Source: https://snohomishcountycorruption.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/my-tort-claim-against-the-city-of-everett/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:46:33+00:00

Document:
I filed my Tort Claim, the clerk took the wrong copy so it wasn’t signed so I have to refile it which is fine with me, just shows what a bunch of games they play, but I wanted to share it with those of you who may someday need it. Keep in mind this is only my Tort CLAIM as opposed to my Tort Brief for Superior Court, that is where the beauty unfolds, this dirty corrupt prejudiced town has forced me to learn things I would never have conceived, once I get the the brief finished I will post it too. These are very long, & there is a reason: If I were to lose then I have everything set up & entered into the court as a basis for appeal, preservation of ALL of the facts is sometimes the ONLY way you will win & seriously, look at my chances, I am fighting in the same town that has so far denied & laughed in the face of 1/2 of the United States Constitution, the Washington state constitution & over SIXTY different laws, not suggestions- but LAWS.
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 e-mail or fax).
7. Date of incident: 01/06/2011 Time: Approximately 10 a.m.
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 Claimant’s resulting damages. Please include a brief description as to the nature and extent of each person’s 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.
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.
16. Has this incident been reported to law enforcement, safety or security personnel? If so, when and to whom?
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 claim’s allegations. See Attached..
FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
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.
• 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 don’t want to do anything to impede your criminal case and have it result in being played out longer than you would want it to.
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.
Public officer making false certificate.
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.
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.
Confidential information — Improperly concealed records.
(1) No state officer or state employee may accept employment or engage in any business or professional activity that the officer or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her to make an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information acquired by the official or employee by reason of the official’s or employee’s official position.
(2) No state officer or state employee may make a disclosure of confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s or employee’s official position or otherwise use the information for his or her personal gain or benefit or the gain or benefit of another(3) No state officer or state employee may disclose confidential information to any person not entitled or authorized to receive the information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
¶19 We begin our discussion with an obvious truism: Every prosecutor is a quasi-judicial 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 prosecutor’s misconduct in this case violated that duty, both in the closing argument and in the presentation of evidence.
¶20 In order to establish prosecutorial misconduct, Boehning must show that the prosecutor’s 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 jury’s 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 prosecutor’s 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 prosecutor’s 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).
¶30 In closing argument, the prosecutor appealed to the jury’s 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-Rodriguez’s counsel. The trial court overruled this objection and, thus, no curative instruction was given. We conclude that the prosecutor’s improper argument irreparably damaged the fairness of the trial and diminishes our confidence in the verdict reached. As a result, Soto-Rodriguez’s 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).«7»Accordingly, 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).«8»In closing argument, a prosecuting attorney has wide latitude to draw and express reasonable inferences from the evidence. State v. Hoffman , 116 Wn.2d 51 , 94-95, 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)).
«7»This 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).
«8»Federal 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 prosecutor’s call to send a message to drug dealers, notwithstanding curative instruction given by trial court).
Court of Appeals: Holding that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct at trial by attempting to elicit opinion testimony as to the defendant’s guilt and by arguing stricken credibility testimony to the jury, and that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s 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 court’s ruling that the methamphetamine was admissible. Holding further that prosecutorial misconduct required a mistrial, we reverse.
¶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.
¶18 A criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial is denied when the prosecutor makes improper comments and there is a substantial likelihood that the comments affected the jury’s 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 state’s highest officials. It was abuse by whatever agency the state might invest with its power capable of inflicting the deprivation. In all its flux, time makes some things axiomatic. One has been that state officials who violate their oaths of office and flout 117*117 the fundamental law are answerable to it when their misconduct brings upon them the penalty it authorizes and Congress has provided. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 116-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. “It is not open to question that this statute is constitutional. . . [It] dealt with Federal rights and with all Federal rights, and protected them in the lump . . .” United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386, 387. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 119 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. Separately, and often together in application, §§ 19 and 20 have been woven into our fundamental and statutory law. They have place among our more permanent legal achievements. They have safeguarded many rights and privileges apart from political ones. Among those buttressed, either by direct application or through the general conspiracy statute, § 37 (18 U.S.C. § 88), are the rights to a fair trial, including freedom from sham trials [including sham Collection Due Process Hearings] ; to be free from arrest and detention by methods constitutionally forbidden and from extortion of property [by threat of levy, lien, or lockdown letters] by such methods; from extortion of confessions; from mob action incited or shared by state officers; from failure to furnish police protection on proper occasion and demand; from interference with the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and assembly; and 127*127 the necessary import of the decisions is that the right to be free from deprivation of life itself, without due process of law, that is, through abuse of state power by state officials, is as fully protected as other rights so secured. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 126-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. They simply misconceived that the victim had no federal rights and that what they had done was not a crime within the federal power to penalize. That kind of error relieves no one from penalty. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 128 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result.
 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.
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.
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.
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).
« Can you smell what the Constitution is cooking???

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 37
 § 88
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.