 Brandia Taamu/Animal Abuser/Fake Rescuer/Scamming for Money! (All her animals were taken by AC!) seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/?2166460404.html # Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer/Scamming Money/All Pets Were Taken Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer/Scamming Money/All Pets Were Taken (Everett/Snohomish County) seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/?2154526467.html # craigslist | pets in seattle-tacoma - www.feeds-pets.com - 3569245 RSS Pets Feeds on craigslist | pets in seattle-tacoma about ID: 3569245 listed on www ... Brandia claims you can not give them an endless supply of water, because they will pee ... www.feeds-pets.com/feeds/3569245/?craigslist-pets-in-seattle-tacoma Cached page # Pet Adoption in seattle-tacoma Washington Easypetadoption.com Brandia ta'amu/fake pet rescuer/scamming for money/lost all animals (everett/snohomish ... when people list a animal on craigslist.. they need to be honest.. but they rarely are. easypetadoption.com/pets.php?city=seattle&q=&?page=4800 Cached page # Pet Adoption in seattle-tacoma Washington Easypetadoption.com Brandia ta'amu/fake pet rescuer/scamming for money/lost all animals (everett/snohomish ... when people list a animal on craigslist.. they need to be honest.. but they rarely are. easypetadoption.com/pets.php?city=seattle&q=&?page=4800 Cached page GOOGLE SEARCH # Truth about Brandia Taamu/Fake Rescuer Scamming Everyone!

Jan 18, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166601404.html ? # Brandia Taamu AKA Marea Perez is a CON WOMAN/SCAMMER!!! Jan 18, 2011 ... Brandia is scamming for more donations on her websites, and ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166640625.html # Brandia Taamu dumps dogs she don't want at Everett Animal Shelter Jan 18, 2011 ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166635146.html # Brandia Taamu's animals taken due to abuse/neglect left in car 23 days Jan 18, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166457507.html # BEWARE! Brandia Taamu's websites are only looking for money Jan 18, 2011 ... Brandia is scamming for more donations on her websites, and facebook pages. She has 5 facebook pages to hide behind! ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166514492.html # Sorry off topic posting about Brandia Sorry off topic posting about Brandia (Out of this world). Date: 2011-01-17, 11:36PM PST Reply to: comm-sk74w-2166333291@craigslist.org ... seattle.craigslist.org/see/pet/2166333291.html # Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me Jan 17, 2011 ... Brandia adopted my dog and then almost immediately gave her to a 'shelter' Who claim they have never heard about my dog. ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164497124.html # About Brandia Taamu, by Rose my ph# 425-750-7126 my e-mail below Jan 16, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163298871.html # RE: Brandia Taamu, by Rose My ph# 425-750-7126 e-mail below Jan 16, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163664739.html ? # BRANDIA TA'MU 'LOST' MY DOG TOO! WHAT IS GOING ON? BRANDIA TA'MU 'LOST' MY DOG TOO! WHAT IS GOING ON? (Seattle). Date: 2011-01-10, 8:01AM PST Reply to: comm-guq4k-2152964140@craigslist.org ...

seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2152964140.html # re: Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer Jan 12, 2011 ... best of craigslist. re: Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer (Everett) ... Reply to: commbke9h-2156651473@craigslist.org ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2156651473.html # The christmas rose craigslist Santa graphic craigslist - index of /. purchase christmas cookies - oakridgeforest.net - home a tuna christmas in galveston texas re: brandia taamu ... aestheticsbymichele.com/ito-the-christmas-rose-craigslist.html - Cached Crazy Jan 18, 2011 ... Reply to: comm-upebu-2166866455@craigslist.org. Really Brandia, you are claiming that Rose is the crazy one? Rose has done FAR more than you ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166866455.html snohomish county pets classifieds - craigslist snohomish county pets classifieds - craigslist. ... Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me -. Copyright 2011 craigslist, inc. ... seattle.craigslist.org snohomish county community pets - Cached - Similar # RE: Brandia Taamu, by Rose Ph# 425-750-7126 e-mail below! Jan 16, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164413941.html # Of course Brandia Ta'amu keeps flagging this! She is a FAKE/Scammer!!! Jan 16, 2011 ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy apartment last week, was arrested on a traffic ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163750538.html # seattle-craigslist :: KickRSS Jan 10, 2011 ... Full Name: Brandia Alida Marea Perez-Ta'amu Read more... craigslist | community in seattle-tacoma, Today, 10:13am ... www.kickrss.com/seattle-craigslist%26limit%3D500 - Cached snohomish county all community classifieds - craigslist Jan 17, 2011 ... snohomish county all community classifieds - craigslist. ... Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me - pets ... seattle.en.craigslist.org/sno/ccc/ - Cached Of course Brandia Ta'amu keeps flagging this SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN!!! Jan 16, 2011 ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy apartment last week, was arrested on a traffic ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164415536.html Kittens for adoption

Jan 16, 2011 ... Reply to: comm-xds8x-2163374045@craigslist.org ... Anyone who has any questions about WHY Brandia Taamu's dogs were taken by Everett Animal ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163374045.html snohomish county all community classifieds - craigslist Jan 20, 2011 ... snohomish county all community classifieds - craigslist. ... Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me - pets ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/ccc/index400.html - Cached * animal control rose - Home - 11:31pm The housing bubble blog bits bucket and craigslist finds for may ... re: brandia taamu, by rose my ph# 425-750-7126 e-mail below ... vibrantvoiceovers.com/syq/bp-*-animal-control-rose.html - Cached # Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer/Scamming Money/All Pets Were Taken Jan 11, 2011 ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy apartment last week, was arrested on a traffic ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2154526467.html ? # Brandia Ta'amu/Fake Pet Rescuer/Scamming for money/Her Animals Taken Jan 16, 2011 ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy apartment last week, was arrested on a traffic ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163254044.html # I have four kittens who need homes Jan 16, 2011 ... Reply to: comm-jbkzu-2163454818@craigslist.org ... BELLEVUE - Brandia Taamu, whose children were found in what police described as a filthy ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163454818.html # Brandia Taamu's animals taken due to abuse/neglect left in car 23 days Jan 18, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166457507.html # BEWARE! Brandia Taamu's websites are only looking for money Jan 18, 2011 ... Brandia is scamming for more donations on her websites, and facebook pages. She has 5 facebook pages to hide behind! ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2166514492.html # Sorry off topic posting about Brandia Sorry off topic posting about Brandia (Out of this world). Date: 2011-01-17, 11:36PM PST Reply to: comm-sk74w-2166333291@craigslist.org ... seattle.craigslist.org/see/pet/2166333291.html # Whoever has been Scammed By Brandia Ta'amu Please contact Me

Jan 17, 2011 ... Brandia adopted my dog and then almost immediately gave her to a 'shelter' Who claim they have never heard about my dog. ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2164497124.html # About Brandia Taamu, by Rose my ph# 425-750-7126 my e-mail below Jan 16, 2011 ... 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# ... seattle.craigslist.org/sno/pet/2163298871.html

Laws Pertaining to my case

RCW 16.52.085
Removal of animals for feeding Examination Notice Euthanasia. (1) If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter or owns or possesses an animal in violation of an order issued under RCW 16.52.200(3) and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal's care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal's needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. (2) If a law enforcement officer or an animal control officer has probable cause to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred, the officer may authorize an examination of a domestic animal allegedly neglected or abused in violation of this chapter by a veterinarian to determine whether the level of neglect or abuse in violation of this chapter is sufficient to require removal of the animal. This section does not condone illegal entry onto private property. (3) Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal. ***I was NEVER given any notice of any legal remedies available to me, I had to read pretty much the entire state's RCW's WAC's & Everett Municipal Codes on my own to find out (4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date. If the custodial agency still has custody of the animal when the bond or security expires, the animal shall become the agency's property unless the court orders an alternative disposition. If a court order prevents the agency from assuming ownership and the agency continues to care for the animal, the court shall order the owner to renew a bond or security for the agency's continuing costs for the animal's care. When a court has

prohibited the owner from owning or possessing a similar animal under RCW 16.52.200(3), the agency having custody of the animal may assume ownership upon seizure and the owner may not prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by petitioning the court or posting a bond. *** I am willing to do whatever the court requests to get my babies back (5) If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal's removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal's return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. If the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner. If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter. *** My dogs & cat were seized on January,6th, 2011... 18 days ago (6) In a motion or petition for the animal's return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health. ***We now have a studio apt & are no longer homeless, all of my own dogs & foster dogs have vet records & are all fully immunized [2009 c 287 2; 1994 c 261 6; 1987 c 335 1; 1974 ex.s. c 12 2.]

RCW 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. (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence: (a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure; (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. ***I believe it was establshed that I was homeless & was doing the best I could for the animals at that time. Although I realize full well that living in a car is not a good situation it was only a temporary situation & I would gladly live under a bridge if it meant keeping my animals with me. They are a lifetime commitment not something to be taken lightly, I guarentee those animals would die for me, I was trying to show them the same love & loyalty that they would freely give to me. It was not their fault we were homeless, it was mine but I atleast tried to keep up with my responsibility to them to the best of my abilites [2007 c 376 1; 2005 c 481 2; 1994 c 261 9.] Notes: Finding -- Intent -- 1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011.

Everett Municipal Codes

6.04.070 Prohibited conduct. C. Offenses Relating to Cruelty. It shall be unlawful for any person to: 2. Under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205, fail to provide an animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and a constant source of clear potable water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment;RCW 16.52.310 Definition (d) Provide dogs with easy and convenient access to adequate amounts of clean food and water. Food and water receptacles must be regularly cleaned and sanitized. All enclosures must contain potable water that is not frozen, is substantially free from debris, and is readily accessible to all dogs in the enclosure at all times. *** The revised code of Washington states the animals must be given access to ADEQUATE amounts of clear potable water. I was following Washington state law & common sense in regards to giving them water. I had just given them water before we all went to bed, several hours earlier, there was a water container on the hood of my car & if you can view the pictures they took of a big black pan you could still see a little water at the bottom of the pan so it didn't have time to dehydrate. D. Violation of subsection (C)(7) of this section shall constitute a gross misdemeanor, and may be punished by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, or imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both such fine and imprisonment. Violation of any of the remaining provisions of subsection C of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor, and may be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not to exceed ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 2873-05 1, 2005: Ord. 2394-99 6, 1999: Ord. 2091-95 1, 1995: Ord. 1810-91 7, 1991) ********************************************************************************** **********
RCW 69.50.505 Seizure and forfeiture. (5) If any person notifies the seizing law enforcement agency in writing of the person's claim of ownership or right to possession of items specified in subsection (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section within forty-five days of the service of notice from the seizing agency in the case of personal property and ninety days in the case of real property, the person or persons shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right. The notice of claim may be served by any method authorized by law or court rule including, but not limited to, service by first-class mail. Service by mail shall be deemed complete upon mailing within the forty-five day period following service of the notice of seizure in the case of personal property and within the ninety-day period following service of the notice of seizure in the case of real property. The hearing shall be before the chief law enforcement officer of the seizing agency or the chief law enforcement officer's designee, except where the seizing agency is a state agency as defined in RCW 34.12.020(4), the hearing shall be before the chief law enforcement officer of the seizing agency or an administrative law judge appointed under chapter 34.12 RCW, except that any person asserting a claim or right may remove the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction. Removal of any matter involving personal property may only be accomplished according to the rules of civil procedure. The person seeking removal of the matter must serve process against the state, county, political subdivision, or municipality that operates the seizing agency, and any other party of interest, in accordance with RCW 4.28.080 or 4.92.020, within forty-five days after the person seeking removal has notified the seizing law enforcement agency of the person's claim of ownership or right to possession. The court to which the matter is to be removed shall be the district court when the aggregate value of personal property is within the jurisdictional limit set forth in RCW 3.66.020. A hearing before the seizing agency and any appeal therefrom shall be under Title 34 RCW. In all cases, the burden of proof is upon the law enforcement agency to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.

The seizing law enforcement agency shall promptly return the article or articles to the claimant upon a determination by the administrative law judge or court that the claimant is the present lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to possession thereof of items specified in subsection (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section. *************************************************************************************************** *********** I. STATEMENT OF FACTS On January,6,2011, petitioner's pets were seized by Everett Animal Control with a warrant. The petitioner did not receive the warrant from the Everett Police officer nor were her rights ever read to her, the AC officer just told her orally she had a warrant to take the dogs. The petitioner was never allowed to see her animals or to even call to check on their welfare The animals were NEVER in a life threatening condition. No lawful notice as provided by RCW 16.52.085(3) was provided to the owners upon their seizure. No notice was posted, personally served or sent certified mail to petitioners who owned the animals. Petitioners had just lost their lease and were transitioning to a new place of residence. The pets were temporarily being contained inside and outside of the vehicle of petitioners on a friend's property. The pets had adequate food, water, ventilation, heat, shelter, and space during this transition. Petitioners were proactively seeking a new residence. Petitioners pets were being contained in the vehicle as petitioners were concerned about other dogs on the property where they were being allowed to stay temporarily. The petitioner slept outside in the vehicle at night with the dogs in case it got too cold so se could turn the heat on & spent a good part of the day in the vehicle with her animals as well. The petitioner has numerous bite marks all over her body from the complainants dogs as well The other dogs of the property owner had shown signs of aggression toward petitioner so petitioner was taking no chances. The dogs were being contained in the vehicle to prevent any fighting incident or other incident where the dogs might get loose or harmed. After a dispute with the owner of the property who had allowed petitioners to temporarily take up residence on her property, the owner of the property contacted law enforcement/animal control authorities from the City of Everett.

Petitioner's pets were impounded by Everett Animal Control in the City of Everett.
As it stands now, petitioners' pets 1) Hokie-8 yr old Kelpie dog, 2) Soffie-10 yr old mini- Schnauzer dog, 3) Misty 5yr old toy aussie dog, 4) Libby, 2yr old Pom mix dog 5) Taz are 5 yr old domestic shorthair cat 6) George, 12yr old Eskimo they put to sleep but won't return his body contained at Everett animal shelter. They are contained in cages and never let out for more than a few minutes. They are fed once a day and their urine and feces that accumulate within the cages is hosed or brushed out once a day. Employees have stated to petitioner that this is a horrible

way to keep these animals. Petitioner are concerned that this long impound and legal process will permanently damage their pets if they are forced to remain incarcerated, as most are senior, the one who was killed was terminally ill & the impoundment caused his early demise, previously none of the petitioners animals had ever been away from her for more than a 36 hour period, most are pupp mill or feral, or shelter rescue animals. Pets suffer emotionally similar to humans kept incarcerated for long lengths of time. Petitioners consider their pets as part of their family. In essence, according to Everett Animal Control(law enforcement), the petitioners' pets were declared to be without water for 24 hours. The owners have not been provided lawful notice of the seizure or the reasons other than by phone after the animals were siezed , legal remedies available to them. The owners have still not been allowed to see the original report or any other reports that have been made, & was disallowed from getting one pets remanins & was told they are considered evidence A hearing to contest the allegations has not been held Euthanasia or other disposition of petitioner's dogs during this time is a very real possibility, and has already been carried out on one dog so far & they have threatened to put down Soffie as well who is becoming depressed & not eating well which I can not confirm because they won't the let petitioner see the dogs, nor tell the petitioner anything about them, the way the petitioner found out George was dead was because the prosecutor told her. At no time was she ever notified of is impedng demise & was never given the opportunity to prevent t or to be present, or even reclaim his body Forcing petitioner to pay impound fees for the summary seizure of their pets by authorities without procedural due process, is financially impossible for the petitioners to afford. Petitioners do not have the financial means to comply with any restrictions or impound fees in order to have their petss returned to their custody. Petitioners are fearful that if they are unable to pay these fees that their dogs will either be euthanized or otherwise disposed of by Everett Animal Control, because most would be deemed as unadoptable because of age, health & behavorial issues. Petitioners believe that since laws were violated in order to seize their pets that the pets should be released unconditionally back to the care, custody and control of petitioners. Meanwhile, petitioners have secured other adequate housing for themselves and their pets and petition the Court for return of their household pets. Keeping their pets in a vehicle during the transition was never meant to be a permanent residence for their pets. However, it was the best residence petitioners could provide in the interim while searching for a new residence for all of them. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS a. Did the City of Everett/ animal control authorities have a constitutionaly defective notice and seizure procedure? Was the seizure unlawful under statute? RCW 16.52.100 and RCW 16.52.085 are controlling in this case as they pertain to animals being seized for feeding and care from owners. Notice requirements are set forth in these statutes and in other statutes such as RCW 69.50 et s eq. when government takes possession of personal property. The City of Everett/animal care and control authorities did not follow lawful statutory procedure when they seized petitioners' pets. The animals were not in a life-threatening condition, had not been withheld water for 36 hours pursuant to statute. Subsequent to seizure of the petitioner's pets, proper statutory notice procedures were not

followed by posting, personal service or registered mail to the owners. (Make sure this is accurate!). Since proper statutory procedures pertaining to the seizure of animals was not followed, and subsequent notice to petitioners, petitioners' animals should be released to them immediately. The Court of Appeals in Mansour v. King County, 131 Wn. App. 25 (2006) held that "an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence." Mansour at 266. The city of Everett/animal care and control authorities procedural due process and notice procedures are defective. The owners in this case were provided even less procedural rights than the rights provided to the owner in Mansour. The rights provided to petitioners are constitutionally defective as well. 2. Should the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities release the petitioner's pets back to their care, pending resolution of these matters? Petitioners make assurances to this court that the pets will now be in a secure place of abode. Petitioners did not allow their pets to reside in a situation that they believed was life-threatening however, it was the best temporary residence that they could provide to their pets while they were transitioning to a new place of residence after losing their lease. They have now secured that new residence and a safe place of abode for their pets. 3. Should the city of Everett/animal control authorities be restrained from euthanizing petitioner's pets or otherwise transferring or disposing of them? Petitioners are requesting a restraining order be granted to keep their household pets, dogs and cats, from being euthanized or otherwise transferred or disposed of by authorities who have impounded the animals. The seizure, impound, and notice was unlawful and defective. If no restraining order is served on animal control authorities or law enforcement, petitioners are fearful that their pets will be euthanized as petitioners could not hope to comply financially with paying all of the impound fees for their care during the past 39 days after they were seized. III. CONCLUSION Because the Cityof Everett/animal control authorities have clearly violated the law and notice requirements pertaining to seizure of animals and personal property of the petitioners in their pets, and the procedural rights of the petitioners are constitutionally defective, petitioners request that the euthanizing of petitioner's pets be stayed by means of an emergency restraining order. Because the petitioner's pets would be irreparably harmed by remaining in the custody of the city of Everett/animal care authorites pending resolution of this matter, and petitioners can and will at this time provide a safe and secure home for the pets, this court should order the city of Everett/animal care and control to release the pets of the petitioners forthwith. It is the right thing to do. The petitioner is being charged with not providing water on a 24 hour basis when the Animal Control officer arrived with the Everett Police there was in fact a water container sitting on the car & still about 1/8 cup of water in their water bowl, The reason they have given petitioner for removing her animals &

the charge is very specifically not providing water on a 24 hour basis under Everett Municipal Code which is in clear conflict with the Revised Code of Washington in two matters

1) Everett Municipal Code

6.04.070 Prohibited conduct. C. Offenses Relating to Cruelty. It shall be unlawful for any person to: 2. Under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205, fail to provide an animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and a constant source of clear potable water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment;

Revised Code of Washington

RCW 16.52.310 Dog breeding Limit on the number of dogs Required conditions Penalty Limitation of section Definitions. (d) Provide dogs with easy and convenient access to adequate amounts of clean food and water. Food and water receptacles must be regularly cleaned and sanitized. All enclosures must contain potable water that is not frozen, is substantially free from debris, and is readily accessible to all dogs in the enclosure at all times. The Everett Minicipal Code is in direct conflict wth the Revised Code of Washington West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness. Title 35. Cities and Towns. Chapter 35.27. Towns. 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated Citation: WA ST 35.27.370 Citation: West's RCWA 35.27.370 Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 09/2010 Summary: This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States. Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock.

Statute in Full: The council of said town shall have power: (1) To pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States;

(7) To impose and collect an annual license on every dog within the limits of the town, to prohibit dogs running at large, and to provide for the killing of all dogs found at large and not duly licensed; (14) To impose fines, penalties and forfeitures for any and all violations of ordinances, and for any breach or violation of any ordinance, to fix the penalty by fine or imprisonment, or both; but no such fine shall exceed five thousand dollars, nor the term of imprisonment exceed one year, except that the punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the punishment provided in state law for the same crime; or to provide that violations of ordinances constitute a civil violation subject to a monetary penalty, but no act which is a state crime may be made a civil violation; (16) To make all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as may be deemed expedient to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the town and its trade, commerce and manufacturers, and to do and perform any and all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter. CREDIT(S) [2008 c 129 3, eff. June 12, 2008; 1993 c 83 7; 1986 c 278 6; 1984 c 258 805; 1977 ex.s. c 316 25; 1965 ex.s. c 116 15; 1965 c 127 1; 1965 c 7 35.27.370. Prior: 1955 c 378 4; 1949 c 151 1; 1945 c 214 1; 1941 c 74 1; 1927 c 207 1; 1925 ex.s. c 159 1; 1895 c 32 1; 1890 p 201 154; Rem. Supp. 1949 9175.]

2) 16.52.207 Animal cruelty in the second degree.

(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.